Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Have we had the argument about strava and other such apps.
So I am a cyclist. But I'm in Yorkshire thus empty moor roads but equally horrible city centres.
Strava and its segment times make you cycle hard on certain sections to get your section times and placings up.
I don't , because I'm not a fool, jump red lights but I bet a lot of people cycle aggressively and jump lights because of their timings.
I'd also say some drivers and cyclists are not bright enough to be in charge of a vehicle. But we all know that. Darwinism my friends.
So I am a cyclist. But I'm in Yorkshire thus empty moor roads but equally horrible city centres.
Strava and its segment times make you cycle hard on certain sections to get your section times and placings up.
I don't , because I'm not a fool, jump red lights but I bet a lot of people cycle aggressively and jump lights because of their timings.
I'd also say some drivers and cyclists are not bright enough to be in charge of a vehicle. But we all know that. Darwinism my friends.
walm said:
Irony off the chart.
1. Learn what a figure of speech is, it will help you understand English. HINT: "wants to" was not meant literally. You are being obtuse or are genuinely a bit slow.
2. His writing is fine. Yours, on the other hand, is shocking. I can't believe I am paying PH subs for it, frankly.
3. The report of a report which you KEEP DISMISSING FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON helps us work out what is putting cyclists into this position. POOR DRIVING in the majority of adult cases.
Yet we have repetitive morons insisting that their anecdotal evidence of "suicidal" cyclists, who magically appear not to hurt themselves very often, trump proper independent research.
If you don't want to accept the reality of the problem in most cases then perhaps you should stop starting threads about it and insisting that we need to treat both parties as if they are equally responsible.
Just perhaps that ISN'T the answer, despite you repeating it every 5 posts without any evidence or back-up at all.
Strawman? I don't think you are close to understanding what that really means.
At what point does this repetitive (by morons or not) insistence become more than one person's anecdote and a whole swathe of observations?1. Learn what a figure of speech is, it will help you understand English. HINT: "wants to" was not meant literally. You are being obtuse or are genuinely a bit slow.
2. His writing is fine. Yours, on the other hand, is shocking. I can't believe I am paying PH subs for it, frankly.
3. The report of a report which you KEEP DISMISSING FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON helps us work out what is putting cyclists into this position. POOR DRIVING in the majority of adult cases.
Yet we have repetitive morons insisting that their anecdotal evidence of "suicidal" cyclists, who magically appear not to hurt themselves very often, trump proper independent research.
If you don't want to accept the reality of the problem in most cases then perhaps you should stop starting threads about it and insisting that we need to treat both parties as if they are equally responsible.
Just perhaps that ISN'T the answer, despite you repeating it every 5 posts without any evidence or back-up at all.
Strawman? I don't think you are close to understanding what that really means.
Also does it not occur to you that these "suicidal" cyclists appear not to hurt themselves because everyone else on the road around them has (a) seen them (b) given them a wide birth or (c) reacted appropriately while they swan off into the distance?
Hackney said:
walm said:
Irony off the chart.
1. Learn what a figure of speech is, it will help you understand English. HINT: "wants to" was not meant literally. You are being obtuse or are genuinely a bit slow.
2. His writing is fine. Yours, on the other hand, is shocking. I can't believe I am paying PH subs for it, frankly.
3. The report of a report which you KEEP DISMISSING FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON helps us work out what is putting cyclists into this position. POOR DRIVING in the majority of adult cases.
Yet we have repetitive morons insisting that their anecdotal evidence of "suicidal" cyclists, who magically appear not to hurt themselves very often, trump proper independent research.
If you don't want to accept the reality of the problem in most cases then perhaps you should stop starting threads about it and insisting that we need to treat both parties as if they are equally responsible.
Just perhaps that ISN'T the answer, despite you repeating it every 5 posts without any evidence or back-up at all.
Strawman? I don't think you are close to understanding what that really means.
At what point does this repetitive (by morons or not) insistence become more than one person's anecdote and a whole swathe of observations?1. Learn what a figure of speech is, it will help you understand English. HINT: "wants to" was not meant literally. You are being obtuse or are genuinely a bit slow.
2. His writing is fine. Yours, on the other hand, is shocking. I can't believe I am paying PH subs for it, frankly.
3. The report of a report which you KEEP DISMISSING FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON helps us work out what is putting cyclists into this position. POOR DRIVING in the majority of adult cases.
Yet we have repetitive morons insisting that their anecdotal evidence of "suicidal" cyclists, who magically appear not to hurt themselves very often, trump proper independent research.
If you don't want to accept the reality of the problem in most cases then perhaps you should stop starting threads about it and insisting that we need to treat both parties as if they are equally responsible.
Just perhaps that ISN'T the answer, despite you repeating it every 5 posts without any evidence or back-up at all.
Strawman? I don't think you are close to understanding what that really means.
Also does it not occur to you that these "suicidal" cyclists appear not to hurt themselves because everyone else on the road around them has (a) seen them (b) given them a wide birth or (c) reacted appropriately while they swan off into the distance?
But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 22 July 12:51
Hackney said:
At what point does this repetitive (by morons or not) insistence become more than one person's anecdote and a whole swathe of observations?
Also does it not occur to you that these "suicidal" cyclists appear not to hurt themselves because everyone else on the road around them has (a) seen them (b) given them a wide birth or (c) reacted appropriately while they swan off into the distance?
I would say when we have a hell of a lot more than just 10 cyclists dying each year in London.Also does it not occur to you that these "suicidal" cyclists appear not to hurt themselves because everyone else on the road around them has (a) seen them (b) given them a wide birth or (c) reacted appropriately while they swan off into the distance?
I find that an astonishingly low figure - given my own anecdotal experience of cycle commuting and the sheer numbers involved now.
Your second point is a good one though.
And, ironically, I only have my experience to fall back on.
I usually found that when you drill down into what someone describes as "suicidal" it really isn't as bad as all that.
e.g. "blasting through a red light". I have seen plenty of that but literally not once have I seen someone do it such that a driver had to take avoiding action.
e.g. "undertaking" - no, that's "filtering"; perfectly legal and it is your responsibility as a driver to make sure you take it into account. Rule 211 in the HC.
Sure, I wouldn't filter past an HGV to the left but if the HGV is driving properly then there shouldn't be a problem if someone does.
Even your own comment makes an interesting example.
You have said "given them a wide berth" as if that is something special and out of the ordinary and oh-so-careful of drivers - as if it is a "wow - lucky I gave him a wide berth" moment that somehow "saved" a cyclist.
And that is 100% wrong and a huge part of the attitude problem.
YOU MUST GIVE THEM A WIDE BERTH.
That's the RULE.
It isn't the exception.
YOU are endangering THEM if you don't - not the other way round.
Rule 212: When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room.
"Seeing them" and "giving them a wide berth" is HOW YOU DRIVE PROPERLY.
Expecting cyclists to cycle around as if no one has seen them and as if they are going to pass an inch from their elbow otherwise labeling them "suicidal" is a terrible attitude IMHO.
In maybe 12,000 miles of London cycle commuting I only remember maybe a handful of emergency stops done by drivers to avoid cyclists. And 50% of them were SMIDSYs!
Pete317 said:
Yes, until they have the misfortune to cross the path of one of a small number of brain-dead drivers who for whatever reason fails to see them or take appropriate action, in which case they're toast.
But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
So the cyclist should have anticipated that the driver was blind and brain dead?But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
Not sure how they are supposed to do that?
walm said:
I would say when we have a hell of a lot more than just 10 cyclists dying each year in London.
I find that an astonishingly low figure - given my own anecdotal experience of cycle commuting and the sheer numbers involved now.
Your second point is a good one though.
And, ironically, I only have my experience to fall back on.
I usually found that when you drill down into what someone describes as "suicidal" it really isn't as bad as all that.
e.g. "blasting through a red light". I have seen plenty of that but literally not once have I seen someone do it such that a driver had to take avoiding action.
e.g. "undertaking" - no, that's "filtering"; perfectly legal and it is your responsibility as a driver to make sure you take it into account. Rule 211 in the HC.
Sure, I wouldn't filter past an HGV to the left but if the HGV is driving properly then there shouldn't be a problem if someone does.
Even your own comment makes an interesting example.
You have said "given them a wide berth" as if that is something special and out of the ordinary and oh-so-careful of drivers - as if it is a "wow - lucky I gave him a wide berth" moment that somehow "saved" a cyclist.
And that is 100% wrong and a huge part of the attitude problem.
YOU MUST GIVE THEM A WIDE BERTH.
That's the RULE.
It isn't the exception.
YOU are endangering THEM if you don't - not the other way round.
Rule 212: When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room.
"Seeing them" and "giving them a wide berth" is HOW YOU DRIVE PROPERLY.
Expecting cyclists to cycle around as if no one has seen them and as if they are going to pass an inch from their elbow otherwise labeling them "suicidal" is a terrible attitude IMHO.
In maybe 12,000 miles of London cycle commuting I only remember maybe a handful of emergency stops done by drivers to avoid cyclists. And 50% of them were SMIDSYs!
I hope you realise I was using the phrase "give them a wide berth" in it's typical context "I was walking through a field and saw a bull, so made sure to give it a wide berth", rather than, "ah, a suicidal cyclist I'll give them 1.5m of roadway as per the highway code". I find that an astonishingly low figure - given my own anecdotal experience of cycle commuting and the sheer numbers involved now.
Your second point is a good one though.
And, ironically, I only have my experience to fall back on.
I usually found that when you drill down into what someone describes as "suicidal" it really isn't as bad as all that.
e.g. "blasting through a red light". I have seen plenty of that but literally not once have I seen someone do it such that a driver had to take avoiding action.
e.g. "undertaking" - no, that's "filtering"; perfectly legal and it is your responsibility as a driver to make sure you take it into account. Rule 211 in the HC.
Sure, I wouldn't filter past an HGV to the left but if the HGV is driving properly then there shouldn't be a problem if someone does.
Even your own comment makes an interesting example.
You have said "given them a wide berth" as if that is something special and out of the ordinary and oh-so-careful of drivers - as if it is a "wow - lucky I gave him a wide berth" moment that somehow "saved" a cyclist.
And that is 100% wrong and a huge part of the attitude problem.
YOU MUST GIVE THEM A WIDE BERTH.
That's the RULE.
It isn't the exception.
YOU are endangering THEM if you don't - not the other way round.
Rule 212: When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room.
"Seeing them" and "giving them a wide berth" is HOW YOU DRIVE PROPERLY.
Expecting cyclists to cycle around as if no one has seen them and as if they are going to pass an inch from their elbow otherwise labeling them "suicidal" is a terrible attitude IMHO.
In maybe 12,000 miles of London cycle commuting I only remember maybe a handful of emergency stops done by drivers to avoid cyclists. And 50% of them were SMIDSYs!
I'm pretty sure you do, but I'm just making sure.
Hackney said:
I hope you realise I was using the phrase "give them a wide berth" in it's typical context "I was walking through a field and saw a bull, so made sure to give it a wide berth", rather than, "ah, a suicidal cyclist I'll give them 1.5m of roadway as per the highway code".
I'm pretty sure you do, but I'm just making sure.
So if they are riding nice and safely, and possibly also have a helmet on, you wouldn't give them a wide berth?I'm pretty sure you do, but I'm just making sure.
Doesn't that back up that helmet chappy who researched that drivers give less space to helmeted cyclists?
walm said:
Pete317 said:
Yes, until they have the misfortune to cross the path of one of a small number of brain-dead drivers who for whatever reason fails to see them or take appropriate action, in which case they're toast.
But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
So the cyclist should have anticipated that the driver was blind and brain dead?But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
Not sure how they are supposed to do that?
Do you really think that cyclists should always expect everyone to make allowances for them under all circumstances and without fail?
And since when does two wrongs make a right?
Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 22 July 13:27
walm said:
In maybe 12,000 miles of London cycle commuting I only remember maybe a handful of emergency stops done by drivers to avoid cyclists. And 50% of them were SMIDSYs!
In that report the biggest number (50%?)of the collisions attributable to both cyclists and drivers was 'not looking properly'They didn't call them SMIDSY but it's probably same thing
Pete317 said:
walm said:
Pete317 said:
Yes, until they have the misfortune to cross the path of one of a small number of brain-dead drivers who for whatever reason fails to see them or take appropriate action, in which case they're toast.
But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
So the cyclist should have anticipated that the driver was blind and brain dead?But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
Not sure how they are supposed to do that?
Do you really think that cyclists should always expect everyone to make allowances for them under all circumstances and without fail?
Of course there is the odd nutjob on a bike who needs cars and trucks to treat him like Hackney's rampant bull and avoid him at all costs.
He needs "allowances" and does every road user a disservice by being such a muppet. (The nutjob, not Hackney.)
But I still believe they are the exception and not the rule.
Genuine "avoiding action" is rare.
Saaby's video of the truck in the ASL was a good example though, for sure.
Pete317 said:
Yes, until they have the misfortune to cross the path of one of a small number of brain-dead drivers who for whatever reason fails to see them or take appropriate action, in which case they're toast.
But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
Hardly. It's difficult enough to hold the driver properly responsible when it is their fault without trying to do so when it isn't.But then it's probably the driver who's deemed to be at fault - when in truth it's the cyclist who put themselves in the dodgy situation in the first place.
Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 22 July 12:51
And I hope you're not suggesting that a cyclist doing something stupid absolves the driver from their responsibility to drive safely?
oyster said:
But what really makes me angry is that despite all the publicity about the danger they cause to cyclists, they still act as if they own the road, steam up at full speed to red lights, swing from lane to lane without looking properly. I just don't understand it - when is that industry going to wake up to its responsibilities?
You mean something like extra training required by law? More mirrors, audible warnings, stickers, lights, better designed vehicles, increased tachograph & vehicle checks etc etc?If only something - anything - were required to ride a bike...
Going by your post, where possible, you would assume cyclists would avoid HGV's at all costs.I have no idea why so many refuse to even when they have the chance.
Edited by Digby on Wednesday 22 July 18:33
Digby said:
SystemParanoia said:
i live leaked <--- you know what s on live leak, so im not linking to that festering corner of the internet on here
"Truck overruns woman and 8 year old son at crossing"
and i definitely agree that this design of lorry is completely unfit for purpose and every single one of them should be removed from service worldwide
Left hand drive truck, dodgy crossing, someone who crosses without looking.Recipe for disaster there "Truck overruns woman and 8 year old son at crossing"
and i definitely agree that this design of lorry is completely unfit for purpose and every single one of them should be removed from service worldwide
tbh i wish i never saw it... ill be avoiding them as best i can in future.. wether walking or riding.
although not much you can do when they come up behind you and squeeze you under their tyres through pedestrian refuges
oyster said:
swerni said:
Yesterday London looked like a scene from a Die Hard movie.
They weren't hanging around either
I have no problem with them being in London, they are just doing their job.They weren't hanging around either
But what really makes me angry is that despite all the publicity about the danger they cause to cyclists, they still act as if they own the road, steam up at full speed to red lights, swing from lane to lane without looking properly. I just don't understand it - when is that industry going to wake up to its responsibilities?
Dick Turpin said:
Hardly. It's difficult enough to hold the driver properly responsible when it is their fault without trying to do so when it isn't.
Like for example when cyclist jumping the red meets driver talking on mobile? Dick Turpin said:
And I hope you're not suggesting that a cyclist doing something stupid absolves the driver from their responsibility to drive safely?
No, just that it's not a particularly good idea for cyclists to assume that all drivers will be looking out for them at all timesSystemParanoia said:
You're not even safe on the right hand side of em.
Another downside of large vehicles in small spaces.I would estimate that a good 70 to 80% of my turns (If it is even possible to turn) in the city require me to straddle lanes when entering or exiting streets.There obviously comes a point where I have to be drifting over to the right hand side of the road, yet have my left indicator on; or I am sat in a right turn only lane waiting to turn left with no other choice in the matter.This seems to confuse a lot of people, although you can instantly tell those who understand what is about to happen.There are also many instances where I am sat praying for a certain set of lights to change to halt the flow of oncoming traffic so I can utilise the entire street etc.It's like automotive chess in that I am always thinking several moves ahead.
Unfortunately, the solution is not to use smaller vehicles because it's not cost effective and obviously they have far lower weight limits.I would love to be able to enter the city at 4.00 or 5.00 am, drop off and get out before the rush starts, but we are banned from entering 90% of London streets before 7.00am and that's just about the time things start getting busy.
Digby said:
Another downside of large vehicles in small spaces.I would estimate that a good 70 to 80% of my turns (If it is even possible to turn) in the city require me to straddle lanes when entering or exiting streets.
There obviously comes a point where I have to be drifting over to the right hand side of the road, yet have my left indicator on; or I am sat in a right turn only lane waiting to turn left with no other choice in the matter.This seems to confuse a lot of people, although you can instantly tell those who understand what is about to happen.
Going back to my favourite cycling instructor. In this one he was completely unaware of the lorry's positioning. Lorry driver was an inpatient knob though.There obviously comes a point where I have to be drifting over to the right hand side of the road, yet have my left indicator on; or I am sat in a right turn only lane waiting to turn left with no other choice in the matter.This seems to confuse a lot of people, although you can instantly tell those who understand what is about to happen.
http://youtu.be/cfj3h6KBAq0
I try to leave my vehicle as far over as possible in situations like those, although often, as soon as a gap to my left is large enough to fit a car in - and by large enough I mean an inch or so - a car tends to fill it! That tends to be a general issue on busy streets.If you leave any form of gap that something can just about fill, it usually will be filled.I can understand the drivers frustration in that clip, but having had the same happen to me several times, despite the cars honking behind, I have just assumed the cyclist / biker wasn't aware of my intentions and have waited.Either that or if there is time, I have simply asked someone if they could move over a little.
This clip played straight after that one..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsBoWa_R95Q
The rider does at least admit he messed up in this one.
This clip played straight after that one..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsBoWa_R95Q
The rider does at least admit he messed up in this one.
Ghibli said:
Going back to my favourite cycling instructor. In this one he was completely unaware of the lorry's positioning. Lorry driver was an inpatient knob though.
http://youtu.be/cfj3h6KBAq0
'the safest place for me is in front of you where I can see you'http://youtu.be/cfj3h6KBAq0
Does he have eyes in the back of his head? Maybe a mirror.
Surely the safest place is behind?
I'm getting more and more convinced it's misguided use ASLs that are part of the problem
Another here claiming it's the safest place to be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlN4QyyXzF4
However to get there he's squeezing through a far narrower gap than he likes being overtaked
Isnt it only safest if you're already at the front? It doesnt mean you should carry out crazy over or under taking moves to get there.
It's safer at the front than at the side but safer still to be behind.
Like the quiet guy in previous
Another here claiming it's the safest place to be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlN4QyyXzF4
However to get there he's squeezing through a far narrower gap than he likes being overtaked
Isnt it only safest if you're already at the front? It doesnt mean you should carry out crazy over or under taking moves to get there.
It's safer at the front than at the side but safer still to be behind.
Like the quiet guy in previous
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff