Another cyclist dies in London

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

Why would I pay £80 for insurance, what brought you to that figure?

As for the raised pavements, I've already explained why they wouldn't work.

Side skirts on skip and tipper lorries would be a better start than a massive and useless pavement building campaign.

I did say a maximum of £80 I'm sure it could be done for less, I think it's a simple but effective idea.

[ZX10R NIN]

AyBee said:

Yes, they're suggestions, but ridiculous ones that will never work. I have as much right to be on the road as you do in your car or on your motorbike!

I have never said you shouldn't be on the road but next to the motorcyclist you're the most vulnerable unlike a motorcyclist you don't wear protective clothing you don't have the opportunity to be able to accelerate out of danger.

So the suggestion of raising your cycle lanes to pavement(now remember this would be an actual loss of tarmac from the car's buses & trucks) level where you the cyclist can ride your bike more safely is ridiculous is it?

You would rather have your cycle lanes mixing with the same cars buses & trucks that are injuring you? Rather than at pavement level where the worst that could happen is you have an accident with a pedestrian.

[ZX10R NIN]

AyBee said:

ZX10R NIN said:

I feel all cycle lanes should be raised to pavement level that way the cyclist doesn't have to interact with all motor vehicles.

When reaching junctions cyclists should cross like pedestrians (this would be on the grounds of safety) that way lessening the chance of serious injury or death.

Oh, you're serious.

ZX10R NIN said:

Cyclists commuting everyday should have insurance capped to a maximum of £80.00 per year, this gives the cyclist legal cover should he or she be injured, bike damaged or if they happen to damage a vehicle knock over a pedestrian etc they just give their details & everyone can be on their way.

Some of us already have this and it's much cheaper than £80!! If I knock over a pedestrian, (s)he was in the road and not paying attention, is pedestrian insurance mandatory also?

As you say some of you have it() but I say all of you should have it, I didn't say it should be £80 I said it should be capped at a maximum £80 (to make sure insurers couldn't rip you off) if you knock over a pedestrian who's to say it won't be your fault or if you hit the back of a car because your attention was elsewhere for a split second, you're covered & it's not a problem.

All of the above is possible hence my suggestions.

[saaby93]

ZX10R NIN said:

So the suggestion of raising your cycle lanes to pavement(now remember this would be an actual loss of tarmac from the car's buses & trucks) level where you the cyclist can ride your bike more safely is ridiculous is it?

Unless you know different it doesnt work out safer and it's not expedient.
Not long afterwards most cyclists are back on the road as it gives standard priority at junctions.

In most instances mixed use road for cycles cars and trucks works ok.
I cant help think its undertaking that's the danger, but it works enough times that it seems to be relatively safe but sometimes not. It's a risk.

[Mr Gear]

ZX10R NIN said:

I have never said you shouldn't be on the road but next to the motorcyclist you're the most vulnerable unlike a motorcyclist you don't wear protective clothing you don't have the opportunity to be able to accelerate out of danger.

So the suggestion of raising your cycle lanes to pavement(now remember this would be an actual loss of tarmac from the car's buses & trucks) level where you the cyclist can ride your bike more safely is ridiculous is it?

You would rather have your cycle lanes mixing with the same cars buses & trucks that are injuring you? Rather than at pavement level where the worst that could happen is you have an accident with a pedestrian.

There is a cycle lane raised to pavement level near me, and it's a total joke. Pedestrians see it as an extension of the pavement, so walk all over it, and cars still turn across it without looking at junctions. Quite frankly you're better off cycling on the road.

But because the crappy cycle lane is there, that acts as a green light for motorists to behave like total arses towards any cyclists who dare to use 'their' road.

All in all, total fail.

[Hol]

Mr Gear said:

There is a cycle lane raised to pavement level near me, and it's a total joke. Pedestrians see it as an extension of the pavement, so walk all over it, and cars still turn across it without looking at junctions. Quite frankly you're better off cycling on the road.

But because the crappy cycle lane is there, that acts as a green light for motorists to behave like total arses towards any cyclists who dare to use 'their' road.

All in all, total fail.

Put up the street level view so we can all see these 24/7 misdemeanours that you speak of.

[gazza285]

Mr Gear said:

There is a cycle lane raised to pavement level near me, and it's a total joke. Pedestrians see it as an extension of the pavement, so walk all over it, and cars still turn across it without looking at junctions. Quite frankly you're better off cycling on the road.

But because the crappy cycle lane is there, that acts as a green light for motorists to behave like total arses towards any cyclists who dare to use 'their' road.

All in all, total fail.

Perhaps we need compulsory training for cyclists if they aren't using the cycle lane properly, because it'll be their own fault no doubt.

How we have ended up with a 5m x 2m box with mainly one person in being used for an average journey length of 7 miles, who has nowhere to keep it other than on a road that was not originally for cars?

I see more idiotic driving, parking and amber/red light running from cars everyday than I do from any other road users.

Reduce the unnecessary use of cars and there would be room for cyclists, motorcyclists and the lorries on our urban roads.

I spent nearly two years working in the centre of Westminster, and drove in maybe twice from Tottenham, I can't understand why anybody would subject themselves to driving into Central London on a daily basis, my journey was quicker on both public transport and bicycle, and one of the welders beat the site manager's van on his roller blades.

[Mr Gear]

Hol said:

Put up the street level view so we can all see these 24/7 misdemeanours that you speak of.

Sure: http://goo.gl/maps/iUlVK

If you are cycling along this cycle lane and you get to the roundabout, you are physically unable to position yourself in the safest place, which is in the middle of the driving lane.

So as you approach the roundabout on a bike, you have to be looking over your shoulder for cars attempting to pass or turn left across you on your right (which wouldn't happen if you were riding in the middle of the road), you also have to look for vehicles approaching the roundabout from the other directions. Your visibility of the road on the left is dreadful from the cycle lane too - you can see much better from the road.

Because this is a raised cycle lane, you can't position yourself correctly without bumping off the kerb.

All in all, a stupid design that most cyclists refuse to use, and the ones that do use it put themselves in more danger by doing so.

Yet if you dare to use the road, a small percentage of Neanderthals will shout abuse or attempt dangerous passes.

And that's just one of about five major hazard points on that short cycle lane.

[zimzoom]

heebeegeetee said:

I think you're wrong, but aside from that, how do you know all this?

I've been in HGV's with very experienced drivers that talked me through the processes.

[zimzoom]

Europa1 said:

And even then a driver might not see a cyclist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8&fe...

They are missing out a mirror there. There should be a mirror above the passenger window that looks down and is con-vexed ( i think that is the right word) and would show all of those cyclists.

[surveyor]

Mr Gear said:

Hol said:

Put up the street level view so we can all see these 24/7 misdemeanours that you speak of.

Sure: http://goo.gl/maps/iUlVK

If you are cycling along this cycle lane and you get to the roundabout, you are physically unable to position yourself in the safest place, which is in the middle of the driving lane.

So as you approach the roundabout on a bike, you have to be looking over your shoulder for cars attempting to pass or turn left across you on your right (which wouldn't happen if you were riding in the middle of the road), you also have to look for vehicles approaching the roundabout from the other directions. Your visibility of the road on the left is dreadful from the cycle lane too - you can see much better from the road.

Because this is a raised cycle lane, you can't position yourself correctly without bumping off the kerb.

All in all, a stupid design that most cyclists refuse to use, and the ones that do use it put themselves in more danger by doing so.

Yet if you dare to use the road, a small percentage of Neanderthals will shout abuse or attempt dangerous passes.

And that's just one of about five major hazard points on that short cycle lane.

There is a reason for all of that. It's because the local authority have nicked half the pavement can called it a cycle lane. I strongly suspect at the heart of that will have been a government policy linked with funding to LA's to provide cycle lanes - that they then did on the cheap.

[saaby93]

zimzoom said:

Europa1 said:

And even then a driver might not see a cyclist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8&fe...

They are missing out a mirror there. There should be a mirror above the passenger window that looks down and is con-vexed ( i think that is the right word) and would show all of those cyclists.

I know this video keeps being posted to show lorry drivers they need more mirrors but wasnt it created to show cyclists where not to position themselves?

Or is the giant PH Parrot circling overhead

[zimzoom]

saaby93 said:

I know this video keeps being posted to show lorry drivers they need more mirrors but wasnt it created to show cyclists where not to position themselves?

Or is the giant PH Parrot circling overhead

that's a good question, and one I doubt you would ever get a straight answer for, even if asking TFL.

The issue I have with videos like that, is the people that need to see them, take no interest in that sort of thing. If they actually thought about their safety, they would be different road users.

[iSore]

I saw a cyclist hit by a car the other day. Impatient tt complete with plastic helmet and attitude pulled out of a T junction in front of a Renault Traffic. Made a hell of a bang, cyclist went flying and the bike was a bit buggered. He got up though and started to rant at the van driver. I pulled over and offered the Van driver my details in case it went to court. With luck, the cyclist will ache for a few weeks as well as learning a valuable lesson - a van/car/lorry will not wince with pain as it breaks a few of your bones.

I'd rather walk to be honest. I bloody hate cycling.

[Mr Gear]

iSore said:

I saw a cyclist hit by a car the other day. Impatient tt complete with plastic helmet and attitude pulled out of a T junction in front of a Renault Traffic. Made a hell of a bang, cyclist went flying and the bike was a bit buggered. He got up though and started to rant at the van driver. I pulled over and offered the Van driver my details in case it went to court. With luck, the cyclist will ache for a few weeks as well as learning a valuable lesson - a van/car/lorry will not wince with pain as it breaks a few of your bones.

I'd rather walk to be honest. I bloody hate cycling.

I saw a taxi driver crash into a wall once. I bloody hate taxis.

Sorry, what was your point?

[iSore]

Mr Gear said:

I saw a taxi driver crash into a wall once. I bloody hate taxis.

I hope you laughed!

[The Vambo]

zimzoom said:

heebeegeetee said:

I think you're wrong, but aside from that, how do you know all this?

I've been in HGV's with very experienced drivers that talked me through the processes.

I have been on holiday in a jumbo jet many times and I would probably talk nonsense if asked about landing one too.

[GC8]

zimzoom said:

I've been in HGV's with very experienced drivers that talked me through the processes.

This is why you ignored my question. You cant do it, and talking about it is worthless.

Wally.

[gazza285]

Mr Gear said:

I saw a taxi driver crash into a wall once. I bloody hate taxis.

Sorry, what was your point?

I crashed into a wall once. I bloody hate walls.

Especially when I've run out of talent.

[zimzoom]

The Vambo said:

I have been on holiday in a jumbo jet many times and I would probably talk nonsense if asked about landing one too.

haha, well I wasn't sitting in the trailer. I was in the passenger seat as a second pair of eyes. The driver said to me, with the new mirrors that are required to meet regulations, there are a good 3-5 seconds (depending on how much detail you take in) taken to look in the mirrors before you set off.