Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
defblade said:
The problem in Oxford was usually that the corner had those nice iron railings to protect peds installed, they turn out to be less squishy than cyclists...
Loads of these iron railings have been removed from London streets, which I assume is for just this reason.It means you get a lot of retard pedestrians jaywalking on London Bridge, however.
BGarside said:
Funny, but I don't see many cyclists throwing themselves at cars so they can get the insurance money.
As for financial justification, that's ironic considering many drivers and posters on this forum seem to justify their dangerous driving around cyclists by the fact that cyclists 'don't pay 'Road Tax''!
I don't happen to agree with that, VED for cyclists is ridiculous. Insurance however is a different matter.As for financial justification, that's ironic considering many drivers and posters on this forum seem to justify their dangerous driving around cyclists by the fact that cyclists 'don't pay 'Road Tax''!
BGarside said:
Why is the argument always about money, and buying the right to use the roads, instead of focussing on the fact that both cyclists and drivers have the same entitlement to use the roads?
Because if they have the same entitlement, they should be equally responsible in all aspects, including compensation for causing damage or injury.BGarside said:
Sure you can focus on isolated cases of morons both on bikes and in cars, which proves nothing, but the fact remains that around 75% of reported cycle accidents are caused by the driver of the motor vehicle involved.
That's almost certainly because the cases where the cyclist is clearly at fault don't get reported. Nothing would be done, so it would be a pointless exercise.ZX10R NIN said:
gazza285 said:
I'd rather the lorry avoided me to be honest.
Shared paths, which is what a raised cycle path will become, are no use to any cyclist who wants to get anywhere faster than walking pace.
Surely getting somewhere a little slower but safer is a better option with a shared pavement or have railings separating the twoShared paths, which is what a raised cycle path will become, are no use to any cyclist who wants to get anywhere faster than walking pace.
Read the other posts on this thread and have a think about them. Why do lorry drivers in Holland, for example, show so much respect to cyclists?
And why are so many of these fatalities involving construction lorries? Why do supermarket delivery lorries give me a wide berth and generally act with courtesy on the roads, yet tipper lorries don't (I'm talking as a driver and cyclist here)? That can't be a coincidence can it?
Yet instead you choose to blame the weaker people.
defblade said:
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.
Option 2 might work in some circumstances but how many times have you seen a truck clip the curb with its back wheel on the inside of a left turn? If you stay put on the inside as it turns, that could be you being clipped.
When it comes to cycling in cities I am reluctant to make any assumptions about the movements of other vehicles, as the price you pay for getting it wrong is so high. If I can take the behaviour of others out of the equation, I feel much happier.
mygoldfishbowl said:
It's a shame obviously but one more death might make some cyclists think again. If this poor lady's life will prevent others from choosing to do the same as her I hope they think about her.
Sort of related to your point, but it does surprise me how little 'feedback' eduactionally we get as road users from individual accidents.Pilots can read all about accident investigations and can act on their findings or sometimes the authorities issue training notices as a result of accident findings - why is nothing similar done for road accidents.
If the speed kills message is deemed suitable by authorities, why is the message 'undertaking lorries may kill' not propagated to cyclists. I think this is particularly important for the type of people often involved in these horrible accidents (disproportionately less confident women on shopper bikes).
There is some political correctness at play here though:
1. Authorities don't want to be seen to be victim-blaming
2. They don't want to dissuade cycling by 'overcomplicating' the safety message.
3. They don't want to reveal the fact that certain demographic groups are more liable to be involved in cycle/lorry collisions.
ManFromDelmonte said:
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.
If you are at the front of the line first, you move to the middle of the lane and wait on the light. If the truck was there first, to get to the head of the line or any position of danger, you've made the choice to move up the side of the truck.
The more accurate version of your statement would be, because I can physically fit through a gap, I now believe I have the right to flaunt traffic laws so that my impatience to wait for a truck to pull off safely, which has put me in an unsafe position, doesnt end up killing me.
A lot of the comments on this thread have been about cyclists attempting to pass on the left hand side of vehicles at traffic lights, even if the vehicles are indicating left. Just this evening I was in that exact situation at a busy junction in central London. I was in the cycle lane behind a queue of cyclists who all set off on green but as we were all moving off a large van was indicating left so I hung back so he could turn…cue a guy on a brompton crashing straight into the back of me and shouting at me asking me what the hell I was doing. I pointed to the van turning left straight across the space he thought we should both cycle into and explained that I wasn't about to try and pass it on the inside as it was indicating and I didn't want to get run over. He apologised but how he couldn't see this and react I cannot comprehend.
ManFromDelmonte said:
defblade said:
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.
Option 2 might work in some circumstances but how many times have you seen a truck clip the curb with its back wheel on the inside of a left turn? If you stay put on the inside as it turns, that could be you being clipped.
When it comes to cycling in cities I am reluctant to make any assumptions about the movements of other vehicles, as the price you pay for getting it wrong is so high. If I can take the behaviour of others out of the equation, I feel much happier.
).Option 2 - well, that requires the stop line to be right up to, exactly on, the turn... which they (I'd like to say never as I can't think of one, but someone will prove me wrong) rarely are. Otherwise, you'd only be in the line of that rear wheel if you'd (a) stopped in the wrong position in the lane and (b) already cycled through the stop line (thereby jumping the light) and taken up position "ahead", "ready" at the junction, back in the video-game-fastest-time-wins-world.
I can see many people on bikes, in my memory, in the position that could lead to 2, at every set of lights in Oxford, thinking they're clever and have gotten ahead. Actually, they're going to start off the moment the light goes to amber, ready to be wiped out by the car on the cross-road that's just nipped up to 40 to get through on their amber-going-red (but didn't).
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.
How many eyes does a truck driver have?Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
Mr2Mike said:
BGarside said:
Why is the argument always about money, and buying the right to use the roads, instead of focussing on the fact that both cyclists and drivers have the same entitlement to use the roads?
Because if they have the same entitlement, they should be equally responsible in all aspects, including compensation for causing damage or injury.It protects us, our car(s), and other people from the consequences of any road accident we might be involved in. It provides financial compensation to cover any damage to property, or injuries to other drivers, passengers, or pedestrians.
A cyclist is not going to cause anywhere near the same amount of damage as a car, and in most cases any damages caused are likely to be coverable by most people. There will of cause be a few cases where a reckless cyclist knocks someone down or crashes into an expensive car where they can't cover the costs.
A lot of cyclists actually have insurance, it comes as part of their membership to cycling organisations. Obviously not all cyclists are members of such organisations but the real worry out there in my opinion is the uninsured motorists, those pose much more of a risk to our vehicles.
Splitpin2008 said:
How many eyes does a truck driver have?
Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
If they have the up to date standard number of mirrors, it takes over 5 seconds to look in all of them properly!Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
Ian Geary said:
Is it realistic to ban goods vehicles from London during the day because of these deaths?
It is very rarely the goods vehicles that are the issue, it is the tipper trucks for the building sites.To add your point, the reasons it will never happen are:
- Staff will be needed at night to take delivery and of course, to deliver. There is an extra cost to do this, especially if it is outside your business hours.
- Noise. In areas where people live, it would be unacceptable to take delivers at night.
zimzoom said:
Splitpin2008 said:
How many eyes does a truck driver have?
Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
If they have the up to date standard number of mirrors, it takes over 5 seconds to look in all of them properly!Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
If even good drivers cannot operate them safely, they shouldn't be on the road... right?
zimzoom said:
Willy Nilly said:
Is it basically tippers and skip lorries running folk over?
In London, the majority of cycle deaths involving a large vehicle is a tipper or a skip truck.It is slightly different outside of london.
There is a lot of construction and demolition going on in London at the moment.
zimzoom said:
Willy Nilly said:
Is it basically tippers and skip lorries running folk over?
In London, the majority of cycle deaths involving a large vehicle is a tipper or a skip truck.It is slightly different outside of london.
My gut feeling is that these types of lorries are in the main driven by apes.
Mr Gear said:
zimzoom said:
Splitpin2008 said:
How many eyes does a truck driver have?
Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
If they have the up to date standard number of mirrors, it takes over 5 seconds to look in all of them properly!Answer; no more than two, like everyone else.
How many mirrors, can you look at, at anyone time, as well as looking out the windscreen?
What I'm saying is, no matter how many mirrors one has, you cannot be looking in all of them at once!
If even good drivers cannot operate them safely, they shouldn't be on the road... right?
Willy Nilly said:
Are tipper and skip lorries over represented in the number of deaths, or are there a higher percentage of tippers and skip lorries?
My gut feeling is that these types of lorries are in the main driven by apes.
They are over represented based on the percentage of vehicles in london they make up. Over the past decade, we have seen a. a huge increase in cycling b. a huge increase in construction. Both sets of transportation has risen.My gut feeling is that these types of lorries are in the main driven by apes.
I would suspect you are right, and from previous reports about poor driving standards, sight issues etc.. resulting in the collisions that killed cyclist, there is probably enough to suggest that is true.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff