Another cyclist dies in London

[ZX10R NIN]

shalmaneser said:

But how many of those motorcyclist deaths are people flinging themselves at the scenery? Quite a lot I imagine!

You're wrong most Motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, if you confine the statistics to London 12 Cyclists died vs 22 Motorcyclists on London's busy roads so the chances of the Motorcyclist "flinging themselves at the scenery" are small, over 80% of motorbike accidents are caused by other circumstances.

The reason Pistonheads don't report these incidents is because Motorcyclists don't complain about it thus it's not a news story despite more of us dying.

[ZX10R NIN]

Mr Gear said:

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.

Would it work better if there was something as simple as a railing in between the pavement & cycle lane?

[gazza285]

ZX10R NIN said:

Mr Gear said:

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.

Would it work better if there was something as simple as a railing in between the pavement & cycle lane?

No, because it still forces the cyclist into a dangerous position at the junction.

[ZX10R NIN]

saaby93 said:

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.

I am talking about raising the cycle lanes that are already there & the new ones that are going in, I understand it's a pain to get off at the junction but surely safety has to overtake convenience, I also agree that the undertaking of Trucks & to a lesser degree buses isn't a smart move & in the wrong circumstances fatal.

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

No, because it still forces the cyclist into a dangerous position at the junction.

In what way does it make it more dangerous at the junction?

If you cross the junction in the same manner as a pedestrian surely you're less likely to be squeezed by a vehicle turning left.

Also don't you feel a better training system would help a lot of cyclist as a motorcyclist you have to pass two Riding Tests plus Theory & a basic skills test that's taken on private ground.

[OldGermanHeaps]

There surely has to be some technical aid that can be fitted to trucks like parking sensor style sensors on the side or a camera on the side running video analytics, even £60 dashcams now can beep if your drifting out your lane or catching up on a slower vehicle too quick.
If london can dictate the emissions levels of vehicles coming into the city then they should also be able to mandate certain driver aids. If a reasonably priced solution is found and mandated its a level playing field for everyone who operates in the capital, the cost can be offset by reduced insurance, less downtime due to accidents and because it is a level playing field any remaining cost can be passed to the client.

[oyster]

surveyor said:

budgie smuggler said:

surveyor said:

I find the cyclists reluctance to not put themselves beside big and heavy vehicles bizarre. It seems many are happy being in the Right. And Dead.

Or more likely they are ignorant of how dangerous it is, and the terrible road/cycle lane design encourages them to ride there.

If they can't recognise the lorry to their right and the risk that it entails they do not belong on a bike.

Since 75% of cyclist fatalities are NOT caused by the cyclist, that does rather suggest it isn't the cyclists who don't belong on the road - do you agree?

Or do you think cyclists should not be on the road for other reasons than just safety?

[WinstonWolf]

ZX10R NIN said:

gazza285 said:

No, because it still forces the cyclist into a dangerous position at the junction.

In what way does it make it more dangerous at the junction?

If you cross the junction in the same manner as a pedestrian surely you're less likely to be squeezed by a vehicle turning left.

Also don't you feel a better training system would help a lot of cyclist as a motorcyclist you have to pass two Riding Tests plus Theory & a basic skills test that's taken on private ground.

Because wherever you're looking you're still exposed to danger. Would you get off your motorbike and cross a junction as a pedestrian?

The safest place to be when crossing that particular junction is slap bang in the middle of that lane so you can *own* the piece of road you're using.

[ZX10R NIN]

OldGermanHeaps said:

There surely has to be some technical aid that can be fitted to trucks like parking sensor style sensors on the side or a camera on the side running video analytics, even £60 dashcams now can beep if your drifting out your lane or catching up on a slower vehicle too quick.
If london can dictate the emissions levels of vehicles coming into the city then they should also be able to mandate certain driver aids. If a reasonably priced solution is found and mandated its a level playing field for everyone who operates in the capital, the cost can be offset by reduced insurance, less downtime due to accidents and because it is a level playing field any remaining cost can be passed to the client.

Why not just tell cyclists when approaching a junction they have to stay behind Lorries & buses, on the flip side if a truck or bus driver is pulling up to a junction then they have to wait until the cyclist is clear.

I think most of this comes down to educating the cyclist as a truck driver you are made acutely aware of how easy it is to lose a car or bike in your blind spot but at the same time the number of times I'm turning left & I have bikes & on the odd occasion motorbikes dive down the inside is beyond a joke.

[v12Legs]

ZX10R NIN said:

Why not just tell cyclists when approaching a junction they have to stay behind Lorries & buses, on the flip side if a truck or bus driver is pulling up to a junction then they have to wait until the cyclist is clear.

I think most of this comes down to educating the cyclist as a truck driver you are made acutely aware of how easy it is to lose a car or bike in your blind spot but at the same time the number of times I'm turning left & I have bikes & on the odd occasion motorbikes dive down the inside is beyond a joke.

Is there any evidence as to what proportion of these are caused by the cyclist going up the inside rather than being left hooked?

[anonymous-user]

ZX10R NIN said:

shalmaneser said:

But how many of those motorcyclist deaths are people flinging themselves at the scenery? Quite a lot I imagine!

You're wrong most Motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, if you confine the statistics to London 12 Cyclists died vs 22 Motorcyclists on London's busy roads so the chances of the Motorcyclist "flinging themselves at the scenery" are small, over 80% of motorbike accidents are caused by other circumstances.

The reason Pistonheads don't report these incidents is because Motorcyclists don't complain about it thus it's not a news story despite more of us dying.

I would argue that its far more complicated than that. Motorbikes are not seen as a hinderenace to motorists because they can maintain a steady speed and rarely do they cause a motorist to slow down. Plus motorcyclists pay VED, which many motorists still regard as road tax aka permission to use the road thus they are a kindered spirit. Also its easier to break laws on a push bike, riding on pavements etc and thats what most people see so they tar all cyclists with the same brush. Motorcyclists are probably more likely to abide by traffic laws and thus dont rile motorists as much as pedal cyclists.

Stats appear to suggest that you are right about the nature of the fatalities too although I would say that there is evidence to suggest most bike fatalities will be in rural areas and involve a car... Sorry, I like stats... its too hard to claim that inappropriate speed on either side is the contributing factor but its bound to feature.

 Over two thirds of motorcycle fatalities occurred in rural areas, compared with under half for serious motorcycle casualties and under a third for slight motorcycle casualties.
 Men make up around 92 per cent of all motorcycle user casualties.
 A significant number (around 30 per cent) of non-fatal motorcyclist casualties are younger riders (aged up to 25 years old) on smaller-engined motorcycles (up to 125 cc). However, the peak age of motorcyclist fatalities are older riders (aged between 31 and 55) on large motorcycles with engine sizes over 125 cc (accounting for around 45 per
cent of all fatalities).

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa... p28
Table RAS40004
Motorcycles over 50cc

16,653 reported accidents involving motorcycles in 2013
11,868 accidents involving two vehicles of which one was a motorcycle, 10,072 of those were with a car.
2,966 reported accidents were no other vehicle was invovled.
1,118 reported accidents involving at least three vehicles were one was a motorcycle
701 reported accidents were only the motorcycle and a pedestrian were invovled

[walm]

Motorcyclist dies:

PH said:

RIP

Cyclist dies:

PH said:

Probably their fault.

It's not really that surprising that PH would sympathise more with the petrol driven one.

My favourite in this thread so far:

Blue Oval84 said:

okgo said:

Blue Oval84 said:

Perhaps it's the cyclists that aren't fit to be on the road if they're so impatient that they'd rather put themselves in a dangerous blind spot than just hang back and wait a moment...

Isn't that just plain victim blaming?

Yep, with good reason.

[Hol]

gazza285 said:

ZX10R NIN said:

Mr Gear said:

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.

Would it work better if there was something as simple as a railing in between the pavement & cycle lane?

No, because it still forces the cyclist into a dangerous position at the junction.

We have all seen the street level view.

It obviously commits the heinous crime of making the cyclist wait at the kerb side at the end of the path - before crossing the road (when it is clear of traffic both ways).

[Zigster]

pablo said:

Motorcyclists are probably more likely to abide by traffic laws [and thus dont rile motorists as much as pedal cyclists.

Except for speeding, of course, which we all know doesn't count as it is just a scam to fleece the law-abiding motorist out of his hard-earned money.

[OldGermanHeaps]

ZX10R NIN said:

Why not just tell cyclists when approaching a junction they have to stay behind Lorries & buses, on the flip side if a truck or bus driver is pulling up to a junction then they have to wait until the cyclist is clear.

I think most of this comes down to educating the cyclist as a truck driver you are made acutely aware of how easy it is to lose a car or bike in your blind spot but at the same time the number of times I'm turning left & I have bikes & on the odd occasion motorbikes dive down the inside is beyond a joke.

Because cyclists and drivers are human, and are prone to mistakes, lapses in concentration, impatience, any number of factors. In every other workplace environment human performance factors are considered a hazard and control measures are put in place to minimise risk as far as reasonably practicable or face prosecution. Why just because roads are involved do people think it is possible for people to never make any error? Its impossible. EVERYONE makes an error at some point. There should be some recognition of this in roadway design and vehicle design.

[ZX10R NIN]

oyster said:

Since 75% of cyclist fatalities are NOT caused by the cyclist, that does rather suggest it isn't the cyclists who don't belong on the road - do you agree?

Or do you think cyclists should not be on the road for other reasons than just safety?

Most Motorcycle accidents aren't the Motorcyclists fault either but we don't ask for everything else to be banned there's no point & it's not Logical, as I've said better education is the real answer.

I personally have no problem with cyclists what I have a problem with is bad riding/driving(which everyone is guilty of at some point) but cyclists need to accept some responsibility as road users, which instead of asking for everything to be banned why not work with the other road users to find solutions.

[walm]

Who asked to ban something?

Someone wanted an economical camera fitted or something.
No ban!

[ZX10R NIN]

OldGermanHeaps said:

Because cyclists and drivers are human, and are prone to mistakes, lapses in concentration, impatience, any number of factors. In every other workplace environment human performance factors are considered a hazard and control measures are put in place to minimise risk as far as reasonably practicable or face prosecution. Why just because roads are involved do people think it is possible for people to never make any error? Its impossible. EVERYONE makes an error at some point. There should be some recognition of this in roadway design and vehicle design.

Being human means that we will ALL make mistakes that being said then why are a lot of the people writing on this thread so adamant that it's the Truck driver/Cyclists fault?

Is it because that as a society there now has to be someone to blame rather than it being an ACCIDENT in which one human being made a mistake & it cost them their life or caused anothers death either way an error will have been made by one or both parties.

Which has been my point all the way through this Educate cyclists to the dangers & you will find that you get less deaths involving lorries, a cyclist is the only road user that doesn't have to take a test.

I'm not saying they should have to but going to an awareness course will help.

[WinstonWolf]

ZX10R NIN said:

OldGermanHeaps said:

Because cyclists and drivers are human, and are prone to mistakes, lapses in concentration, impatience, any number of factors. In every other workplace environment human performance factors are considered a hazard and control measures are put in place to minimise risk as far as reasonably practicable or face prosecution. Why just because roads are involved do people think it is possible for people to never make any error? Its impossible. EVERYONE makes an error at some point. There should be some recognition of this in roadway design and vehicle design.

Being human means that we will ALL make mistakes that being said then why are a lot of the people writing on this thread so adamant that it's the Truck driver/Cyclists fault?

Is it because that as a society there now has to be someone to blame rather than it being an ACCIDENT in which one human being made a mistake & it cost them their life or caused anothers death either way an error will have been made by one or both parties.

Which has been my point all the way through this Educate cyclists to the dangers & you will find that you get less deaths involving lorries, a cyclist is the only road user that doesn't have to take a test.

I'm not saying they should have to but going to an awareness course will help.

The majority of cyclists on PH are drivers and in many cases motorcyclists too.

[NickGibbs]

pablo said:

Motorbikes are not seen as a hinderenace to motorists because they can maintain a steady speed and rarely do they cause a motorist to slow down. Plus motorcyclists pay VED, which many motorists still regard as road tax aka permission to use the road thus they are a kindered spirit. Also its easier to break laws on a push bike, riding on pavements etc and thats what most people see so they tar all cyclists with the same brush. Motorcyclists are probably more likely to abide by traffic laws and thus dont rile motorists as much as pedal cyclists.

That sounds very plausible. Shame though we don't get the same detailed discussions on how to make roads safer for motorcyclists