Another cyclist dies in London

[Horse Pop]

okgo said:

We'll never know.

BUT considering there are cameras ALL over london I find it hard to believe they haven't got the whole thing on camera somewhere.

Well, I'm assuming the truck wouldn't see the cyclist and run them over to teach them a lesson so either they should have seen them and didn't or the cyclist was somewhere stupid when the truck turned.

[whysub]

thelawnet said:

Part of the driving test is hazard perception, and while it might be perfunctory, it does demonstrate the point that if there are deer/small children/ninja cyclists on the road, then as a motorist you CAN be trained in avoidance, rather than saying 'the deer need training' or whatever.

This wasn't part of the driving test when i took mine, but i imagine that my hazard perception after 40 years of driving is pretty much there.

You can make anything you want from statistics though...saying tipper trucks in London are more dangerously driven because they could be paid per load is a bit of a red herring. Are Londons black cabs driven more dangerously because their drivers are only paid when they have passengers on board? Statistics wont bear this out.

I really feel that cyclists (in particular those who want to ride on London's streets) should undertake some kind of basic training. On my ride to work (by motorbike) I see too many cyclists putting themselves in dangerous positions which i doubt they are even aware of. But if this training it is only voluntarily then it just wont happen. Making it compulsory would just be an administrative nightmare.

Although i doubt it will not stop some cyclists using the Limehouse Link Tunnel and A13 when there is a very good and SAFE cycle lane they can use (and yes, i have used it myself).

[okgo]

Horse Pop said:

Well, I'm assuming the truck wouldn't see the cyclist and run them over to teach them a lesson so either they should have seen them and didn't or the cyclist was somewhere stupid when the truck turned.

Well you know what they say about assumption...like you say I doubt he meant malice, but to assume is stupid...

I witnessed a driver swerve into a cyclist in Richmond Park on tuesday to teach him a lesson for pulling out of a junction in front of the car (there was ample time, and as soon as the car saw this, he accelerated towards the cyclist to close the gap). You think people in cars and trucks do not use their vehicles as extensions of their anger, you're totally wrong, they do.

[spikey78]

The idea that covering a lorry with sensors, bleepers, cameras, mirrors etc is totally flawed. A driver simply cannot check all this stuff, and look where he's going, watch for pedestrians, traffic lights, road signs and everything else. If a driver waited until all the blind spots were clear he would literally never move-as soon as one 'hazard' disappears that space will instantly be filled with another etc etc
London is probably exceptional in that a driver will have-at certain times of day-a constant stream of motorcyclists and pushbikes on either side of their vehicle. Even in a car in slow traffic my parking sensors are almost constantly bleeping because of bikes in squeezing past in close proximity. I try to give room, but I can't just disappear, plus I have to get where I'm going too..
How on earth large vehicles don't have more of these types of accident in these conditions is a credit to the drivers I think-its a shame they're often made out to be the problem because from what I see, daily, that isn't the case.

[walm]

We heard you the first time!

[Horse Pop]

okgo said:

Well you know what they say about assumption...like you say I doubt he meant malice, but to assume is stupid...

I witnessed a driver swerve into a cyclist in Richmond Park on tuesday to teach him a lesson for pulling out of a junction in front of the car (there was ample time, and as soon as the car saw this, he accelerated towards the cyclist to close the gap). You think people in cars and trucks do not use their vehicles as extensions of their anger, you're totally wrong, they do.

I'll concede it's a possibility, but not a probability.

[Johnnytheboy]

walm said:

The trouble is that defensive cycling is often seen as highly inconsiderate by most moron drivers.
The level of understanding of the importance of primary position for example is woeful.
Even the need to leave a very healthy gap when overtaking a parked car to avoid a dooring would be considered "selfish road hogging" by many.

All fascinating but of no bearing to the dangers of being next to tipper lorries.

[walm]

Johnnytheboy said:

All fascinating but of no bearing to the dangers of being next to tipper lorries.

Indeed. It had a bearing on the comment I quoted, which was moving the thread forward.

But we can go back to the dangers of being next to tipper lorries if you like.

[Johnnytheboy]

I was just wondering how the primary position would stop you going up the inside of a tipper lorry.

I suppose you'd go into the back of it instead.

[gazza285]

Johnnytheboy said:

I was just wondering how the primary position would stop you going up the inside of a tipper lorry.

I suppose you'd go into the back of it instead.

Or under the front of it, which has happened a few times...

[cheesesliceking]

heebeegeetee said:

I wouldn't let the lorry run over me,

kind of a daft thing to say fella, im sure the cyclist didnt think oh yeah go ahead and please run me over, i'll let you. No cyclist wants to get crushed by a tipper lorry.

[walm]

Johnnytheboy said:

I was just wondering how the primary position would stop you going up the inside of a tipper lorry.

Ah.
I think in this case if the road was really too narrow for both bike + truck, I would have made sure I could get right in front of the truck and proceeded to cycle right in the middle of the road (primary) in order to prevent him attempting to overtake.

More "considerate" cyclists don't want to hold people up like that and hence sometimes end up putting themselves in more danger.

[IroningMan]

walm said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I was just wondering how the primary position would stop you going up the inside of a tipper lorry.

Ah.
I think in this case if the road was really too narrow for both bike + truck, I would have made sure I could get right in front of the truck and proceeded to cycle right in the middle of the road (primary) in order to prevent him attempting to overtake.

More "considerate" cyclists don't want to hold people up like that and hence sometimes end up putting themselves in more danger.

Under those circumstances I suspect many on here would expect you to get off and get out of the way to let the more important road user past.

[heebeegeetee]

cheesesliceking said:

kind of a daft thing to say fella, im sure the cyclist didnt think oh yeah go ahead and please run me over, i'll let you. No cyclist wants to get crushed by a tipper lorry.

Then why don't the cyclists leave the deadly situation they are in, because I would.

I spent some 25 years as a lorry driver (i'm also a former cyclist, before anyone gets too excited) and a fact of life was that on every single journey I ever did countless motorists would do all they could to get themselves into a position where they are difficult or even impossible to see. It is something I never ever do.

It was a normal every day fact of life and it is stupid. Every single day countless people would place their lives into my hands and I feel they have no right to do so.

I'm not placing any blame here because we don't know the facts, but I am telling you that were I to find myself in a situation where I would think "if this lorry turns left I am dead" I would simply walk away, and wouldn't care if the bike came with me or not.

I'm just saying that I'm really surprised that cyclists still don't seem to be aware of the dangers they can find themselves in, after all this time and these utterly tragic deaths.

[speedking31]

heebeegeetee said:

If I found myself beside a tipper truck who I think might be turning left, I'd simply get off my bike and walk away.

In this tragic situation there was a substantial hoarding to the left of the cyclist and no pavement. Once she stopped at the lights there was simply no escape route available.

Having said that, the truck looks a long way out from the hoarding in the photos from the front.

It looks like a location where cyclists should be prohibited from using that part of the road. Note there is a sign telling pedestrians not to cross for this very reason.

[heebeegeetee]

speedking31 said:

n this tragic situation there was a substantial hoarding to the left of the cyclist and no pavement. Once she stopped at the lights there was simply no escape route available.

She can't drop the bike and walk off in the opposite direction? She can't get off her bike and just walk forwards?

I'm talking about staying alive here, not following rules or conventions.

[speedking31]

You're thinking that truck and cyclist are stationary alongside each other. Perhaps she was cycling round the corner on green with no visible truck and he turned the corner after her? That's why I think prohibiting cyclists from using this section would be a good move.

[aizvara]

heebeegeetee said:

She can't drop the bike and walk off in the opposite direction? She can't get off her bike and just walk forwards?

I'm talking about staying alive here, not following rules or conventions.

I had a coach turn left where I was already waiting to turn left - it pulled up ahead of me, on the far right side of the lane and blocked my view of oncoming cars. Before I had a chance to move forward to see, it was already turning.

I did get off my bike and climb up onto the pavement, but just in time. If there'd been any fence or hoardings, I've no idea where I could have gone to be safe - probably forwards as fast as I could in the hope that he saw me and there weren't any other dangers that the coach was obscuring.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

I spent some 25 years as a lorry driver (i'm also a former cyclist, before anyone gets too excited) and a fact of life was that on every single journey I ever did countless motorists would do all they could to get themselves into a position where they are difficult or even impossible to see. It is something I never ever do.

You imply they do it deliberately.

[RichB]

walm said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I was just wondering how the primary position would stop you going up the inside of a tipper lorry.

Ah. I think in this case if the road was really too narrow for both bike + truck, I would have made sure I could get right in front of the truck and proceeded to cycle right in the middle of the road (primary) in order to prevent him attempting to overtake..

Or not even get in front of the truck at all and simply wait behind until the traffic starts to move. Having grown up in London and cycled everywhere, including Hammersmith Broadway and Shepherds Bush I quickly learnt where to position myself on the road and that there's no point in getting in front of a LT bus or lorry.