Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[v12Legs]

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

Here: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-b...
And: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...

And furthermore, "risky" cycling accounts for a tiny % of cyclist KSIs, so even if all cyclists magically behaved perfectly, it wouldn't have much impact: http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casua...

Why are cyclists being held to a higher standard than drivers?

[WinstonWolf]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Oldandslow said:

The evidence would be that which is smeared all over the wheels of the truck.

The "don't go up the inside of large vehicles at junctions" info campaign has been going for 25 years that I remember. If you aint got that message yet you are dumber than mud.

is it just possible that she was in front of the truck, he didn't see her and ran her over, ie she did nothing wrong?
is that not a possibility in your world?

From the pictures this junction appears to be a pinch point? If it is they're lethal to cyclists who don't adopt the primary position when using them.

[sparkyhx]

The Vambo said:

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

I think the document reference is TRL PPR 445

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at
junctions).

Not exactly conclusive proof. Define how have they classed 'failed to look properly'

Dark and cyclist no lights/dressed in dark clothes - failed to look properly
coming up the inside of you when you're turning left - failed to look properly
overtaking when you're turning right - failed to look
cyclist falls out of the sky and lands in front of you - failed to look properly

TBH I would class all those as the cyclists fault.

Its impossible to look everywhere your attention is focused on the main risk areas. you can look left and someone will appear on the outside of you look right.you get the idea. London is just a nightmare with all the cyclists

[wolves_wanderer]

sparkyhx said:

The Vambo said:

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

I think the document reference is TRL PPR 445

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at
junctions).

Not exactly conclusive proof. Define how have they classed 'failed to look properly'

Dark and cyclist no lights/dressed in dark clothes - failed to look properly
coming up the inside of you when you're turning left - failed to look properly
overtaking when you're turning right - failed to look
cyclist falls out of the sky and lands in front of you - failed to look properly

TBH I would class all those as the cyclists fault.

Its impossible to look everywhere your attention is focused on the main risk areas. you can look left and someone will appear on the outside of you look right.you get the idea. London is just a nightmare with all the cyclists

What exactly would be conclusive proof for you, given that a Department for Transport report apparently isn't?

[Mr Will]

sparkyhx said:

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at
junctions).

Not exactly conclusive proof. Define how have they classed 'failed to look properly'

Dark and cyclist no lights/dressed in dark clothes - failed to look properly
coming up the inside of you when you're turning left - failed to look properly
overtaking when you're turning right - failed to look
cyclist falls out of the sky and lands in front of you - failed to look properly

TBH I would class all those as the cyclists fault.

Its impossible to look everywhere your attention is focused on the main risk areas. you can look left and someone will appear on the outside of you look right.you get the idea. London is just a nightmare with all the cyclists

Any evidence at all for that, or are the all just wild hypotheses?

[heebeegeetee]

wolves_wanderer said:

What exactly would be conclusive proof for you, given that a Department for Transport report apparently isn't?

Prosecution of the driver.

[wolves_wanderer]

heebeegeetee said:

wolves_wanderer said:

What exactly would be conclusive proof for you, given that a Department for Transport report apparently isn't?

Prosecution of the driver.

why?

[Andehh]

Mave said:

What evidence to do you have that this cyclist was not abiding by the rules of the road, and was riding dangerously?

She died, he wasn't arrested? As grim as it is, I'd say the evidence speaks for itself...

[Mr Will]

Andehh said:

Mave said:

What evidence to do you have that this cyclist was not abiding by the rules of the road, and was riding dangerously?

She died, he wasn't arrested? As grim as it is, I'd say the evidence speaks for itself...

Why would they need to arrest him at this point? They'll investigate first and the arrest and prosecute if required.

[Mave]

sparkyhx said:

Not exactly conclusive proof.

Somewhat more conclusive and independent than some bloke on the internet saying "cyclists are the main problem"

[irocfan]

interestingly a mate of mine used to drive tipper trucks in London - TBH from some of the tales I've heard it seems a miracle that more cyclists aren't killed on the roads. That's not to say that all tipper drivers are angels - we know they're not, heading out east sometimes you wonder how on earth they've still got licences......

[SteveSteveson]

Tipper drivers are mental. Some of the maneuvers I see cyclists taking round them in Oxford scare the hell out of me. I'm surprised there are not more accidents involving tippers and cyclists.

[Mr Gear]

sparkyhx said:

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at
junctions).

Not exactly conclusive proof. Define how have they classed 'failed to look properly'

Dark and cyclist no lights/dressed in dark clothes - failed to look properly
coming up the inside of you when you're turning left - failed to look properly
overtaking when you're turning right - failed to look
cyclist falls out of the sky and lands in front of you - failed to look properly

TBH I would class all those as the cyclists fault.

Its impossible to look everywhere your attention is focused on the main risk areas. you can look left and someone will appear on the outside of you look right.you get the idea. London is just a nightmare with all the cyclists

sounds like driving isn't really for you if you find it that hard do safely.

[v12Legs]

Mr Gear said:

sounds like driving isn't really for you if you find it that hard do safely.

Weird isn't it, how all these people find cyclists a "nightmare" and difficult to drive safely around.

I've been driving for 20 years, including London, and I don't think I've ever had a problem with a cyclist, even the unobservant crap ones. Maybe I'm just lucky.

[Hackney]

Mave said:

Hackney said:

Define "safe".
And if your definition involves, "when there is a suitable gap between cyclists" then I'm afraid "safe" will never happen.

Well then you just have to carry on waiting! Consider the analogies I suggested, would you pull out from behind a 50mph lorry into the path of a 70mph overtaking car, or woukd you carry on waiting for a gap irrespective of how long you'd been baulked?

In your example I'd still be making progress even if I stayed where I was, rather than being stationery in the middle of the road as bikes and cars swarm past me.
I'll answer it for you, you have to risk pissing off the cyclists with no road sense in order to get out of the way of everyone.

[Mr Will]

Hackney said:

Mave said:

Hackney said:

Define "safe".
And if your definition involves, "when there is a suitable gap between cyclists" then I'm afraid "safe" will never happen.

Well then you just have to carry on waiting! Consider the analogies I suggested, would you pull out from behind a 50mph lorry into the path of a 70mph overtaking car, or woukd you carry on waiting for a gap irrespective of how long you'd been baulked?

In your example I'd still be making progress even if I stayed where I was, rather than being stationery in the middle of the road as bikes and cars swarm past me.
I'll answer it for you, you have to risk pissing off the cyclists with no road sense in order to get out of the way of everyone.

Okay, try this example: Stuck a bus in one of those stupid lane-blocking bus stops in the left hand lane of a two lane road with a line of 30mph traffic in the right hand lane.

Alternatively; stuck in the right hand lane trying to turn left across a bus lane when there is a line of buses and taxis passing in it.

Is it okay to force your way out in either scenario?

[Mad Jock]

Swimmer goes out to swim in shark infested waters.

Swimmer gets eaten by shark.

Shark blamed for swimmers death.

[swisstoni]

L

SteveSteveson said:

Tipper drivers are mental. Some of the maneuvers I see cyclists taking round them in Oxford scare the hell out of me. I'm surprised there are not more accidents involving tippers and cyclists.

If they are paid by the load, that needs to be stopped. Things are bad enough without them being on a mission as well.

[Digby]

Mr Gear said:

Digby said:

You do like I do most days; you stop, start, move an inch, brake, move a foot, brake, flit your eyes from mirror to mirror constantly, move a foot, scan the mirrors again, look out of the window, scan again, scan again, move a few feet, scan again, look out of the window, look over your shoulder, move and brake, move and brake, move and scan, move and scan and scan and scan and scan and scan and move and scan and move.........then get called a wker.

And you wonder why some people think: "this is bullst, I'm going to cycle"?

So they can avoid all the scanning, braking, need for mirrors and looking over shoulders, presumably?

I was talking about the circumstances mentioned when you are surrounded by cycles and they just keep coming.

[Mr Gear]

Digby said:

So they can avoid all the scanning, braking, need for mirrors and looking over shoulders, presumably?

I was talking about the circumstances mentioned when you are surrounded by cycles and they just keep coming.

I suggest then that you have a little cry about on the internet.