Another cyclist dies in London

[anonymous-user]

blugnu said:

Do you cycle?

Yes as has been mentioned several times, but only for exercise.

[SystemParanoia]

Digby said:

Mr Snrub said:

Mave said:

Mr Snrub said:

Yes but but but:

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

It's not defence, it's highlighting that it's not cyclists vs motorists, it's stupid vs not so stupid. Approximately half the population have got a less than average IQ...

It's the deflection of responsibility. There are certain people on here who just refuse to accept cyclists can be responsible and will always just turn it back on someone else.

I think the point is, you should save such comments for the 'Another driver dies in London' thread.

This is about riders and what can be done to stop them riding as they do in the video.

And who are the posters refusing to accept riders can be responsible etc?

What an absurd notion.

How about this ?

( http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lorry-driver... )

[C70R]

Digby said:

This is about riders and what can be done to stop them riding as they do in the video.

Is it?

[SystemParanoia]

C70R said:

Digby said:

This is about riders and what can be done to stop them riding as they do in the video.

Is it?

What planet are you on Digby ?

[Digby]

Sorry, what are you asking me?

[Mave]

Mr Snrub said:

Mave said:

Mr Snrub said:

Yes but but but:

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

It's not defence, it's highlighting that it's not cyclists vs motorists, it's stupid vs not so stupid. Approximately half the population have got a less than average IQ...

It's the deflection of responsibility. There are certain people on here who just refuse to accept cyclists can be responsible and will always just turn it back on someone else.

Deflection of responsibility? The "defence" comments you listed are typically in response to a motorist deflecting responsibility onto cyclists! It's always "what should THEY be doing differently" rather than "what should WE be doing differently" - if that's not deflection of responsibility then I don't know what is...

[Digby]

SystemParanoia said:

What planet are you on Digby ?

A concerned one.

[Mave]

Digby said:

This is about riders and what can be done to stop them riding as they do in the video.

I thought it was about stopping them getting killed?

[Mr Snrub]

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snrub said:

It's the deflection of responsibility. There are certain people on here who just refuse to accept cyclists can be responsible and will always just turn it back on someone else.

You couldn't be further from the truth.

It's the nonsense that too many motorists come out with, along with their dire lack of knowledge of the law and highway code, coupled with the very firm belief that cyclists should behave differently from everybody else in society, which they never will for obvious reasons.

If you want deflection of responsibility though, how about Digby's very accurate description of the difficulties of using a vehicle which is so unfit for purpose that the driver can not see clearly, meaning the vehicle obviously can not be operated safely enough. When these vehicles crush people, it's the victims fault for not knowing that the driver can not see.

That's not a problem for someone like me who has driven them, I know just how bad they can be for visibility (and the average driver won't have a clue just how bad they can be) but I don't think you should die just because you didn't have some particular knowledge about a particular vehicle. However, if you choose to take a vehicle with restricted visibility into an an area where traffic is pretty intense, perhaps the operator of that vehicle should be asked to take responsibility for his vehicle if things go wrong?

Thanks for proving my point by immediately turning it back to all the things drivers do wrong. It can't be the cyclists fault, they can't be expected to know about blind spots.

[Digby]

Mave said:

I thought it was about stopping them getting killed?

It is.

Any ideas?

[Mave]

Digby said:

Mave said:

I thought it was about stopping them getting killed?

It is.

Any ideas?

1) stop talking about what cyclists should be doing and start talking about what everyone should be doing
2) a LOT more public safety type adverts / campaigns.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Snrub said:

Thanks for proving my point by immediately turning it back to all the things drivers do wrong. It can't be the cyclists fault, they can't be expected to know about blind spots.

Do you realistically expect that all cyclists will know about blind spots, indeed do you think most people know that you can lawfully use a vehicle of which a driver can not see clearly out of?

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snrub said:

Thanks for proving my point by immediately turning it back to all the things drivers do wrong. It can't be the cyclists fault, they can't be expected to know about blind spots.

Do you realistically expect that all cyclists will know about blind spots, indeed do you think most people know that you can lawfully use a vehicle of which a driver can not see clearly out of?

Isn't that all vehicles - Even cars have blind spots you know
And in a car even with mirrors you cant look everywhere at once, neither can you on a bike with or without mirrors

[Digby]

Mave said:

1) stop talking about what cyclists should be doing and start talking about what everyone should be doing
2) a LOT more public safety type adverts / campaigns.

Well, given most of the deaths relate to HGVs in these topics, should we start by listing what is now required of an HGV and its driver in relation to cycle safety and then list what is required of a rider?

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

That would be talking about what everyone should be doing.

I agree with point 2 completely.

[Mr Snrub]

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snrub said:

Thanks for proving my point by immediately turning it back to all the things drivers do wrong. It can't be the cyclists fault, they can't be expected to know about blind spots.

Do you realistically expect that all cyclists will know about blind spots, indeed do you think most people know that you can lawfully use a vehicle of which a driver can not see clearly out of?

You're always very quick to remind us that 80% of them hold a driving licence, so yes they should.

[Moonhawk]

heebeegeetee said:

When these vehicles crush people, it's the victims fault for not knowing that the driver can not see.

That's not a problem for someone like me who has driven them, I know just how bad they can be for visibility (and the average driver won't have a clue just how bad they can be) but I don't think you should die just because you didn't have some particular knowledge about a particular vehicle.

You don't need 'particular knowledge about a particular vehicle'.

If you are approaching a vehicle from behind and/or are trying to squeeze up the inside or outside - the safest bet is to assume they haven't seen you (or at the very least - don't assume they have).

You can easily apply this approach to any vehicle type - thus negating the need for 'particular knowledge'.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

Well, given most of the deaths relate to HGVs in these topics, should we start by listing what is now required of an HGV and its driver in relation to cycle safety and then list what is required of a rider?

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

No!

How could you even think that? Have you gone completely mad?

Look, the situation is really easy to understand: It is what it is, and in relation to the cyclists, it ain't going to change. And you're going to get ever more cyclists on the roads too.

Don't like it? Then don't drive. It really is that simple.

[Moonhawk]

blugnu said:

I wonder if there are any clips on youtube showing people driving badly, which could be used to support the notion that all drivers are useless?

Nobody is suggesting all cyclists are useless - but the ones that ride as they do in that video are, I suspect, far more likely to be the ones injured and/or killed.

Also it's exactly posts like this that cause these threads to descend into a cyclist vs driver slanging match.

Is it not possible to acknowledge that some cyclists behave irresponsibly and dangerously and try to address that issue (and save lives in the process) - without having to point out the fact that some drivers behave irresponsibly and dangerously too.

[blugnu]

Moonhawk said:

Nobody is suggesting all cyclists are useless

Moonhawk said:

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.

But having said that you are suggesting it's a significant number.

[danllama]

I think we should all, as in the entire population, accept that some people on bikes will die every year on British roads, and there's not really much we can do to stop that, beyond what we're already doing.

Ultimately, it's personal responsibility that will keep you alive. Your safety is not somebody else's responsibility.

Saying that, i'm going to start cycling to work again this month after a two year hiatus. 13 miles from home to work in Bermondsey. Really looking forward to it!