Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
fangio said:
walm said:
For those who struggle.
If a cyclist passing an HGV wobbles into it - he will hit it with his full body weight + c.10kg of bike.
If a passing HGV hits a wobbling cyclist - that HGV will weigh CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN ONE HUMAN. Oh and it is sharp and metallic not soft and pudgy too.
Sorry, but I think you'll find the physics are the same, both speeds being equal, as in the scenario of this thread.....If a cyclist passing an HGV wobbles into it - he will hit it with his full body weight + c.10kg of bike.
If a passing HGV hits a wobbling cyclist - that HGV will weigh CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN ONE HUMAN. Oh and it is sharp and metallic not soft and pudgy too.
Whichever hits which, the weights, shape and materials are the same.
Are you serious?
walm said:
fangio said:
walm said:
For those who struggle.
If a cyclist passing an HGV wobbles into it - he will hit it with his full body weight + c.10kg of bike.
If a passing HGV hits a wobbling cyclist - that HGV will weigh CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN ONE HUMAN. Oh and it is sharp and metallic not soft and pudgy too.
Sorry, but I think you'll find the physics are the same, both speeds being equal, as in the scenario of this thread.....If a cyclist passing an HGV wobbles into it - he will hit it with his full body weight + c.10kg of bike.
If a passing HGV hits a wobbling cyclist - that HGV will weigh CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN ONE HUMAN. Oh and it is sharp and metallic not soft and pudgy too.
Whichever hits which, the weights, shape and materials are the same.
Are you serious?
To keep it simple assume one vehicle is stationary and the other hits it at 10mph.
The momentum in bike-hits-truck is (human+bike mass)x10mph.
The momentum in truck-hits-bike is (truck mass)x10mph.
The force the cyclist is going to experience in the second scenario is vastly more than in the first.
skyrover said:
Perhaps it should be made an offense for a cyclist to be on the road where a cycle path is provided alongside?
Have you seen some of the cycle paths. One near where I work goes into and bus shelter. Another is under parking for cars (I dont thing the car owners would like bikes riding over the cars). The new cycle path in London are good but so many where put in just to tick a box about having them it does not work. Would be nice if they all where good!skyrover said:
The average car can weigh up to 2500kg and is tested to safely protect it's occupants in a crash with another vehicle at 35mph, allowing it to be sold for use on British roads.
This is because it is recognized the roads are a dangerous place and collisions WILL happen, so vehicles are designed appropriately.
Bicycles are not crash tested, nor are they suitable for collisions with other vehicular traffic, there is no way around that fact, ergo cyclist and traffic should not mix ... separation is needed.
There needs to be some serious re-engineering of London's infrastructure to keep these incompatible methods of transport apart... otherwise the deaths will continue.
Where is has been done it works well, but London is very old and there are lots of places where is not space. Also the cost is very high. This is because it is recognized the roads are a dangerous place and collisions WILL happen, so vehicles are designed appropriately.
Bicycles are not crash tested, nor are they suitable for collisions with other vehicular traffic, there is no way around that fact, ergo cyclist and traffic should not mix ... separation is needed.
There needs to be some serious re-engineering of London's infrastructure to keep these incompatible methods of transport apart... otherwise the deaths will continue.
The question is how long will cars still be used in London. The cost is going up and numbers are going down (even with more people). Cyclist number are going up and use of public trasport. Parking (if you have a permet) is easer now that it has ever been due to this. Uber will soon have driver-less cars. So are we not just going threw a time of change in London like we did with the horse, where the cars days are ending?
walm said:
No. He just keeps trying to claim that overtaking a cyclist is exactly the same as being overtaken by one and then denying that's what he said!!!
For all those getting a little 'touchy' on the subject, it was mentioned that drivers should be able to spot obstacles which can make a cyclist blindly swerve.It was also mentioned that if you come together as a result of this, the driver was too close.
Like it or not, drivers and riders are extremely close a lot of the time. It has NOTHING to do with overtakes and everything to do with flowing traffic. I can be moving at 30 mph and be undertaken by a cyclist. I'm asking why, when I have enough to be looking out for, should I be trying to focus on a cyclists obstacles for fear he or she may suddenly swerve without the need to look.
I didn't make those points, I simply reacted to what was suggested. All those banging out the overtake / weight of a vehicle vs a bike type arguments, don't even come in to play.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 29th May 00:20
mgv8 said:
The question is how long will cars still be used in London. The cost is going up and numbers are going down (even with more people). Cyclist number are going up and use of public trasport. Parking (if you have a permet) is easer now that it has ever been due to this. Uber will soon have driver-less cars. So are we not just going threw a time of change in London like we did with the horse, where the cars days are ending?
They wouldn't want cars banned because they wouldn't want to go without the revenue they generateyellowjack said:
What more "some form of training" do you think I need?
You're not so silly to think you represent all cyclists, right? You know they are not all like yourself?You know, for example, some have never sat on a cycle, or driven a car, yet are free to wobble their way around Trafalgar Square in the rush hour during their first attempt? I may not have thought I needed training to drive a car, because I could drive one perfectly well by the age of ten. I may have not wanted training for testing Rolls Royce jet engines, because I worked on propulsion units at NASA...
You get the point. Your suggestions are pointless.
These riders need training to operate the most basic, basic palet truck. They need training to use a small ladder. They need training to drive, training to ride any form of motorcycle, training to hold up a stick and help kids cross a road......yet they need nothing to try and cycle on streets which have killed and continue to kill riders.
Many of them regularly try to put themselves under my wheels. I want them to stop doing that. That's all I want. How do we make that happen?
Watching the utter amazement on the faces of those riders shown videos of just how blind a blind spot can be on an HGV, for example, probably changed many riders habits and for all we know, saved a few lives; but they don't have to watch it..
Earlier in this thread we have an example of a death of a supposedly experienced rider who, for no reason I can fathom (apart from impatience or lack of understanding), put himself in an utterly ridiculous position and paid with his life. Why? As I child I wouldn't have done this. Perhaps that was due to the required cycling proficiency test? If you didn't have it, you couldn't ride to school. What do you need now? Just your iPod in many cases!
As I have said before, don't inform and train etc, it won't matter to me. I will keep on doing my best to save some of the idiots and the unwary and they can keep on becoming statistics until someone wakes up and says enough is enough.
walm said:
In fact, it's usually seen that it is of HUGE benefit to get drivers to see things from a cyclists point of view and putting them on a bike for a day has shown good results. e.g. Addison Lee and some haulage companies.
Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
I was told to look at the highway code for whatever reason, I simply suggested other road users could do the same. Why is that a bad idea? I was only responding to a point made on here.Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
Many of our drivers had to ride cycles. That, of course, was on top of all their other training (which is constantly ongoing even when they are qualified)
I would imagine 99% of cyclists have never sat in an HGV. Many no longer drive at all (or never learn), apparently.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 29th May 00:15
Digby said:
walm said:
No. He just keeps trying to claim that overtaking a cyclist is exactly the same as being overtaken by one and then denying that's what he said!!!
For all those getting a little 'touchy' on the subject, it was mentioned that drivers should be able to spot obstacles which can make a cyclist blindly swerve.No one has said that drivers need to spot obstacles that cyclists don't. That's the very reason the highway code talks about leaving clearance because it recognises that cyclists may need to "blindly swerve" in response to obstacles that drivers haven't seen.
IF you chose to take away the cyclist's ability to manouvre by driving closely, THEN you need to make sure that you aren't boxing them in, by making sure that there aren't any obstacles.
Mave said:
IF you chose to take away the cyclist's ability to manouvre by driving closely, THEN you need to make sure that you aren't boxing them in, by making sure that there aren't any obstacles.
Yes, I get that, but what happens in reality when they are boxed in through no fault of your own?My earlier comments relate to what you will always experience on busy streets. Sorry if it came across as me making things up.
Digby said:
You're not so silly to think you represent all cyclists, right? You know they are not all like yourself?
You know, for example, some have never sat on a cycle, or driven a car, yet are free to wobble their way around Trafalgar Square in the rush hour during their first attempt? I may not have thought I needed training to drive a car, because I could drive one perfectly well by the age of ten. I may have not wanted training for testing Rolls Royce jet engines, because I worked on propulsion units at NASA...
You get the point. Your suggestions are pointless.
These riders need training to operate the most basic, basic palet truck. They need training to use a small ladder. They need training to drive, training to ride any form of motorcycle, training to hold up a stick and help kids cross a road......yet they need nothing to try and cycle on streets which have killed and continue to kill riders.
Many of them regularly try to put themselves under my wheels. I want them to stop doing that. That's all I want. How do we make that happen?
Watching the utter amazement on the faces of those riders shown videos of just how blind a blind spot can be on an HGV, for example, probably changed many riders habits and for all we know, saved a few lives; but they don't have to watch it..
Earlier in this thread we have an example of a death of a supposedly experienced rider who, for no reason I can fathom (apart from impatience or lack of understanding), put himself in an utterly ridiculous position and paid with his life. Why? As I child I wouldn't have done this. Perhaps that was due to the required cycling proficiency test? If you didn't have it, you couldn't ride to school. What do you need now? Just your iPod in many cases!
As I have said before, don't inform and train etc, it won't matter to me. I will keep on doing my best to save some of the idiots and the unwary and they can keep on becoming statistics until someone wakes up and says enough is enough.
Many of our drivers had to ride cycles. That, of course, was on top of all their other training (which is constantly ongoing even when they are qualified)
I would imagine 99% of cyclists have never sat in an HGV. Many no longer drive at all (or never learn), apparently.
As a former HGV driver, I think you're largely wrong.You know, for example, some have never sat on a cycle, or driven a car, yet are free to wobble their way around Trafalgar Square in the rush hour during their first attempt? I may not have thought I needed training to drive a car, because I could drive one perfectly well by the age of ten. I may have not wanted training for testing Rolls Royce jet engines, because I worked on propulsion units at NASA...
You get the point. Your suggestions are pointless.
These riders need training to operate the most basic, basic palet truck. They need training to use a small ladder. They need training to drive, training to ride any form of motorcycle, training to hold up a stick and help kids cross a road......yet they need nothing to try and cycle on streets which have killed and continue to kill riders.
Many of them regularly try to put themselves under my wheels. I want them to stop doing that. That's all I want. How do we make that happen?
Watching the utter amazement on the faces of those riders shown videos of just how blind a blind spot can be on an HGV, for example, probably changed many riders habits and for all we know, saved a few lives; but they don't have to watch it..
Earlier in this thread we have an example of a death of a supposedly experienced rider who, for no reason I can fathom (apart from impatience or lack of understanding), put himself in an utterly ridiculous position and paid with his life. Why? As I child I wouldn't have done this. Perhaps that was due to the required cycling proficiency test? If you didn't have it, you couldn't ride to school. What do you need now? Just your iPod in many cases!
As I have said before, don't inform and train etc, it won't matter to me. I will keep on doing my best to save some of the idiots and the unwary and they can keep on becoming statistics until someone wakes up and says enough is enough.
walm said:
In fact, it's usually seen that it is of HUGE benefit to get drivers to see things from a cyclists point of view and putting them on a bike for a day has shown good results. e.g. Addison Lee and some haulage companies.
Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
I was told to look at the highway code for whatever reason, I simply suggested other road users could do the same. Why is that a bad idea? I was only responding to a point made on here.Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
Many of our drivers had to ride cycles. That, of course, was on top of all their other training (which is constantly ongoing even when they are qualified)
I would imagine 99% of cyclists have never sat in an HGV. Many no longer drive at all (or never learn), apparently.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 29th May 00:15
Firstly, I don't think anyone can ride a bike straight from the off without training - they only have two wheels and it's something you normally have to learn to do, usually from childhood. So therefore I think all cyclists have had some form of training anyway.
Secondly, drivers are trained yet they put themselves in hgv blind spots *all the time*, so why do you think cyclists would stop doing so when drivers never did? There's even been a thread this week http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... where the car driver is clearly unaware of what he's done.
heebeegeetee said:
Secondly, drivers are trained yet they put themselves in hgv blind spots *all the time*, so why do you think cyclists would stop doing so when drivers never did?
Almost never have an issue with cars etc, because even if they didn't care or were unaware, they have no room to get alongside. They are also unlikely to end up underneath my axle or wrapped around the prop.Edit to add I just read that car vs truck post, what exactly did the car driver do?! He has been hit by an HGV, unless I am missing your point.
Edited by Digby on Monday 30th May 13:30
heebeegeetee said:
Digby said:
You're not so silly to think you represent all cyclists, right? You know they are not all like yourself?
You know, for example, some have never sat on a cycle, or driven a car, yet are free to wobble their way around Trafalgar Square in the rush hour during their first attempt? I may not have thought I needed training to drive a car, because I could drive one perfectly well by the age of ten. I may have not wanted training for testing Rolls Royce jet engines, because I worked on propulsion units at NASA...
You get the point. Your suggestions are pointless.
These riders need training to operate the most basic, basic palet truck. They need training to use a small ladder. They need training to drive, training to ride any form of motorcycle, training to hold up a stick and help kids cross a road......yet they need nothing to try and cycle on streets which have killed and continue to kill riders.
Many of them regularly try to put themselves under my wheels. I want them to stop doing that. That's all I want. How do we make that happen?
Watching the utter amazement on the faces of those riders shown videos of just how blind a blind spot can be on an HGV, for example, probably changed many riders habits and for all we know, saved a few lives; but they don't have to watch it..
Earlier in this thread we have an example of a death of a supposedly experienced rider who, for no reason I can fathom (apart from impatience or lack of understanding), put himself in an utterly ridiculous position and paid with his life. Why? As I child I wouldn't have done this. Perhaps that was due to the required cycling proficiency test? If you didn't have it, you couldn't ride to school. What do you need now? Just your iPod in many cases!
As I have said before, don't inform and train etc, it won't matter to me. I will keep on doing my best to save some of the idiots and the unwary and they can keep on becoming statistics until someone wakes up and says enough is enough.
Many of our drivers had to ride cycles. That, of course, was on top of all their other training (which is constantly ongoing even when they are qualified)
I would imagine 99% of cyclists have never sat in an HGV. Many no longer drive at all (or never learn), apparently.
As a former HGV driver, I think you're largely wrong.You know, for example, some have never sat on a cycle, or driven a car, yet are free to wobble their way around Trafalgar Square in the rush hour during their first attempt? I may not have thought I needed training to drive a car, because I could drive one perfectly well by the age of ten. I may have not wanted training for testing Rolls Royce jet engines, because I worked on propulsion units at NASA...
You get the point. Your suggestions are pointless.
These riders need training to operate the most basic, basic palet truck. They need training to use a small ladder. They need training to drive, training to ride any form of motorcycle, training to hold up a stick and help kids cross a road......yet they need nothing to try and cycle on streets which have killed and continue to kill riders.
Many of them regularly try to put themselves under my wheels. I want them to stop doing that. That's all I want. How do we make that happen?
Watching the utter amazement on the faces of those riders shown videos of just how blind a blind spot can be on an HGV, for example, probably changed many riders habits and for all we know, saved a few lives; but they don't have to watch it..
Earlier in this thread we have an example of a death of a supposedly experienced rider who, for no reason I can fathom (apart from impatience or lack of understanding), put himself in an utterly ridiculous position and paid with his life. Why? As I child I wouldn't have done this. Perhaps that was due to the required cycling proficiency test? If you didn't have it, you couldn't ride to school. What do you need now? Just your iPod in many cases!
As I have said before, don't inform and train etc, it won't matter to me. I will keep on doing my best to save some of the idiots and the unwary and they can keep on becoming statistics until someone wakes up and says enough is enough.
walm said:
In fact, it's usually seen that it is of HUGE benefit to get drivers to see things from a cyclists point of view and putting them on a bike for a day has shown good results. e.g. Addison Lee and some haulage companies.
Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
I was told to look at the highway code for whatever reason, I simply suggested other road users could do the same. Why is that a bad idea? I was only responding to a point made on here.Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
Many of our drivers had to ride cycles. That, of course, was on top of all their other training (which is constantly ongoing even when they are qualified)
I would imagine 99% of cyclists have never sat in an HGV. Many no longer drive at all (or never learn), apparently.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 29th May 00:15
Firstly, I don't think anyone can ride a bike straight from the off without training - they only have two wheels and it's something you normally have to learn to do, usually from childhood. So therefore I think all cyclists have had some form of training anyway.
Secondly, drivers are trained yet they put themselves in hgv blind spots *all the time*, so why do you think cyclists would stop doing so when drivers never did? There's even been a thread this week http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... where the car driver is clearly unaware of what he's done.
And, he didn't have to get all shouty and aggressive to make it.
Digby said:
yellowjack said:
What more "some form of training" do you think I need?
You're not so silly to think you represent all cyclists, right? You know they are not all like yourself?You know, for example, some have never sat on a cycle, or driven a car, yet are free to wobble their way around Trafalgar Square in the rush hour during their first attempt? I may not have thought I needed training to drive a car, because I could drive one perfectly well by the age of ten. I may have not wanted training for testing Rolls Royce jet engines, because I worked on propulsion units at NASA...
You get the point. Your suggestions are pointless.
These riders need training to operate the most basic, basic palet truck. They need training to use a small ladder. They need training to drive, training to ride any form of motorcycle, training to hold up a stick and help kids cross a road......yet they need nothing to try and cycle on streets which have killed and continue to kill riders.
Many of them regularly try to put themselves under my wheels. I want them to stop doing that. That's all I want. How do we make that happen?
Watching the utter amazement on the faces of those riders shown videos of just how blind a blind spot can be on an HGV, for example, probably changed many riders habits and for all we know, saved a few lives; but they don't have to watch it..
Earlier in this thread we have an example of a death of a supposedly experienced rider who, for no reason I can fathom (apart from impatience or lack of understanding), put himself in an utterly ridiculous position and paid with his life. Why? As I child I wouldn't have done this. Perhaps that was due to the required cycling proficiency test? If you didn't have it, you couldn't ride to school. What do you need now? Just your iPod in many cases!
As I have said before, don't inform and train etc, it won't matter to me. I will keep on doing my best to save some of the idiots and the unwary and they can keep on becoming statistics until someone wakes up and says enough is enough.
walm said:
In fact, it's usually seen that it is of HUGE benefit to get drivers to see things from a cyclists point of view and putting them on a bike for a day has shown good results. e.g. Addison Lee and some haulage companies.
Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
I was told to look at the highway code for whatever reason, I simply suggested other road users could do the same. Why is that a bad idea? I was only responding to a point made on here.Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
Many of our drivers had to ride cycles. That, of course, was on top of all their other training (which is constantly ongoing even when they are qualified)
I would imagine 99% of cyclists have never sat in an HGV. Many no longer drive at all (or never learn), apparently.
But never mind - carry on the ranting based on nothing but your personal prejudice.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff