Another cyclist dies in London

[InitialDave]

Terzo123 said:

That's the point. We should look at what we can do to save more life's. That means looking at all options. Certain people aren't willing to do that.

That's your point. That's my point. That's a lot of people's point over the last few pages...

[IroningMan]

InitialDave said:

bobmoore said:

No, I asked how a shoulder check would have helped. You're at the lights. You do a shoulder check. There's a truck behind you. I do that every time I'm at the lights. So, the truck's behind you. You've done the shoulder check. Now what?

You shoulder check again. You see the truck's getting closer because the driver's not paying attention. You remove yourself from the danger area. You live.

Sadly not applicable.

The truck is actually coming to a stop behind you at the same lights. When they go green it pulls away faster than you and kills you. The driver didn't notice that you were waiting at the lights when he pulled up.

I wish I were making this up.

[RicharDC5]

Digby said:

swisstoni said:

I grew up in London. Hardly anyone cycled on the quiet side streets let alone on main roads.
That was quite a long time ago. Even then, it was recognised that cycling wasn't a great idea on the busy routes.
In fact it would have been regarded as a bizarre commuting method given the massive public transport options.

What changed?

Governments scared of pollution figures due to telling us all to buy a diesel?

Probably more to do with congestion charging, traffic jams and government encouragement.

[IroningMan]

Digby said:

Brian Dorling: Mr Dowling was found to have been partly responsible for his own death due to riding through the red light.

Svetlana Tereschenko: The police investigation concluded that Ms Tereschenko had placed her bike in the lorry's blindspot and that as the lorry turned she moved further in to the blindspot.

Deep Lee: The boyfriend of a young cyclist killed by a tipper truck shared an emotional hug with its driver at an inquest after both told the court they were victims of poor road layouts and transport policy.

Andrew McNicoll: Prosecutors alleged Mr Stewart overtook Mr McNicoll, of Balerno, at an unsafe point in the road and that a trailer that was attached to his vehicle came into contact with the bike rider. A 'tragic accident' rather than a criminal act"

Would Daniel Cox still be here had he observed the road was no right turn, so the truck would most likely have to turn left?

Would they still be here had they used more caution?


It's easy to pass blame. The problem is, someone is always going to end up under a blanket and it won't ever be the driver.

I know road design gets blamed a great deal, but would you not be more careful around badly designed roads when on a bike, at least for now?

Could you not get off and move if unsure? Maybe not use the ASL, hang back, keep looking behind etc, etc?

It may not protect you from a drunk driver with no brakes, it may not protect you from someone with a flawless driving record and a bike friendly vehicle, either, but would it have helped in the above situations?

Or do we just have to accept these things are going to happen no matter what and as a result, rider behaviour around either the best or worst drivers our roads has to offer needs to change?

Is it an attitude thing?

If you can't stop the "I didn't see you" types, what are the best options to avoid the blanket?

Should they do away with ASL's?

Would training help in any form?


I don't know...I just know it's tragic and in many cases, completely avoidable.

Getting cowboy HGV operators off the road would account for a substantial percentage.

Either removing ASL boxes or enforcing them might make a difference.

I like cycling proficiency as part of the driving test, but that won't change anything very quickly.

Low-level/high vision truck cabs will help, and they're coming, but again not very quickly.

Changing cycle lane routing or HGV routing at problem junctions might make a difference.

More policing of behaviour on the roads would make a difference - whether it's close passes, left hooks, RLJs or dumb riding around HGVs.

A disproportionate number of cycle fatalities do seem to be the result of appalling driving by criminal assholes with no VED, no insurance, no licence and endless strings of bans etc - but maybe it's not disproportionate at all, maybe there really are that many of those s out there.

[saaby93]

bobmoore said:

saaby93 said:

As for the guy Digby and Bobm are talking about
The little reporting I'd seen said that he was using the road ( ok he could have used one of those useless cycle paths that stop at very junction)

No he could not. You'll have to find something else to criticise the victim for.

Thanks for quoting half what I said, then arguing something I hadnt done.

If youre really trying to improve safety there's no point point making up half truths, step back a bit and work out what's actually happening

[InitialDave]

IroningMan said:

Sadly not applicable.

The truck is actually coming to a stop behind you at the same lights. When they go green it pulls away faster than you and kills you. The driver didn't notice that you were waiting at the lights when he pulled up.

I wish I were making this up.

No, that's fair enough, I wasn't suggesting it was a universal panacea.

[ZX10R NIN]

Digby said:

Governments scared of pollution figures due to telling us all to buy a diesel?

Look it's been proved that diesels are not the only reason for the air quality in London, the number of traffic lights speed humps (in the very place that could really have an effect on your air quality) the lowering of speed limits the number of apartments being built with no increase in infrastructure to support the extra people the cut throughs being closed off & last but far from least the reduction in carriageway space by 1/3 to private vehicles since the Mayoral system came into place.

Remove that lot & lets see how the air quality I've said it on other threads get on your politicians/councilors case before blaming the motorist who's at the end of these vote chasing policies & get them to think long term which might get us a proper effective roads policy for all rather than letting them get off scot free by infighting amongst ourselves.

[Type R Tom]

ZX10R NIN said:

Digby said:

Governments scared of pollution figures due to telling us all to buy a diesel?

Look it's been proved that diesels are not the only reason for the air quality in London, the number of traffic lights speed humps (in the very place that could really have an effect on your air quality) the lowering of speed limits the number of apartments being built with no increase in infrastructure to support the extra people the cut throughs being closed off & last but far from least the reduction in carriageway space by 1/3 to private vehicles since the Mayoral system came into place.

Remove that lot & lets see how the air quality I've said it on other threads get on your politicians/councilors case before blaming the motorist who's at the end of these vote chasing policies & get them to think long term which might get us a proper effective roads policy for all rather than letting them get off scot free by infighting amongst ourselves.

That's rather daft mate, who do you think lobbied the Cllr for the speed bumps, road closures etc? It will be the locals that live there who don't want cars "speeding" past their house!

Also, have you got any reports on air quality due to traffic calming etc? I could do with a read.

[ZX10R NIN]

There's a long & boring report about it, I was watching Auto Mundial who dedicated 12 minutes to it.

It (it wasn't london specific it was covering major european cities & the whole environmental impact of current policies) explained that having speed humps on side roads promoted bad air quality after testing it on a roads with & without. Obviously slowing down & speeding on the same road up puts all vehicles in an inefficient state vs a vehicle driving at 30mph (both petrol & diesel)

It suggested a removal of humps replaced with up to three crossing points on a street which would help towards.

The conclusion was that banning one particular vehicle would only make a small overall impact on the environment but a bigger effect could be had by doing the above as all vehicles have be they EV/ICE all have an environmental impact of similar levels.

For example Speed humps = worse tyre/suspension wear broken springs etc.

I was surprised when watching but it makes sense the better traffic flows the less pollution in general they'll be, there will always be hot spots (Regent St for example) but if you want to show concern for the your environment it seems you need to look at all of the factors not just one particular bit.

[bobmoore]

saaby93 said:

Thanks for quoting half what I said, then arguing something I hadnt done.

If youre really trying to improve safety there's no point point making up half truths, step back a bit and work out what's actually happening

Sorry, you said he could have used the cycle lane. He couldn't. It was closed:

[Mandat]

bobmoore said:

Sorry, you said he could have used the cycle lane. He couldn't. It was closed:

What does the partly obscured red sign in the background say?

It looks like "cyclists dismount and use footway"? Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Pretty sobering advice in light of the events that followed.

[InitialDave]

Mandat said:

What does the partly obscured red sign in the background say?

It looks like "cyclists dismount and use footway"? Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Pretty sobering advice in light of the events that followed.

To be fair, that sign would be specifically for the cyclepath, to indicate that the closure renders it out of use, and thus the route provided around the roadworks is only a footpath, so you should dismount and walk.

You would also be able to use the road, riding your bike, that's a separate thing.

[Digby]

Mandat said:

What does the partly obscured red sign in the background say?

It looks like "cyclists dismount and use footway"? Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Pretty sobering advice in light of the events that followed.

Wasting your time. Troll-Bob didn't answer me when I asked the same question a few pages back.

He has appeared to stir st up, nothing more. Look at his posts so far.

Contradictory, confused, accusatory, forum baiting bks

He's doing the same in the other cycle thread.

[Digby]

IroningMan said:

Getting cowboy HGV operators off the road would account for a substantial percentage.

I worked with several Russian, Kosovan & Romanians several years ago and they all suggested you can simply buy your HGV licence if you know people back home.

Worrying, huh?

[bobmoore]

The cycle lane is closed for 400 metres. You can't use it.

[bobmoore]

InitialDave said:

To be fair, that sign would be specifically for the cyclepath, to indicate that the closure renders it out of use, and thus the route provided around the roadworks is only a footpath, so you should dismount and walk.

You would also be able to use the road, riding your bike, that's a separate thing.

Those signs are advisory, anyone who ignores them is doing nothing wrong. They cause loads of confusion and are not approved by TFL any more:

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/cycl...

The reason is that sometimes people see those signs and think "Anyone who uses the road can be killed with immunity". There really are people that stupid.

[bobmoore]

Mandat said:

What does the partly obscured red sign in the background say?

It looks like "cyclists dismount and use footway"? Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Pretty sobering advice in light of the events that followed.

Why do you think that sign has anything to do with the road?

[DoubleD]

Ha ha another classic post from Bob. He really is rather funny.

[bobmoore]

DoubleD said:

Ha ha another classic post from Bob. He really is rather funny.

Do you think the sign applies to the road?

[DoubleD]

bobmoore said:

DoubleD said:

Ha ha another classic post from Bob. He really is rather funny.

Do you think the sign applies to the road?

I think that you are funny.