Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
yellowjack said:
from... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
...out there still holding driving licences, cyclists really do need "eyes in the back of their heads"...
I follow a lot of petrolheads on instagram. Some are in here too, one even used to work on PH......out there still holding driving licences, cyclists really do need "eyes in the back of their heads"...
Daily there's posts taking photos from the drivers' seat. Some stationary, some on the move at the time. It's socially acceptable to do this..hopefully one day it won't be.
heebeegeetee said:
AyBee said:
You can be the cleverest person in the world and still not have any road sense,
Very true, and perhaps its best these people stay out of cars, but to my mind that doesn't mean they should get such little allocation of road space for their taxes.
AyBee said:
I guess the difference is that you can't get into a car without passing a number of tests, you also have a large metal box around you to shield you from most things, neither of which are of benefit on a bike. I cycle across that junction twice daily so I'm very familiar with it, it's busy, but it's perfectly safe provided you take account of what everything is doing around you.
Spacial awarenessThe thing is, there is a group of people who aren't very good at that, which is why it's important the road layout gives them some clue about what to do next
yellowjack said:
And while there are twunts like this idiot...
...out there still holding driving licences, cyclists really do need "eyes in the back of their heads"...
Ahem, I 'read' and 'send' text messages via Siri without lifting my hands from the wheel or diverting my eyes from the road, but you carry on hurling the insults as you are just obviously so clever cb1965 said:
I read and send texts all the time while driving and will continue to do so. Hope that cheers everyone up 
from... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a......out there still holding driving licences, cyclists really do need "eyes in the back of their heads"...
cb1965 said:
Ahem, I 'read' and 'send' text messages via Siri without lifting my hands from the wheel or diverting my eyes from the road, but you carry on hurling the insults as you are just obviously so clever
Proven to be more distracting than actually picking up the phone and making a call while driving. 
I'm not totally convinced you're old enough to drive. yellowjack said:
cb1965 said:
Moonhawk said:
It ends because there isn't enough room at the roundabout to accommodate the road lane and the cycle lane....seems like a pretty good reason to me.
Also - because it was the cycle lane that ended, the cyclist had to rejoin the main traffic lane - the onus is on the cyclists to ensure it is safe and that other road users are aware of their intention to do so as per HC rule 63:
"When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users."
I would treat the end of a cycle lane like the end of a normal traffic lane and merge with the traffic - I certainly wouldn't put myself alongside a large vehicle like a lorry. The cyclist behind the woman in this case clearly thought the same.
IMO - education is a big part of this. Cyclists (and pedestrians) are free to use the road without ever having had any formal training. Many won't even have picked up a copy of the highway code (which is crazy - considering it's free to view online). Whilst it wont prevent every incident (like it doesn't for vehicle drivers) - it may help to raise the general level of awareness.
IMO the HC should be taught at school. Schools teach the dangers of drugs, strangers etc, yet for kids aged 5-19, the biggest killer is road/transport accidents - but there is no mandatory education on how to use the roads safely either as a pedestrian or cyclist. Bonkers!
This ^^^^ 100% nail hit on head!Also - because it was the cycle lane that ended, the cyclist had to rejoin the main traffic lane - the onus is on the cyclists to ensure it is safe and that other road users are aware of their intention to do so as per HC rule 63:
"When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users."
I would treat the end of a cycle lane like the end of a normal traffic lane and merge with the traffic - I certainly wouldn't put myself alongside a large vehicle like a lorry. The cyclist behind the woman in this case clearly thought the same.
IMO - education is a big part of this. Cyclists (and pedestrians) are free to use the road without ever having had any formal training. Many won't even have picked up a copy of the highway code (which is crazy - considering it's free to view online). Whilst it wont prevent every incident (like it doesn't for vehicle drivers) - it may help to raise the general level of awareness.
IMO the HC should be taught at school. Schools teach the dangers of drugs, strangers etc, yet for kids aged 5-19, the biggest killer is road/transport accidents - but there is no mandatory education on how to use the roads safely either as a pedestrian or cyclist. Bonkers!
cb1965 said:
I read and send texts all the time while driving and will continue to do so. Hope that cheers everyone up
from... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a......out there still holding driving licences, cyclists really do need "eyes in the back of their heads"...
heebeegeetee said:
He's even written to his local paper... http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/yoursay/letters/1099677...
Any chance you can take your petty war to another thread and keep this thread about whats happening in London?saaby93 said:
heebeegeetee said:
He's even written to his local paper... http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/yoursay/letters/1099677...
Any chance you can take your petty war to another thread and keep this thread about whats happening in London?
te anyway.Insert Coin said:
Sorry for being a bit slow here,
Did she cycle up the inside of the wagon and he then moved across because he wasn't aware she was there?
Or did he pull alongside her and then close the gap forgetting she was there?
From the descriptions given in the various articles - it sounds like she was behind the wagon to start with - then came up the left side of the lorry as they both went into the pinch point. She ended up in the vicinity of the wagon's front wheel or just in front of it as both vehicles moved off the junction.Did she cycle up the inside of the wagon and he then moved across because he wasn't aware she was there?
Or did he pull alongside her and then close the gap forgetting she was there?
One witness statement apparently suggests the cyclist may have lost her balance and fell into the path of the lorry - which is easy enough to do if you lose your footing on the peddle or try to pull away in too high a gear.
djstevec said:
He told the Court he thought Miss Gemmill was in a "blind spot" and was riding her bike in an "absent-minded way".
Nothing new. It has been one of my arguments all along. Drivers trained up the arse, roads changed etc etc, yet riders wobble around and put themselves in danger because they can, for example, have their very first go on a bike in rush hour with no need to have ever sat on one.I'm not really interested in road layouts and dodgy cycle lanes any longer, it's becoming a boring excuse. You should be looking after yourself and not relying on such things when on a bike.
If you were to paint a cycle lane towards the edge of Beachy Head, I'm sure many would just blindly ride over it to their deaths.
She only had to look over her shoulder, or get off, or hold back etc and she would still be here. How do we make the likes of her react like the rider behind?
The same can be said for two other clips which were recently posted to show drivers in a negative light.
Yes, the drivers were idiots, but both incidents were avoidable if the riders had taken action beforehand.
saaby93 said:
AyBee said:
I guess the difference is that you can't get into a car without passing a number of tests, you also have a large metal box around you to shield you from most things, neither of which are of benefit on a bike. I cycle across that junction twice daily so I'm very familiar with it, it's busy, but it's perfectly safe provided you take account of what everything is doing around you.
Spacial awarenessThe thing is, there is a group of people who aren't very good at that, which is why it's important the road layout gives them some clue about what to do next
And those who aren't blessed with it naturally need training to learn it, just like they learn how to drive a car and deal with the environment that a car puts them in...Digby said:
I'm not really interested in road layouts and dodgy cycle lanes any longer, it's becoming a boring excuse. You should be looking after yourself and not relying on such things when on a bike.
It's both, though. Yes, you should take personal responsibility for your safety to the largest possible degree, that goes for any situation. But at the same time, roads should not be designed in such a way as to exacerbate the risk unnecessarily for no good reason, which I feel is somewhat the case at that roundabout. They have a cycle lane that ceases to exist just as you come up to a pinch point, which doesn't seem like the best idea. If they narrowed the pavement a little to make the traffic lane wider, with a reprofiled corner, perhaps it'd be safer.AyBee said:
And those who aren't blessed with it naturally need training to learn it, just like they learn how to drive a car and deal with the environment that a car puts them in...Even though I haven't owned a motorcycle for about 8 years - I still do lifesavers when changing lanes in the car. It was drilled into me during my motorcycle training so much so that I still do it automatically.
Highway code and cycling proficiency should be mandatory for all school kids. Why cant these things be taught as part of general studies? The roads are so pervasive in our society - it makes perfect sense to educate and train kids how to use them properly.
AyBee said:
And those who aren't blessed with it naturally need training to learn it, just like they learn how to drive a car and deal with the environment that a car puts them in...and you don't need to be able to parallel park to get on a bike!
ETA
With these deaths are we just seeing the outcome of when a particular type of person uses the roads with what all that entails? A different type of person wouldnt be in the same position
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 28th February 18:47
Digby said:
I'm not really interested in road layouts and dodgy cycle lanes any longer, it's becoming a boring excuse. You should be looking after yourself and not relying on such things when on a bike.
Ok, so we're back to all of those European countries which provide a lot more for cyclists, keep cyclist safer, keep people healthier (both physically and mentally) and reduce pollution etc etc have all got it wrong then. The Netherlands and Denmark etc are not nations decades ahead of us in terms of transport and wellbeing, they're in fact countries full of excuses.
Incredible.
Here we are in the UK, decades behind neighbouring countries in terms of transport, and yet we still have dinosaurs like Digby decrying what little bit of infrastructure we do offer.
Why don't we do away with all road safety then, forget airbags and seatbelts and the rest of it, and just tell people "be looking after yourself and not relying on such things". I mean forget all the accident statistics going back a century which clearly shows what happened when people did have to look after themselves
Jesus Christ.
I mean the mystery for me is why are we a nation of dinosaurs ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/... why are we decades behind other countries and why do we have so many Digbys who bitterly resent anyone else having a bit of road space - and why is it only cyclists who have to look after themselves, and not car occupants (who are provided with s
t loads of safety), pedestrians (twice as many of whom are being killed by HGVs apparently ( http://www.seemesaveme.org/ ) or motor cyclists (just as squishy and a far higher casualty rate)?I wonder when our transport system will make serious inroads into the second half of the 20th century?
Moonhawk said:
IroningMan said:
That's rubbish. Who has priority when the division between lanes ends?
As the cycle lane markings end - i'd say you are technically leaving a cycle lane and so rule 63 would apply.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff