Another cyclist dies in London

[heebeegeetee]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You're not getting the point. What is being said is that we all have to take care of ourselves.

If you want to start offering advice to other people then fine, but I feel I can guarantee that you won't be following your own advice anyway.

Worry about your own driving. Its unlikely to be perfect and because you're in a car you're likely to do more harm than a cyclist ever would. Same applies to me and everyone. When you're perfect, start 'advising'.

[Dave200]

Mr Will said:

Dave200 said:

This is about making sure that the average (and below) cyclist is made aware of what is safe, what is stupid, and the potential for consequences. I just don't believe that cyclist-related law is communicated or enforced anywhere near what it might be, and London's roads are a worse place for it.

I would say exactly the same thing about the average driver.

I'm not here for an argument. I agree completely with you, and have been the victim of careless driving on a number of occasions (with scars to prove it).

It's just that cyclists have so much more control over their own destiny than drivers do, as evidenced by my wife's observation of the poor German girl.
As a result, I feel that we should start by educating them about risk, and forcing them take more responsibility for their own safety than they do at present.

Telling car drivers to "think cycle" won't get any traction - it's been done before, to little effect. Correct application of law to and eduction of cyclists has enormous potential.

[saaby93]

Dave200 said:

croyde said:

Did anyone see "An Hour to Save Your Life" on BBC2 last night?

One of the cases was the the German girl who got killed by a Tipper Truck at Ludgate Circus last year. If you don't want to see the result of cyclist getting run over by a lorry, don't watch it.

My wife, also an enthusiastic and committed London cyclist, was on a bus waiting across the junction, and was unfortunate to watch it all happen.

As an understandably upsetting experience, it took quite a while for her to get back on her bike. We (and many others) went and put flowers on the lamppost, as is the done thing in the cycling community.

Her assessment of the situation was: "how stupid should you be to put yourself and your bike there?". Sadly a not-uncommon theme in the recent deaths.

Thanks for sharing that Dave200

The problem is that the lady on the bike probably thought it was natural to be in that position without any idea of the danger.

Theres three sides to that, how to make people lik here more aware, the driver more aware, or ask why there wasnt space there

[heebeegeetee]

Dave200 said:

Correct application of law to and eduction of cyclists has enormous potential.

And you think that its worth doing that for cyclists before we do with drivers? I don't.

I think we should start by handing out proper sentences to those who do this sort of thing: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108309/Il...

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

Dave200 said:

Correct application of law to and eduction of cyclists has enormous potential.

And you think that its worth doing that for cyclists before we do with drivers? I don't.

I think we should start by handing out proper sentences to those who do this sort of thing: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108309/Il...

That may be so but it doesnt seem to the type of thing happening to cyclists in London

[Dave200]

dick_turpin said:

Dave200 said:

Mr Will said:

Most of us try, however roads (and cycle lanes) should be designed to minimise the danger people face. At the moment that couldn't be further from the truth.

This was my point - evidence would suggest the absolute opposite, hence my observations.

What evidence is that, other than your anecdotes?
Because the actual data shows that it is the driver who is most often at sole fault in a collision.

I'm not here to argue, and I agree that drivers are often largely at fault.
But I don't want my epitaph to be "Dave had priority there. Not his fault.".

Let's take the (horrific) example of the German girl. My wife said she was wincing as soon as she saw the girl squeeze alongside the truck and into its blind spot, immediately choosing to put herself in an unnecessarily dangerous position (should the truck need to take evasive action for any reason).

In this case the lorry driver will probably be found culpable, as in your "actual data" point. However, data can often mask subtle nuances.

The unchangeable realities of life for London cyclists are:
- We all share the roads we've got. Major remodelling and road-building won't solve anything substantial for a decade, by which time our population will have grown significantly. I'm not saying it's not the answer, but it's not a 'now' solution.
- Other traffic (including construction vehicles) is a necessity of a growing city, and has as much right to be on the road as a cyclist. It's not possible or practical to ban/limit specific vehicles.
- Most London cyclists (based on many thousands of hours of London cycle-commuting observation - not just two spots by my flat) are of low proficiency, and lack appreciation of the threats around them. Also, most are not enthusiasts, and most are not also London car owners/drivers. Do we ignore this offhand?

[dick_turpin]

Dave200 said:

I'm not here to argue, and I agree that drivers are often largely at fault.
But I don't want my epitaph to be "Dave had priority there. Not his fault.".

Let's take the (horrific) example of the German girl. My wife said she was wincing as soon as she saw the girl squeeze alongside the truck and into its blind spot, immediately choosing to put herself in an unnecessarily dangerous position (should the truck need to take evasive action for any reason).

In this case the lorry driver will probably be found culpable, as in your "actual data" point. However, data can often mask subtle nuances.

The unchangeable realities of life for London cyclists are:
- We all share the roads we've got. Major remodelling and road-building won't solve anything substantial for a decade, by which time our population will have grown significantly. I'm not saying it's not the answer, but it's not a 'now' solution.
- Other traffic (including construction vehicles) is a necessity of a growing city, and has as much right to be on the road as a cyclist. It's not possible or practical to ban/limit specific vehicles.
- Most London cyclists (based on many thousands of hours of London cycle-commuting observation - not just two spots by my flat) are of low proficiency, and lack appreciation of the threats around them. Also, most are not enthusiasts, and most are not also London car owners/drivers. Do we ignore this offhand?

I agree that cyclists shouldn't go down the left of a vehicle when it might be turning left, but I got the distinct impression from your posts that you thought it would be more worthwhile to educate the cyclists than the drivers.

So, yes, by all means conduct a public information campaign warning cyclists about the dangers of HGV blind spots, but it's not going to make as much of a difference to KSI rates as education and proper enforcement of drivers. So if want to realise the biggest benefit, let's start there.

[saaby93]

dick_turpin said:

So, yes, by all means conduct a public information campaign warning cyclists about the dangers of HGV blind spots, but it's not going to make as much of a difference to KSI rates as education and proper enforcement of drivers. So if want to realise the biggest benefit, let's start there.

Doh why add the last sentence
What's wrong with starting with both rather than waiting for one or the other
You could warn every cyclist getting on a Boris bike about going up the the inside (or the outside) of trucks and buses
Maybe they do - anyone tried a Boris bike?
It's only a small proportion though

[dick_turpin]

saaby93 said:

dick_turpin said:

So, yes, by all means conduct a public information campaign warning cyclists about the dangers of HGV blind spots, but it's not going to make as much of a difference to KSI rates as education and proper enforcement of drivers. So if want to realise the biggest benefit, let's start there.

Doh why add the last sentence
What's wrong with starting with both rather than waiting for one or the other
You could warn every cyclist getting on a Boris bike about going up the the inside (or the outside) of trucks and buses
Maybe they do - anyone tried a Boris bike?
It's only a small proportion though

Finite resources, so we need to concentrate our efforts on where it will do the most good.

EG, if you had £100,000 to spend on a health intervention, you'd be better off spending it on heart disease drugs rather than malaria

[Hackney]

Dave200 said:

I'm not here to argue, and I agree that drivers are often largely at fault.
But I don't want my epitaph to be "Dave had priority there. Not his fault.".

Let's take the (horrific) example of the German girl. My wife said she was wincing as soon as she saw the girl squeeze alongside the truck and into its blind spot, immediately choosing to put herself in an unnecessarily dangerous position (should the truck need to take evasive action for any reason).

In this case the lorry driver will probably be found culpable, as in your "actual data" point. However, data can often mask subtle nuances.

The unchangeable realities of life for London cyclists are:
- We all share the roads we've got. Major remodelling and road-building won't solve anything substantial for a decade, by which time our population will have grown significantly. I'm not saying it's not the answer, but it's not a 'now' solution.
- Other traffic (including construction vehicles) is a necessity of a growing city, and has as much right to be on the road as a cyclist. It's not possible or practical to ban/limit specific vehicles.
- Most London cyclists (based on many thousands of hours of London cycle-commuting observation - not just two spots by my flat) are of low proficiency, and lack appreciation of the threats around them. Also, most are not enthusiasts, and most are not also London car owners/drivers. Do we ignore this offhand?

Exactly, I cycle like a car driver.
Many London cyclists (many city cyclists) don't drive or have never driven, so don't know "the rules of the road" whether that's the Highway Code or the experience you get from driving every day.

Car drivers definitely should put themselves in the shoes of the cyclist but for heaven's sake, cyclists should start to think like [good] drivers.

[Hackney]

saaby93 said:

Thanks for sharing that Dave200

The problem is that the lady on the bike probably thought it was natural to be in that position without any idea of the danger.

Theres three sides to that, how to make people lik here more aware, the driver more aware, or ask why there wasnt space there

Totally agree with you there.

saaby93 said:

dick_turpin said:

So, yes, by all means conduct a public information campaign warning cyclists about the dangers of HGV blind spots, but it's not going to make as much of a difference to KSI rates as education and proper enforcement of drivers. So if want to realise the biggest benefit, let's start there.

Doh why add the last sentence
What's wrong with starting with both rather than waiting for one or the other
You could warn every cyclist getting on a Boris bike about going up the the inside (or the outside) of trucks and buses
Maybe they do - anyone tried a Boris bike?
It's only a small proportion though

In effect this is in place although not on the bike. Pretty much every lorry and even van has a warning sign on the back advising / telling cyclists not to go up the left.
Fat lot of good it seems to do though as the militant cyclists (are we calling them that now) seem to think this is victim blaming.

[walm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Again - this is the suggestion I find most offensive.

Let me try an analogy...
When I see a driver breaking the speed limit or amber gambling or failing to indicate or whatever, I don't think "hey that guy doesn't obey the rules, I can drive badly around him, I don't need to watch out for him because he isn't watching out for himself."
I think - as always - I will try to drive to the best of my abilities.

I don't carry some prejudice that means I differentiate between road users because of their reputation.
I don't drive differently because Audi drivers are apparently tw@ts, or whatever.
I do my very best to look out for everyone else and keep things safe...

From what you post, you give the distinct impression that in order to qualify for drivers to look out for you, you HAVE TO FOLLOW THE HC 100% (even though most drivers don't).

That simply isn't a necessary requirement for me to do my utmost to look out for them.

Suggesting 100% HC adherence would give cyclists some extra right to be looked out for.
That's just insane.

[dick_turpin]

Hackney said:

In effect this is in place although not on the bike. Pretty much every lorry and even van has a warning sign on the back advising / telling cyclists not to go up the left.
Fat lot of good it seems to do though as the militant cyclists (are we calling them that now) seem to think this is victim blaming.

Well, most of them are "Cyclists stay back" which is somewhat different, and when one SMIDSYs you, or close passes you, it can seem rather offensive. I read a case where a HGV driver squeezed a cyclist into the kerb, then had a go at him, citing his "cyclists stay back" sticker. I'll try and find it.

The newer ones saying "Do not pass on the inside at junctions" or something similar are much better.

I absolutely agree that cyclists shouldn't be going up the inside of vehicles that might be turning left, but I also don't think it's anywhere near as widespread as it is portrayed, and is not the main cause of cyclist KSIs.

[saaby93]

walm said:

Let me try an analogy...
When I see a driver breaking the speed limit or amber gambling or failing to indicate or whatever, I don't think "hey that guy doesn't obey the rules, I can drive badly around him, I don't need to watch out for him because he isn't watching out for himself."
I think - as always - I will try to drive to the best of my abilities.

I don't carry some prejudice that means I differentiate between road users because of their reputation.
I don't drive differently because Audi drivers are apparently tw@ts, or whatever.
I do my very best to look out for everyone else and keep things safe...

From what you post, you give the distinct impression that in order to qualify for drivers to look out for you, you HAVE TO FOLLOW THE HC 100% (even though most drivers don't).

That simply isn't a necessary requirement for me to do my utmost to look out for them.

Suggesting 100% HC adherence would give cyclists some extra right to be looked out for.
That's just insane.

I still dont see the need to post about something that doesnt happen as if it does
Then argue against it as if it does
and end up with a solution only based on the opposite to your starting point

If you swap cyclists with drivers in your post it's just as helpful.

Why not begin with what really happens i.e. what the thread is about

[budgie smuggler]

Dave200 said:

- Other traffic (including construction vehicles) is a necessity of a growing city, and has as much right to be on the road as a cyclist. It's not possible or practical to ban/limit specific vehicles.

We already have London Lorry Control. Similar for construction vehicles could easily be achieved with sufficient political will and enforced with ANPR. Whether it'd be practical is another matter...

[walm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I know, sorry - you have said that several times.
You just kept following up with slightly contradictory comments that I couldn't reconcile.

Perhaps what you mean is: drivers shouldn't have this attitude but since they aren't perfect they have a tendency to see RLJing and think that means drivers can bend the rules AROUND CYCLISTS too (or just take less care).

Since we can't change the attitude of millions of imperfect drivers we need to stop RLJing to stop giving them an excuse.

That's why I don't RLJ.

[walm]

saaby93 said:

I still dont see the need to post about something that doesnt happen as if it does

I genuinely don't follow you.

What doesn't happen?

[braddo]

walm said:

Since we can't change the attitude of millions of imperfect drivers we need to stop RLJing to stop giving them an excuse.

That's why I don't RLJ.

Same for me. It might be irrational that motorists get pissed off by cyclists going through red lights, but the fact is they do get get pissed off. My feeling is that they are less respectful to cyclists as a result. Ergo, cyclists who do jump red lights have a negative impact on the safety of all cyclists.

[heebeegeetee]

braddo said:

Same for me. It might be irrational that motorists get pissed off by cyclists going through red lights, but the fact is they do get get pissed off. My feeling is that they are less respectful to cyclists as a result. Ergo, cyclists who do jump red lights have a negative impact on the safety of all cyclists.

But so many motorists go through red lights themselves (and certainly amber stop lights) that as per usual, those pissed off motorists are just practicing the usual massive hypocrisy.

[braddo]

heebeegeetee said:

But so many motorists go through red lights themselves (and certainly amber stop lights) that as per usual, those pissed off motorists are just practicing the usual massive hypocrisy.

I don't disagree.

I do disagree with an earlier comment that the majority of London cyclists (certainly commuters) are not drivers. More likely, it's just a bit of human hypocrisy to behave differently on a bicycle than one does in a car; a bit like how normal people can go into vein-popping road rage in their cars when impeded by a cyclist for a few seconds...