Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
shakotan said:
Sorry, I appear to have the wrong end of the stick, I thought the message was supposed to be to truck drivers that they should be aware of cyclists when turning left because they (apparently according to the film) can't see them in their mirrors.
If you're saying that its a message to cyclists not to ride up the inside of trucks, surely that's a message that doesn't need saying? I'm staggered anyone needs to be told that in the same vein that anyone needs to be told not to cross the street with your eyes closed.
If you're saying that its a message to cyclists not to ride up the inside of trucks, surely that's a message that doesn't need saying? I'm staggered anyone needs to be told that in the same vein that anyone needs to be told not to cross the street with your eyes closed.
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
An aware cyclist, filming some that aren't being so careful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE
okgo said:
GC8 said:
Yes - for the education of cyclists. It seems obvious to me too, but the majority of cyclists don't seem to be aware of the danger.
They clearly are or there would be hundreds dead on a weekly basis.They aren't, based on my experience.
There would not, don't be silly.
Now it may be that London (of which I have little experience, fortunately) has a larger percentage of serious and aware cyclists, but it will still have droves of the people whose behaviour I have described.
Edited by GC8 on Wednesday 21st January 14:54
I'm not aware of any evidence showing what proportion of these are caused by the cyclist going up the inside, and what proportion are "left hooks" by the driver.
What is clear is that trucks are over-represented in the stats for cyclist KSIs, so something about them is clearly much more dangerous than "normal" vehicles.
What is clear is that trucks are over-represented in the stats for cyclist KSIs, so something about them is clearly much more dangerous than "normal" vehicles.
Robb F said:
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
An aware cyclist, filming some that aren't being so careful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
An aware cyclist, filming some that aren't being so careful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE
The more I look at that video the more I see a carefully contrived giant mousetrapThe worst place to be around a truck is front left unless it's LHD. Think how much bonnet you can see through the windscreen on a car and then think how much of the road immediately in front of a truck can be seen
So the one place you dont want to be on a bike is front left.
Forward stop lines place cyclists in the danger zone
A nice piece of cylce lane where traffic turns left = danger zone
Paint the road a nice blue colour saying this is a safe place = danger zone
Psychology wear a cycling helmet and you'll be safe == > danger
The whole thing is acting as a trap for the unwary
Look at the body language from the female cyclist in the video
Do you think she has any idea where she's placing herself?
Would it be better to paint the whole road space left and front of the truck with orange hashing - 'enter at your peril' ?
(Not implying thats the arrangement in the opening post)
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 21st January 13:51
ManFromDelmonte said:
whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Nope, can't think of any. Not if you're riding as if you were part of the "real" traffic around you (which you are).If you're riding as if in a video game where getting to the end first wins you a prize; and being knocked off sees a magic sky crane come down and put you back on a restored bike with nothing but a time penalty; then I can see some times where jumping the red might be a good idea.
Any halfway fit pushbiker will out-accelerate most traffics' 1st gear from the lights, anyway.
And thunderthighs girl in the linked video actually made me shout at the screen, it was so dangerous.
Bus companies in London (and probably other cities) are aware of the idiot cyclists who ride down the left side as most buses have a sticker drawing cyclists attention to the dangers.
Cyclists in Tokyo share the pavement and it works well as they are considerate and don't expect to ride as if they are in the Tour de France.
It's well used phrase but for any road user it is better to be late in this life than early in the next.
Cyclists in Tokyo share the pavement and it works well as they are considerate and don't expect to ride as if they are in the Tour de France.
It's well used phrase but for any road user it is better to be late in this life than early in the next.
GC8 said:
okgo said:
GC8 said:
Yes - for the education of cyclists. It seems obvious to me too, but the majority of cyclists don't seem to be aware of the danger.
They clearly are or there would be hundreds dead on a weekly basis.They aren't, based on my experience.
There would not, don't be silly.
Now it may be that London (of which I have little experience, fortunately) has a larger percentage of serious and aware cyclists, but it will still have droves of the people whose behaviour I have described.
Don't drink and ride!
yonex said:
Where do it say immunity from being drunk or texting? Also if you had bothered to take a look at the infrastructure out there the 'why' would make more sense to you. The Netherlands is a happy place to work and live, I wonder how they have managed that...perhaps they are just less dense than the average UK driver?
Further information;
That appears to support immunity from causing an accident through being drunk or texting on a bicycle from a purely financial perspective. Smash yourself and your bicycle into a car whilst blind drunk or texting, and the drivers insurance is forced to to pay either half or all your damages, rather than the other way around. It's a completely backward law.Further information;
internet said:
A form of strict liability has been law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle accidents.[11] In a nutshell this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver's insurer is deemed to be liable to pay damages (n.b. motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) to the cyclist's property and their medical bills as long as 1) the cyclist did not intentionally crash into the motor vehicle, and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way.[11] If the cyclist was in error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages — though this doesn't apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages.[11] If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or his/her parents in the case of a minor.)[11]
defblade said:
ManFromDelmonte said:
whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Nope, can't think of any. Not if you're riding as if you were part of the "real" traffic around you (which you are).Do you take your chances that the truck driver has seen you and will let you go first or do you take your chance you'll out accelerate the truck and that you won't slip a gear etc.?
Me? I would move forward through the red light to give myself a clear view (and increase my chances of being seen by the driver) and, as soon as I could see it was clear I would go, thus giving me 3 or 4 seconds head start.
okgo said:
Blue Oval84 said:
Perhaps it's the cyclists that aren't fit to be on the road if they're so impatient that they'd rather put themselves in a dangerous blind spot than just hang back and wait a moment...
Isn't that just plain victim blaming?Mr2Mike said:
That appears to support immunity from causing an accident through being drunk or texting on a bicycle from a purely financial perspective. Smash yourself and your bicycle into a car whilst blind drunk or texting, and the drivers insurance is forced to to pay either half or all your damages, rather than the other way around. It's a completely backward law.
Funny, but I don't see many cyclists throwing themselves at cars so they can get the insurance money.As for financial justification, that's ironic considering many drivers and posters on this forum seem to justify their dangerous driving around cyclists by the fact that cyclists 'don't pay 'Road Tax''!
Why is the argument always about money, and buying the right to use the roads, instead of focussing on the fact that both cyclists and drivers have the same entitlement to use the roads?
Sure you can focus on isolated cases of morons both on bikes and in cars, which proves nothing, but the fact remains that around 75% of reported cycle accidents are caused by the driver of the motor vehicle involved.
Mr2Mike said:
No it's not, since the cyclist is likely not the only victim here (unless this was a genuinely homicidal truck driver).
I would imagine it will end up being that way when nothing happens to the driver. Same old.@ Hol - I've got tens of thousands of miles under my belt without incident in London, I am perfectly capable.
ManFromDelmonte said:
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Actually it is the same as doing it in a car.Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Highway Code said:
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
In either case, you are breaking the law.You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
emicen said:
ManFromDelmonte said:
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Actually it is the same as doing it in a car.Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Highway Code said:
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
In either case, you are breaking the law.You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
If cyclists aren't expected to move to the left of large vehicles at traffic lights, why are so many junctions with advanced stop boxes designed in such a way that positively encourages it?
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
An aware cyclist, filming some that aren't being so careful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE
I could film many scenarios exactly the same as this every day. Not one of them thought about the fact that the lorry might not be able to see them or why the guy with the camera wasn't shimmying up the inside! The first few are ok, they can get away from the lights quicker than the lorry, but the next few will not be able to get away and that's when we have issues when big vehicles can't see them!GC8 said:
Two points:
They aren't, based on my experience.
There would not, don't be silly.
Now it may be that London (of which I have little experience, fortunately) has a larger percentage of serious and aware cyclists, but it will still have droves of the people whose behaviour I have described.
A bit of info/context:They aren't, based on my experience.
There would not, don't be silly.
Now it may be that London (of which I have little experience, fortunately) has a larger percentage of serious and aware cyclists, but it will still have droves of the people whose behaviour I have described.
Edited by GC8 on Wednesday 21st January 14:54
Back in 2011, in London there were 570,000 cycle trips DAILY.
That figure will be significantly higher in 2015. In 2012, during commuting hours in the City of London, cyclists made up a THIRD of all traffic!
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/te...
As with the other modes of traffic, there are very many cycle commuters in London who do obey road rules and have good awareness of other vehicles (and their own mortality!). There are also d
heads - they ps off other cyclists as well as other road users. 
Magog said:
I think I'd rather break the law than be crushed under the wheels of an HGV.
If cyclists aren't expected to move to the left of large vehicles at traffic lights, why are so many junctions with advanced stop boxes designed in such a way that positively encourages it?
Yeah, if there's a choice between my safety and the law, my safety wins.If cyclists aren't expected to move to the left of large vehicles at traffic lights, why are so many junctions with advanced stop boxes designed in such a way that positively encourages it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff