Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[WinstonWolf]

hora said:

wsurfa said:

Perhaps you could aim your complaints at the authors of TRL PPR445 as that's the source. Have some more from the report below.

Thats a massive slice of the age range that WOULD be commuting at peak times isn't it? An almost 30yr span. Not rocket science.

I doubt you'd see huge numbers of men and women in their 50's still being able to cycle to work etc.

Ahem, I'm fifty next birthday

I cycled from Peterborough to Kings Cross four weeks ago, swam a mile before breakfast this morning and will be cycling eighteen miles home after work today...

Fifty is fk all if you look after yourself

[WinstonWolf]

hora said:

WinstonWolf said:

Ahem, I'm fifty next birthday

I cycled from Peterborough to Kings Cross four weeks ago, swam a mile before breakfast this morning and will be cycling eighteen miles home after work today...

Fifty is fk all if you look after yourself

Rare. I regularly ride off road with a 57yr old. Hes technically better than me, rare as as you get older you slow down/preserve yourself- he just seems to bloody rub it in that hes better than someone two decades younger.

We only do it to piss younger people off

The health benefits outweigh the risk, I fully intend to be cycling well into my dotage

[sparkyhx]

ignore me

[Vipers]

WinstonWolf said:

hora said:

WinstonWolf said:

Ahem, I'm fifty next birthday

I cycled from Peterborough to Kings Cross four weeks ago, swam a mile before breakfast this morning and will be cycling eighteen miles home after work today...

Fifty is fk all if you look after yourself

Rare. I regularly ride off road with a 57yr old. Hes technically better than me, rare as as you get older you slow down/preserve yourself- he just seems to bloody rub it in that hes better than someone two decades younger.

We only do it to piss younger people off

The health benefits outweigh the risk, I fully intend to be cycling well into my dotage

Dare I say I will be 68 crimbo, most days I get the MTB out and crank up 10 miles, not a lot, but keeps things fit. Getting difficult now that winter is upon us, but what a great day to start the day.

Fortunately I can cross the A90 and I am in the country side for the ride, no traffic, odd deer now and again.

[Mave]

sparkyhx said:

Mave said:

sparkyhx said:

Not exactly conclusive proof.

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

where have I said that?

YOU didn't, but if you go back and read through the history of the thread, that reference was cited in response to someone saying "cyclists are the main problem".

[Mave]

sparkyhx said:

Mr Gear said:

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.

how do you get that? I'm clearly giving examples of what I would consider to be Cyclist being a significant contributory factor to their own demise, and how they in theory may be classed as 'failed to look' as per the report.

You've come up with your own arbitary list of what might constitute "driver failing to look properly", here's an equally valid list based on real, recent incidents;

Driver pulled out of side turning into path of cyclist wearing high vis jacket, steady and flashing lights in daylight in good visibility
Driver pulled onto roundabout into path of cyclist already on roundabout in bright daylight
Driver turned across the path of cyclist wearing lights
Driver pulled onto dual carriageway from slip road directly into cyclist already established on dual carriageway
Driver took a late exit from dual carriaway directly into cyclist who had already exited dual carriageway
Criver drove into back of cyclist stationary at traffic lights

Are all of those the cyclist's fault too?

[surveyor]

Mave said:

sparkyhx said:

Mr Gear said:

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.

how do you get that? I'm clearly giving examples of what I would consider to be Cyclist being a significant contributory factor to their own demise, and how they in theory may be classed as 'failed to look' as per the report.

You've come up with your own arbitary list of what might constitute "driver failing to look properly", here's an equally valid list based on real, recent incidents;

Driver pulled out of side turning into path of cyclist wearing high vis jacket, steady and flashing lights in daylight in good visibility
Driver pulled onto roundabout into path of cyclist already on roundabout in bright daylight
Driver turned across the path of cyclist wearing lights
Driver pulled onto dual carriageway from slip road directly into cyclist already established on dual carriageway
Driver took a late exit from dual carriaway directly into cyclist who had already exited dual carriageway
Criver drove into back of cyclist stationary at traffic lights

Are all of those the cyclist's fault too?

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

As a cyclist it's very easy to be in the right and dead.

As you were....

[Mave]

surveyor said:

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

As a cyclist it's very easy to be in the right and dead.

As you were....

I thought you were debating who was at fault, not whether the cyclist should be cycling defensively?

[irocfan]

surveyor said:

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

As a cyclist it's very easy to be in the right and dead.

As you were....

it strikes me that there are a lot of people esp on PH who fill that description - sadly there also seem to be quite a few on PH who seem to want to help them achieve that unwanted loose double

[surveyor]

Mave said:

surveyor said:

I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

As a cyclist it's very easy to be in the right and dead.

As you were....

I thought you were debating who was at fault, not whether the cyclist should be cycling defensively?

Nope - just pointing out that there's not much benefit being in the right and dead.

[sparkyhx]

Mave said:

sparkyhx said:

Mr Gear said:

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.

how do you get that? I'm clearly giving examples of what I would consider to be Cyclist being a significant contributory factor to their own demise, and how they in theory may be classed as 'failed to look' as per the report.

You've come up with your own arbitary list of what might constitute "driver failing to look properly", here's an equally valid list based on real, recent incidents;

Driver pulled out of side turning into path of cyclist wearing high vis jacket, steady and flashing lights in daylight in good visibility
Driver pulled onto roundabout into path of cyclist already on roundabout in bright daylight
Driver turned across the path of cyclist wearing lights
Driver pulled onto dual carriageway from slip road directly into cyclist already established on dual carriageway
Driver took a late exit from dual carriaway directly into cyclist who had already exited dual carriageway
Criver drove into back of cyclist stationary at traffic lights

Are all of those the cyclist's fault too?

You are really missing the point - I cited the above cos there are two ways of looking at the cause. Unless the statisticians are clear about what constituted 'failed to look properly' its impossible to verify the 80% are car drivers fault.

in none of the above you cite, would I even begin to argue that the driver is not at fault.

Read the thread - This is all about challenging the 80% statistics of car drivers are at fault - not about blaming bikes.

[Mr Will]

sparkyhx said:

Read the thread - This is all about challenging the 80% statistics of car drivers are at fault - not about blaming bikes.

Go on then. Challenge it. Find some evidence.

Until you do, I'm going to trust that the police have a fairly good idea what constitutes "failing to look properly" and that it doesn't involve the cyclist doing something stupid (that would come under "both parties to blame").

By the way; you're going to need to cast doubt on an awful lot of cases to make a significant difference - changing that 80% to a 75% doesn't affect anything.

[Diderot]

wsurfa said:

saaby93 said:

Nice graph but it's based on each group adding up to 100%
It would be useful to see each group scaled by the percentage size of each age group - notice the age group sizes vary too
Or make each age group the same size and ahow actual numbers

Perhaps you could aim your complaints at the authors of TRL PPR445 as that's the source. Have some more from the report below.

Interesting graph but worth pointing out that the data are up to 9 years old, well before the onslaught of Wiggins-Tour-de-France-wannabees when numbers of cyclists blighting the roads seemed to quadruple overnight.

Would be more interesting and far more relevant to see some up to date figures so that more accurate conclusions could be drawn.

[Mave]

Ah, the irony. In studies into motorist / cyclist attitudes, a common conclusion is that cyclists are regarded as a minority "out" group compared with the dominant motorist "in" group. As a result, any minor transgressions by cyclists are vilified and assumed to be the behaviour of every cyclist, whilst transgressions by motorists are ignored. And due to confirmation bias, any evidence to support that viewpoint is assimilated and used to reinforce the opinion, whilst any evidence that rejects it is questioned, critiqued, scorned and ignored.

[sparkyhx]

Mr Will said:

sparkyhx said:

Read the thread - This is all about challenging the 80% statistics of car drivers are at fault - not about blaming bikes.

Go on then. Challenge it. Find some evidence.

Until you do, I'm going to trust that the police have a fairly good idea what constitutes "failing to look properly" and that it doesn't involve the cyclist doing something stupid (that would come under "both parties to blame").

By the way; you're going to need to cast doubt on an awful lot of cases to make a significant difference - changing that 80% to a 75% doesn't affect anything.

How can I challenge it effectively, the study doesn't state what constitutes 'failing to look properly'. You prove that its correct - you can't for the same reason.

[heebeegeetee]

And possibly instances such as the video in this thread shows how much drivers get away with. A clear case of dangerous driving but no prosecution. http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/video_dashboar...

[Mr Will]

sparkyhx said:

How can I challenge it effectively, the study doesn't state what constitutes 'failing to look properly'. You prove that its correct - you can't for the same reason.

"Failing to look properly" is one of the definitions that the police use during accident investigations. It's not been made up by the study.

[sparkyhx]

Mr Will said:

sparkyhx said:

How can I challenge it effectively, the study doesn't state what constitutes 'failing to look properly'. You prove that its correct - you can't for the same reason.

"Failing to look properly" is one of the definitions that the police use during accident investigations. It's not been made up by the study.

Jeezus I give up how many times do I have to repeat myself. - Nobody has said its been made up, I am simply enquiring after what is the definition of "failing to look properly". Pulling out of a junction in front of a cyclist is obviously "failure to look properly". but what if a cyclist comes up the inside of you when you turn left - is that the drivers fault or the cyclists fault?

Then I and everyone else would better understand the stats.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090417...

it doesn't cite the 'methodology'.

[Mave]

sparkyhx said:

Jeezus I give up how many times do I have to repeat myself. - Nobody has said its been made up, I am simply enquiring after what is the definition of "failing to look properly". Pulling out of a junction in front of a cyclist is obviously "failure to look properly". but what if a cyclist comes up the inside of you when you turn left - is that the drivers fault or the cyclists fault?

Presumably it's similar to DWDCA. There is no defined list of things you can be charged with DWDCA - it's just that you failed to meet the expected standard. For example if you turn left across a cycle path without indicating in clear daylight and hit a cyclist wearing high vis and lights you may be considered to have "not looked properly". If you were indicating and it was dark, raining, he was unlit and jumped off a pavement immediately before you turned, the judgement would probably be different.

[sparkyhx]

Mave said:

sparkyhx said:

Jeezus I give up how many times do I have to repeat myself. - Nobody has said its been made up, I am simply enquiring after what is the definition of "failing to look properly". Pulling out of a junction in front of a cyclist is obviously "failure to look properly". but what if a cyclist comes up the inside of you when you turn left - is that the drivers fault or the cyclists fault?

Presumably it's similar to DWDCA. There is no defined list of things you can be charged with DWDCA - it's just that you failed to meet the expected standard. For example if you turn left across a cycle path without indicating in clear daylight and hit a cyclist wearing high vis and lights you may be considered to have "not looked properly". If you were indicating and it was dark, raining, he was unlit and jumped off a pavement immediately before you turned, the judgement would probably be different.

Most of the deaths in central London appear to be lorries turning left with the cyclist on the inside of them, or turning right and the cyclist is overtaking, both of which I would say its a pretty big toss up who was at fault especially give the huge blind spots and height of lorries.

I need to look at the doc again cos its seems to suggest its closer to 60/40 between cyclist and drivers, but its not clear whether thats 60% of all accidents or 60% of all junction related accidents.

"A high proportion of collisions occurred at junctions; almost two-thirds of cyclists reported killed or seriously injured at or near junctions. 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. (60% reported)"

"Failure to look properly by the driver was attributed to 57% of cases and 43% attributed to the cyclist"
"Available sources fail to show whether drivers are looking and failing to notice cyclists or failing to look"

"HGVs present particular challenges for cyclists and are over-represented in cyclist fatalities (18% of fatal cycle accidents involved an HGV)
These accidents were more common at junctions where the main collision configuration was the HGV driver making a left turn while the cyclist was going ahead."

"Rural roads present particular challenges for cyclist with increased speed of traffic, no lighting, casualties increase in proportion with the posted speed limit. Close examination of the causes shows the cyclist was commonly hit from the rear" - (failure to look or failure to notice? I would suggest the latter)

Edited by sparkyhx on Monday 27th October 21:28