Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
InitialDave said:
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.
So you look, like the guy behind did and don't use it when there is a truck there etc.How much more simple can it be?
swisstoni said:
popeyewhite said:
heebeegeetee said:
Here we are in the UK, decades behind neighbouring countries in terms of transport,
How's that then?IroningMan said:
What makes you assume that it's the cycle lane that's ending? The markings would be the same if it was the other lane that ended there, surely?
I'm not assuming anything.The Cycle lane surface is painted and it has symbols on it to demark it as a cycle lane - the main carriageway is not specifically marked as such.
The cycle lane painted surface and symbols end along with the solid white line - ergo - it is the cycle lane that has ended.
Digby said:
InitialDave said:
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.
So you look, like the guy behind did and don't use it when there is a truck there etc.How much more simple can it be?
To the simple person not trained in these matters, ok the solid white line has stopped, does that mean anything? there are plenty of white zigzag lines instead but there's nothing to say you cant carry on as normal up the inside of traffic.
What's to tell them that the traffic has to move over left because of that centre ollard?
What you really need there is merge in turn so the bikes take it in turn with cars and trucks but would the simple person know that?
Likely not - hence part of this thread
saaby93 said:
t's only simple if you know whats going on
To the simple person not trained in these matters, ok the solid white line has stopped, does that mean anything? there are plenty of white zigzag lines instead but there's nothing to say you cant carry on as normal up the inside of traffic.
What's to tell them that the traffic has to move over left because of that centre ollard?
What you really need there is merge in turn so the bikes take it in turn with cars and trucks but would the simple person know that?
Likely not - hence part of this thread
No, what you NEED there is cyclists who are road aware, aware of the rules of the road and the FACT that they can die really easy when cycling on the roads if they do not know the rules that everybody in the big metal things have to follow.To the simple person not trained in these matters, ok the solid white line has stopped, does that mean anything? there are plenty of white zigzag lines instead but there's nothing to say you cant carry on as normal up the inside of traffic.
What's to tell them that the traffic has to move over left because of that centre ollard?
What you really need there is merge in turn so the bikes take it in turn with cars and trucks but would the simple person know that?
Likely not - hence part of this thread
Training ....
Digby said:
So you look, like the guy behind did and don't use it when there is a truck there etc.
How much more simple can it be?
I don't disagree on that part. I would do that, but I'm pretty experienced and aware of the need to do so, as was the guy behind her.How much more simple can it be?
What I'm saying is that there's no reason to have a road layout that makes it worse if people don't.
saaby93 said:
t's only simple if you know whats going on
Why don't they know what's going on? It's hardly Hampton Court Maze.Why do some riders stop and some continue?
How does someone in this thread manage to use that junction ok along with thousands of others?
Does this explain some of the riding I see so often?
People honestly have no clue as to how to keep themselves safe?
These questions and many others will be answered on the next episode of.....Soap.
Digby said:
saaby93 said:
It's only simple if you know whats going on
Why don't they know what's going on? It's hardly Hampton Court Maze.Why do some riders stop and some continue?
How does someone in this thread manage to use that junction ok along with thousands of others?
Does this explain some of the riding I see so often?
People honestly have no clue as to how to keep themselves safe?
These questions and many others will be answered on the next episode of.....Soap.
Ok plan A was to ban ASLs to prevent the knowledgable cyclists thinking it a good idea to get forward into them, and those not quite sure what to do ending up being stuck alongside trucks etc
If the next plan is to ban everyone going up the inside of anything because although many know what theyre doing, there are enough who dont realise how it could end up.
Or is the failure rate acceptable so that the number of users of all means can carry on as they are?
Question for the truckers. Is it impossible to fit a couple of mirrors to give visibility from the front wheel along the side of the vehicle. In addition to the main mirror.
So any cyclists would be seen before the truck moved off in the event they have sneaked up the inside.
Or do some trucks have this already.
So any cyclists would be seen before the truck moved off in the event they have sneaked up the inside.
Or do some trucks have this already.
Vipers said:
Question for the truckers. Is it impossible to fit a couple of mirrors to give visibility from the front wheel along the side of the vehicle. In addition to the main mirror.
So any cyclists would be seen before the truck moved off in the event they have sneaked up the inside.
Or do some trucks have this already.
There are mirrors for pretty much every angle of the truck already, the biggest issue is having to check all of them and where you are going simultaneously and then the mirrors cause blind spots as well.So any cyclists would be seen before the truck moved off in the event they have sneaked up the inside.
Or do some trucks have this already.
Cameras and screen perhaps, but then you have the issue of looking at the screens and where you are going.
Vipers said:
Question for the truckers. Is it impossible to fit a couple of mirrors to give visibility from the front wheel along the side of the vehicle. In addition to the main mirror.
So any cyclists would be seen before the truck moved off in the event they have sneaked up the inside.
Or do some trucks have this already.
The majority of vehicles will have two mirrors similar to what you are suggesting (required by law) and numerous others will have a Fresnel lens on the passenger window (20k of these given out free in the SE)So any cyclists would be seen before the truck moved off in the event they have sneaked up the inside.
Or do some trucks have this already.
Problem is, you have to be looking in them at the exact right moment.
And whilst checking those, what about the other four or five mirrors?
What about the proximity sensors going ballistic?
What about the rear camera being filled with a view of riders?
How do you keep track of them all? Where are they going? After your approx 20 second thorough check of all mirrors, how many have moved when you look back to the first mirror? Where did they go? Have any more appeared since you last looked? Do you check all the mirrors again and then again and then again for several minutes? And after that several minutes?
The simple answer is, you can't always keep track and a single rider is easy to miss no matter how many mirrors.
If you look in such mirrors and the coast is clear, how do you pull onto the junction in question without then looking right?
You can't.
If all riders understood that even when seen, they are not always being watched and that often, they may not have been seen at all, I think we would see less incidents.
That said, some of the riskiest manoeuvres I see do not appear to come from riders uneasily wobbling their way around the streets; rather they come from those who never want to be held up and will do absolutely anything to make that happen. Their confidence makes them some of the hardest to keep track of and predict in terms of movements.
Digby said:
That said, some of the riskiest manoeuvres I see do not appear to come from riders uneasily wobbling their way around the streets; rather they come from those who never want to be held up and will do absolutely anything to make that happen. Their confidence makes them some of the hardest to keep track of and predict in terms of movements.
Case in point - quite a few in this video - but the one at 1:49 stands out. The BMW was signalling for a full 8 seconds with nothing around him before starting to make his turn - but two cyclists appeared from behind the motorcycle and tried to cut across it's path.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYOz86G_oYU
All this for what - just so they don't have to slow down a bit?
This could have ended far worse than it did.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 28th February 22:09
Moonhawk said:
Case in point - quite a few in this video - but the one at 1:49 stands out. The BMW was signalling for a full 8 seconds with nothing around him before starting to make his turn - but two cyclists still cut across it's path.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYOz86G_oYU
Easy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYOz86G_oYU
The cyclists were in lane. The BMW was turning across the lane so had to give way to the cyclists.
All the same if you were a car in that lane, wouldnt you let the car across?
saaby93 said:
asy
The cyclists were in lane. The BMW was turning across the lane so had to give way to the cyclists.
All the same if you were a car in that lane, wouldnt you let the car across?
The BMW did give way.The cyclists were in lane. The BMW was turning across the lane so had to give way to the cyclists.
All the same if you were a car in that lane, wouldnt you let the car across?
The point is however that the BMW gave plenty of signal as it his intention - and had no choice but to cross the bus lane to go into the garage. The cyclists could have held back like the motorcyclist did - but instead chose to overtake (and undertake) the motorcycle and then proceed to cut across the path of the BMW.
The first cyclist actually changes lanes (without signalling) to attempt an undertake of the BMW and was not in the bus lane when he first appeared on the video.
There was no reason for the cyclists to come into conflict with the BMW like they did (or each other for that matter - the second cyclist actually makes contact in his haste to try and beat the BMW). The cyclists precipitated that incident because nothing but their lack of patience.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 28th February 22:25
Moonhawk said:
There was no reason for the cyclists to come into conflict like they did - they precipitated that incident because nothing but their lack of patience.
or because they just don't know about anticipationMaybe every other time that's happened the BMW has stayed where it is
saaby93 said:
or because they just don't know about anticipation
Maybe every other time that's happened the BMW has stayed where it is
Well - as far as the second cyclist was concerned - the BMW had already started to make it's turn before they appeared on camera - so i'd say it's intentions were pretty clear by that point.Maybe every other time that's happened the BMW has stayed where it is
Even after the first cyclist had pretty much stopped - the second still carried on regardless and almost took out the first cyclist in the process.
Sums it up. 1000 times a day, all day, every day..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtV51NUtg4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtV51NUtg4Y
Edited by Digby on Tuesday 28th February 22:41
Digby said:
Anybody who asks the question why so many cyclists get killed on the roads of London should be shown that video.Bonkers behaviour and based on my own personal experience of working in London and visiting it quite often - these are not rare or isolated incidents.
Moonhawk said:
Digby said:
Anybody who asks the question why so many cyclists get killed on the roads of London should be shown that video.Bonkers behaviour and based on my own personal experience of working in London and visiting it quite often - these are not rare or isolated incidents.
I saw a driver do it one
Amsterdam
Picture of a badly thought out cycle lane
Obese car drivers
80% hold a driving licence
Drivers should have anticipated it
Highway code section 356 point 76 paragraph 4636 says it's only advice not the law
there, saved the usual defence of such things
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff