Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[Foppo]

What is wrong with proper cycle lanes Steve.Works ok in other countries?

When I visit my brother in Assen N/Lands we often go for a cycle ride.The cycle lanes are used by the majority of cyclist and feel safe.They aren't the lines painted on the road which we have here.

[Harji]

heebeegeetee said:

Harji said:

That's a poor excuse, what if a child slips into the road? You going to use that as an excuse ?

Well that's a point, and I'm going to make the point that when road users (whoever they are) choose to dick about in the rear-nearside area of an hgv then they are a distraction to the driver and should a child (or anyone else) slip into an area on the offside they can be struck because a driver can't look on both sides at once.

Driving a car is easy - you can monitor all windows and mirrors that you need to by no more than minor movements of head and eyes and with peripheral vision.

In a truck the width of the cab makes this impossible. If a driver is distracted by somebody moving alongside the nearside rear wheels then he can't be looking forward nor checking the offside at the same time. I think it should be recognised that by choosing to move into the rear/nearside area of an hgv then you are distracting the driver and should take some consequences of doing that - though preferably not death.

But surely you must check when making a left turn? Which is what seems to be the problem most of the time. As for driving a car, judging by what I see when I cycle most people seem to think it's optional to use mirrors and indicators, as well as being woeful judges of distances and gaps.

I'll state what i said before, due to popularity of cycling (and yes, more people will do it and enjoy it, it's not a fad), why not ban HGV's in peak AM hours? Society will not collapse, the govt will not fall, we will not be invaded. Drivers can use the road more efficiently, cyclists feel safer. It's a quick and simple solution. In the meantime we can then sort out the road infrastructure.

[KrazyIvan]

Mr Gear said:

Why did you try and turn across them? Why not just wait?

That's some really stty driving right there.

mybe I am not reading Bob's comment correctly, but he has not turned across them. He's passed them, and is a 100yrds in front when he's slowed down, they then unsafely pass an indicating vehicle that is turning left on its left. That to me would be the cyclists not riding in a manner conducive to their own safety.

[heebeegeetee]

Harji said:

1. But surely you must check when making a left turn? Which is what seems to be the problem most of the time. As for driving a car, judging by what I see when I cycle most people seem to think it's optional to use mirrors and indicators, as well as being woeful judges of distances and gaps.

I'll state what i said before, due to popularity of cycling (and yes, more people will do it and enjoy it, it's not a fad), why not ban HGV's in peak AM hours? Society will not collapse, the govt will not fall, we will not be invaded. Drivers can use the road more efficiently, cyclists feel safer. It's a quick and simple solution. In the meantime we can then sort out the road infrastructure.

1. Of course people check when turning left. Why they don't always see is another matter.

2. I think there's awful lot wrong with this statement. Firstly, I think there is in fact a fraction of the numbers of cyclists on UKs roads compared back to the 50s, 60s and 70s but the numbers of hgvs is the same. We didn't used to hear of these stories and I'm surprised why we hear of them now. Has something changed, or has nothing changed but for some reason we're now being informed of these accidents more?

Why not ban hgvs in peak am hours? Firstly, has any off these accidents happened at that time? Secondly, given that the uk has never invested properly and there has always been a chronic shortage of hgv parking, where would you actually put all the trucks? You would have to build an awful of of space (unless you want to just park them by the side of the road). But why change? Thirdly, does London have peak hours? I recall walking in London at 3am a coupl;e of years back and was amazed at how busy the roads still were. As it is now though Society does not collapse, the govt will not fall, we will not be invaded, but I do know that every single effort to increase road space in my lifetime has only resulted in more cars taking to the roads.

There may be reasons to 'ban hgvs', but to do it because of the popularity of cycling? Do me a favour!

[biscione]

Really hate threads like this.

They pretty much always turn into a slagging much. FFS someone died here! None of us know the real reasons behind the death, it's all speculation.

There are bad drivers and bad cyclists. The end!

[paranoid airbag]

KrazyIvan said:

mybe I am not reading Bob's comment correctly, but he has not turned across them. He's passed them, and is a 100yrds in front when he's slowed down, they then unsafely pass an indicating vehicle that is turning left on its left. That to me would be the cyclists not riding in a manner conducive to their own safety.

Interesting, I must try this "I am indicating and therefore am not at fault" approach on a motorway sometime.

'Tard. He's not driving in a manner conducive to safety, until he does we'll continue to get and deserve progressively sttier driving laws. You're not arguing cyclists should be responsible, you're arguing he shouldn't be.

[heebeegeetee]

KrazyIvan said:

mybe I am not reading Bob's comment correctly, but he has not turned across them. He's passed them, and is a 100yrds in front when he's slowed down, they then unsafely pass an indicating vehicle that is turning left on its left. That to me would be the cyclists not riding in a manner conducive to their own safety.

It sounded to me that he attempted to cross their lane right in front of them. The cyclists had priority and Bob was required to give way imo.

[The Vambo]

heebeegeetee said:

There may be reasons to 'ban hgvs', but to do it because of the popularity of cycling? Do me a favour!

Mandatory training and licensing for cyclists and more specific cyclist awareness training as part of standard LGV/PCV testing.

People advocating any sort of bans are just lazily passing the buck.

[SteveSteveson]

Foppo said:

What is wrong with proper cycle lanes Steve.Works ok in other countries?

When I visit my brother in Assen N/Lands we often go for a cycle ride.The cycle lanes are used by the majority of cyclist and feel safe.They aren't the lines painted on the road which we have here.

Many things. They do work well in other countries, but you can't transport that to the UK automatically. In the UK, because they are tiny and painted at the side of the road the encourage stupid behavior, like undertaking cars and lorries that are turning, rather than going round the outside. I assume in the Netherlands they are much better than in the UK and cyclists are much more likely to want to ride and understand the road rules. They education about safe riding needs to come first.

They do work in some places, but mostly they just encourage dangerous behavior, either cycling too fast when they are mixed pedestrian ones, or making many cyclists think they should undertake where there is no cycle lane.

To work they need a complete re-think, along with education, and not try and introduce something that works in other countries automatically. We have different roads and different issues.

Edited by SteveSteveson on Tuesday 21st October 16:44

[paranoid airbag]

dacouch said:

9mm said:

London drivers may be a bit mad but it's rare to see one haring up a one way street, completely ignoring traffic signals or alternating between pavement and road. All are commonplace among cyclists and would be witnessed just about anywhere in the city within a few minutes. I'm surprised more cyclists aren't killed to be honest.

I take it you've not driven in East London lol

Any UK city really... there really should be some sort of license to drive. Clearly we don't have one currently, because our number plates ensure anyone driving like a div is dealth with, no?

That said, I can sympathise with HGV drivers on this. It is very worrying how often it's tipper trucks as opposed to general HGVs though - basic logic says either cyclists decide to be particularly stupid around tippers, tippers are particularly dangerous, or they're most often operated badly. Neither of the first two sound likely.

[Mr Gear]

heebeegeetee said:

KrazyIvan said:

mybe I am not reading Bob's comment correctly, but he has not turned across them. He's passed them, and is a 100yrds in front when he's slowed down, they then unsafely pass an indicating vehicle that is turning left on its left. That to me would be the cyclists not riding in a manner conducive to their own safety.

It sounded to me that he attempted to cross their lane right in front of them. The cyclists had priority and Bob was required to give way imo.

That's how it reads to me too. Half-baked, badly conceived overtake that causes a problem.

This is a great example of how people can get run over by vehicles turning left without doing much wrong themselves.

[NWTony]

paranoid airbag said:

Interesting, I must try this "I am indicating and therefore am not at fault" approach on a motorway sometime.

'Tard. He's not driving in a manner conducive to safety, until he does we'll continue to get and deserve progressively sttier driving laws. You're not arguing cyclists should be responsible, you're arguing he shouldn't be.

I really shoudn't get involved in cycling threads, it always ends up in slagging matches...

However, he (the car driver) is ahead of the cyclist, he has indicated he intends to run left at the next junction and the cyclists decide to pass him on the left,a cross the junction he is turning into?

I don't see how this is the drivers fault as it stands? If the cyclists wanted to pass the turning car they should do it on the right of the car like every other vehicle surely?

Have I misunderstood something?

Edit:- By analogy, if the car was indicating right and I decided to pass the car on the right across the jucntion it was turning into and it sideswiped me, would that be my fault as the overtaker or his fault as the turner? By my reckoning, the fault would mine?

Edited by NWTony on Tuesday 21st October 17:04

[The Vambo]

NWTony said:

I really shoudn't get involved in cycling threads, it always ends up in slagging matches...

However, he (the car driver) is ahead of the cyclist, he has indicated he intends to run left at the next junction and the cyclists decide to pass him on the left,a cross the junction he is turning into?

I don't see how this is the drivers fault as it stands? If the cyclists wanted to pass the turning car they should do it on the right of the car like every other vehicle surely?

Have I misunderstood something?

Edit:- By analogy, if the car was indicating right and I decided to pass the car on the right across the jucntion it was turning into and it sideswiped me, would that be my fault as the overtaker or his fault as the turner? By my reckoning, the fault would mine?

Edited by NWTony on Tuesday 21st October 17:04

You and your analogy are correct

Being "ahead" on the road, no matter how you got there, gives right of way.

[Mr Gear]

The Vambo said:

You and your analogy are correct

Being "ahead" on the road, no matter how you got there, gives right of way.

Even if you haven't actually got past the person you are overtaking?

You have to ask yourself what the point is in even attempting to overtake if you and the cyclist end at the junction at the same anyway.

[heebeegeetee]

The Vambo said:

You and your analogy are correct

Being "ahead" on the road, no matter how you got there, gives right of way.

The cycles were in a cycle lane. Bob wanted to cross the cycle lane. The cycles had priority over Bob, is how it sounds to me.

Bob had just overtaken them and then thought they should stop, so why overtake in the first place?

[Fugazi]

Mr Gear said:

You have to ask yourself what the point is in even attempting to overtake if you and the cyclist end at the junction at the same anyway.

Because 'must get in front of cyclist'

[heebeegeetee]

SteveSteveson said:

We have different roads and different issues.

Edited by SteveSteveson on Tuesday 21st October 16:44

I totally disagree. They have (or had) the same roads as us, the same congestion, the same weather and the same type of people. Holland might be a bit flatter but the rest of Europe isn't.

The cyclists themselves are a bit different - hardly any of them use the forward-stance road-race bike or mountain bike, they all use bikes actually suitable for road use and sit bolt upright.

I've just spent a few days in a town in Germany. They do not have the degree of separation that they do in Holland thus there are far fewer cyclists than Holland, but still a greater number than you'd see in a similar town in the UK.

I'm gonna say: same roads, same traffic, same cars, same hgvs, same people, similar cyclists (still riding through red lights and riding on the pavement) same weather, same topography;

There was less aggression, more bells, no daft clothing, no hi-vis, hardly any helmets and more trailers with kids in. Hardly anyone uses bikes that leans the rider forward putting weight on wrists and hands. Gorgeous, demure girls cycle in their normal, fashionable clothing with their long tresses hanging vertically down their backs. I noticed these things.

There is *no* reason why we can't have the same facilities for cyclists over here, absolutely no reason at all. The *only* thing lacking is the will to do it. People over here are worse off: we have less freedom, less fresh air, worse health, more obesity, less social cohesion... I'd say everything is worse and nothing is better by us providing virtually nothing meaningful for cyclists.

[Harji]

heebeegeetee said:

Harji said:

1. But surely you must check when making a left turn? Which is what seems to be the problem most of the time. As for driving a car, judging by what I see when I cycle most people seem to think it's optional to use mirrors and indicators, as well as being woeful judges of distances and gaps.

I'll state what i said before, due to popularity of cycling (and yes, more people will do it and enjoy it, it's not a fad), why not ban HGV's in peak AM hours? Society will not collapse, the govt will not fall, we will not be invaded. Drivers can use the road more efficiently, cyclists feel safer. It's a quick and simple solution. In the meantime we can then sort out the road infrastructure.

1. Of course people check when turning left. Why they don't always see is another matter.

2. I think there's awful lot wrong with this statement. Firstly, I think there is in fact a fraction of the numbers of cyclists on UKs roads compared back to the 50s, 60s and 70s but the numbers of hgvs is the same. We didn't used to hear of these stories and I'm surprised why we hear of them now. Has something changed, or has nothing changed but for some reason we're now being informed of these accidents more?

Why not ban hgvs in peak am hours? Firstly, has any off these accidents happened at that time? Secondly, given that the uk has never invested properly and there has always been a chronic shortage of hgv parking, where would you actually put all the trucks? You would have to build an awful of of space (unless you want to just park them by the side of the road). But why change? Thirdly, does London have peak hours? I recall walking in London at 3am a coupl;e of years back and was amazed at how busy the roads still were. As it is now though Society does not collapse, the govt will not fall, we will not be invaded, but I do know that every single effort to increase road space in my lifetime has only resulted in more cars taking to the roads.

There may be reasons to 'ban hgvs', but to do it because of the popularity of cycling? Do me a favour!

Less heavy vehicles on the road is always a good thing right? Protecting cyclists is a good thing right? I didn't say because of popularity. I'm sure most other road users wouldn't mind seeing HGV's off the roads in AM peak hours. Yes I agree more cars may use the roads, but where I live in London, there are not many work places that accommodate them so there may not be a great change , I can see what you suggest happening in other places though.

As for the HGV's,they are parked somewhere, it just means a more flexible approach to deliveries and duties. We don't really think outside of the norm in this country, it's why we lag behind other European countries that we should be on par with (Denmark, Germany, Holland) with regards to road quality, building and provision for cyclists.

My wife is scared to cycle the roads here, but recently did two hours on a Sedgeway in Cologne or Berlin, she felt at ease and safe. Also you have to keep both hands on the Sedgeway, so no signalling with your arms at junctions and there are no indicators, so all drivers anticipated if you were turning and adjusted to it when approaching junctions. Totally unlike here where I sometimes think we are the most selfish society in the world.

[The Vambo]

Mr Gear said:

The Vambo said:

You and your analogy are correct

Being "ahead" on the road, no matter how you got there, gives right of way.

Even if you haven't actually got past the person you are overtaking?

If you haven't actually got past the person you are overtaking then you aren't actually ahead, are you?

[Mr Gear]

Fugazi said:

Mr Gear said:

You have to ask yourself what the point is in even attempting to overtake if you and the cyclist end at the junction at the same anyway.

Because 'must get in front of cyclist'

Apologies, that came out garbled on my phone for some reason, but you get what i meant.