Another cyclist dies in London

[Devil2575]

ZX10R NIN said:

I agree it would be hard to police at first but it would get better & easier, but if cyclists don't want change then why campaign for special treatment from the Authorities? Cyclists want to be seen as equals but don't want registration or training, at which point you lose my view that you should be treated as an equal.

Helmets should be compulsory (if a motorcyclist had a crash at 15-20mph & suffered a major head injury a lot of people would be saying he should have been wearing one) & if you're not wearing one you should be fined.

Because it is in the governments interests not too. Doing something that discourages cycling is a bad idea. Cyclist don't pollute, don't damage or wear infrastructure, don't cause congestio, are far less likely to injur other road users and on average less,likely to place a financial burden on the health service. Mandatory testing and registration is a complete non starter.

[Mr Gear]

BGarside said:

Dammit said:

How much good would a polystyrene hat do when you are crushed by an HGV?

Might it not be an idea to address the source of the danger, rather than the distraction of what headgear the victim should wear?

+1. The emphasis always seems to be on how the vulnerable road user should attempt to protect themselves from tons of speeding metal (which, let's face it, isn't really possible), not how the drivers of those tons of speeding metal should drive with more care and consideration for the vulnerable road users.

We're all human beings, after all, and all of our lives have value, don't they? Why do people in the UK find it so hard to show some respect for the lives of other road users?

And that is a full and total summary of the situation as far as I am concerned.

[anonymous-user]

+1 away from bravado and BS the hard facts are that people are just careless and don't have respect for others on the road. The UK is up there with the worst I have seen. It's all 'fk them/him/her' until you kill someone's father, mother, son, daughter yourself.

It'll ibly get better with more education and heavier legislation.

[ZX10R NIN]

saaby93 said:

Dammit said:

How much good would a polystyrene hat do when you are crushed by an HGV?

Might it not be an idea to address the source of the danger, rather than the distraction of what headgear the victim should wear?

No not that either
You need to look at what we all do and why we take the risk of going out rather than staying at home
What's leading to these collisions? Are there common factors
eg Are we making trucks look too friendly and comforting?
If they had great big teeth and roared would we give them more respect?

12 cyclists died on London's roads, 22 motorcyclists died in the same period now how many more might have passed away if they weren't wearing a crash helmet, but I don't agree with that either as I said integration & better road planning are the major things that need changing.

I agree no amount of body Armour will protect you from a Truck but it will help if you get knocked off & bounced your head off a curb or any other form of architecture.

I was responding to the guy who posted that when cyclists wear a crash helmet it makes them more aware that cycling can be dangerous, hence the reason for me saying that maybe wearing a helmet should be compulsory.
From what I've read so far cyclists don't want training you don't want registration or legislation but you want a cycle super highway.

Going by that premise motorcyclists should be first in line to get special motorbike only lanes.

The trucks are just part of the problem cyclists were killed by buses to, do you want those banned? Are they idiot bus drivers?

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Friday 10th April 21:07

[ZX10R NIN]

Devil2575 said:

Because it is in the governments interests not too. Doing something that discourages cycling is a bad idea. Cyclist don't pollute, don't damage or wear infrastructure, don't cause congestio, are far less likely to injur other road users and on average less,likely to place a financial burden on the health service. Mandatory testing and registration is a complete non starter.

Why wouldn't you encourage safety I agree that they don't pollute but cycling, but Motorcycles don't cause congestion either. I was knocked off of my motorbike by a cyclist jumping a red light, so yes cyclists can cause injury & accidents.

[saaby93]

ZX10R NIN said:

12 cyclists died on London's roads, 22 motorcyclists died in the same period

and more pedestrians
I shouldnt have picked up on the helmet thing - it's been discussed at length in other forums and I dont think anyone knows or is suggesting that the cyclists here have or havent been wearing a helment or whether it's led to more risky behaviour by the cyclist or the truck driver.
Nor are we talking about the one example of an idiot truck driver driving through a red light and taking out a cyclist.

What we're talking about is ordinary every day cyclists and truck drivers coming together in an unfavourable way to the cyclist, and the driver wont be too happy about it either.
I dont think weve seen one yet where blame has been apportioned to the truck driver - or necessarily to the cyclist.
What's leading to these collisions? Lets not forget road design may be playing some part?
And as youve said keep it in perspective. There are higher rates for pedestrians and bikers.

[mygoldfishbowl]

JQ said:

The difference is that research has proved that cycling extends life, and that imposing restrictions has a more negative impact on life expectancy than the status quo. It's therefore not a no brainer to introduce registration, and one of the reasons helmets are not compulsory. I'd also dread to think how many £billions our government could waste on such scheme, which realistically could never be policed.

Agree with you other comments though, particularly with regard to integration.

Absolute nonsense.

The difference is research has shown that exercise may extend your life.

Exercise may extend life.
Eating fruit daily may extend life.
Low fat diet may extend your life.

None of which are conducive to cycling.

[Mave]

ZX10R NIN said:

Cyclists want to be seen as equals but don't want registration or training, at which point you lose my view that you should be treated as an equal.

Do you really think that cyclist registration and training is the best way to make cycling equally as safe as driving for the cyclist, and equally as dangerous to 3rd parties?

[JQ]

ZX10R NIN said:

Devil2575 said:

Because it is in the governments interests not too. Doing something that discourages cycling is a bad idea. Cyclist don't pollute, don't damage or wear infrastructure, don't cause congestio, are far less likely to injur other road users and on average less,likely to place a financial burden on the health service. Mandatory testing and registration is a complete non starter.

Why wouldn't you encourage safety I agree that they don't pollute but cycling, but Motorcycles don't cause congestion either. I was knocked off of my motorbike by a cyclist jumping a red light, so yes cyclists can cause injury & accidents.

The point is that placing restrictions on cycling reduces safety, as more people will die as a result. I realise that seems illogical, as I regularly see suicidal cyclists, but that's the reality. Motorcycling is not healthy, cycling is.

I'd genuinely be interested to know the stats on damage caused by cyclists. All I know is that my 3rd party insurance is free, which would lead me to believe that the damage I'm likely to cause is pretty minimal. I've been knocked off my bike 3 times, of those, 2 of them have been by pedestrians. Should peds be licensed and tested as a result?

[mygoldfishbowl]

Mave said:

Do you really think that cyclist registration and training is the best way to make cycling equally as safe as driving for the cyclist, and equally as dangerous to 3rd parties?

Cycling will never be as safe, not now not ever. Why is it that no one gets that? Let's encourage people to take their life in their hands because green, It's absolutely crazy.

[JQ]

mygoldfishbowl said:

JQ said:

The difference is that research has proved that cycling extends life, and that imposing restrictions has a more negative impact on life expectancy than the status quo. It's therefore not a no brainer to introduce registration, and one of the reasons helmets are not compulsory. I'd also dread to think how many £billions our government could waste on such scheme, which realistically could never be policed.

Agree with you other comments though, particularly with regard to integration.

Absolute nonsense.

The difference is research has shown that exercise may extend your life.

Exercise may extend life.
Eating fruit daily may extend life.
Low fat diet may extend your life.

None of which are conducive to cycling.

And smoking is good for you and helps you lose weight

[daytona365]

Cycling will never be safe in the overpopulated hell hole of London. Fact.

[JQ]

daytona365 said:

Cycling will never be safe in the overpopulated hell hole of London. Fact.

Driving will never be safe in the overpopulated hell hole of London. Fact.

Motorcycling will never be safe in the overpopulated hell hole of London. Fact.

Walking will never be safe in the overpopulated hell hole of London. Fact.

Breathing will never be safe in the overpopulated hell hole of London. Fact.

[daytona365]

Exactly right, you beat me to it. But in the Yorkshire dales, Dorset villages, Snowdonia, or the Trosachs in Scotland ? Well, you can have your cake and eat it........Until ultimately those places are ruined as well !

[mygoldfishbowl]

JQ said:

And smoking is good for you and helps you lose weight

Worked for my dad.

You missed the point there a little bit.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Friday 10th April 22:54

[JQ]

mygoldfishbowl said:

JQ said:

And smoking is good for you and helps you lose weight

Worked for my dad.

As a result, do you believe my statement to be true?

[gazza285]

ZX10R NIN said:

12 cyclists died on London's roads, 22 motorcyclists died in the same period...

If the cyclists need compulsory training and helmets forced upon them, should the motorcyclists have to have more compulsory training and bigger helmets then?

Biggest problem I see whenever I go into London is the fact that everybody drives and rides like complete cocks, whatever their choice of transport.

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

If the cyclists need compulsory training and helmets forced upon them, should the motorcyclists have to have more compulsory training and bigger helmets then?

Biggest problem I see whenever I go into London is the fact that everybody drives and rides like complete cocks, whatever their choice of transport.

They just have had a harder test actually & motorcycle crash helmets are much stronger than push bike ones & are attributed to a large decrease in head traumas.

[Nickyboy]

GC8 said:

It is the vehicle type which seems to be the issue, by virtue of its lack of side guards, rather than 'tipper drivers', although I am aware of the stereotype and I too am less than impressed with a lot of the 'muck shifter' types.

Side guards have nothing to do with this accident whatsoever.

The fact the bike is under the front wheel means the woman was knocked off her bike by the front corner of the truck so side guards would have done sweet FA. They won't stop a cyclist going under the wheels of a truck they'll push the cyclist over and they'll end up under the rear wheels the same way.

Demanding trucks are fitted with them is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is caused by a multitude of reasons.

Until Boris and his flunkies understand you can't eradicate an issue by targeting one of many causes they will still happen.

Edited by Nickyboy on Saturday 11th April 15:31

[gazza285]

ZX10R NIN said:

gazza285 said:

If the cyclists need compulsory training and helmets forced upon them, should the motorcyclists have to have more compulsory training and bigger helmets then?

Biggest problem I see whenever I go into London is the fact that everybody drives and rides like complete cocks, whatever their choice of transport.

They just have had a harder test actually & motorcycle crash helmets are much stronger than push bike ones & are attributed to a large decrease in head traumas.

But are the tests hard enough? Are the helmets heavy enough? Perhaps we can make the tests so hard and the helmets so heavy that it would discourage people from riding motorcycles and make them drive much safer cars, a bit like compulsory helmets and training for cyclists would do. Then we could all be safe together.