Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
yellowjack said:
The highway code is quite clear with it's advice on this very subject...
Rule 212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
...try reading it once in a while, and then apply that advice. Anyone who can't, or won't and thinks they are above it shouldn't be on the roads in the first place.
Cheers. That book is a new one on me. Will take a look.Rule 212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
...try reading it once in a while, and then apply that advice. Anyone who can't, or won't and thinks they are above it shouldn't be on the roads in the first place.
Back on Earth, how do you keep away from cyclists when they enter gaps often leaving themselves less than a foot away from a vehicle and how do you keep track of dozens doing so at the same time? How can this happen on narrow and congested streets?
I look forward to your answer because it will have solved pretty much all the problems we all face on such roads.
An accident between a motorised vehicle and a cyclists = either the motirists made a mistake, or the cyclists made a mistake, sorted.
I think it goes without saying, but no doubt I will be flamed, an awful lot of cyclists think they are above the law and take chances hoping they will survive creaping up on that big truck at the lights, or jumping red lights. But always sad when an accident occurs.
I think it goes without saying, but no doubt I will be flamed, an awful lot of cyclists think they are above the law and take chances hoping they will survive creaping up on that big truck at the lights, or jumping red lights. But always sad when an accident occurs.
Digby said:
Back on Earth, how do you keep away from cyclists when they enter gaps often leaving themselves less than a foot away from a vehicle and how do you keep track of dozens doing so at the same time? How can this happen on narrow and congested streets?
Assuming this happens to you all the time (which you have mentioned before and I see happening to other HGVs) I would keep doing what you are doing since you don't appear to have squashed anyone yet! (Which I have to admit always seems like quite a miracle given some of the insane cycling going on...)However, you are twisting the argument to a vast extent.
On the one hand there is OVERTAKING A CYCLIST.
That's where the Highway Code quoted above is relevant and you need to worry about giving them enough room (i.e. more than a foot).
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTION is how to deal with CYCLISTS UNDERTAKING/OVERTAKING you.
The way you have asked your question makes it seem that they are the same issues and that is 100% wrong.
When people are passing other vehicles - it is THEIR responsibility to make sure they are safe.
Of course, don't turn left without indicating but giving those nutty cyclists loads of room when there isn't the physical roadspace is obviously impossible.
walm said:
George111 said:
There's no point discussing things with the cyclists because they beat you down with stupidity - it's a waste of time. Happens all the time, every thread, they think they're entitled to 100% of the road and pavement 100% of the time.
Quoted in case I need a good solid example of hypocrisy.funinhounslow said:
But putting cycle lanes in the gutter means cyclists have to take action to avoid drains, manhole covers and the general detritus that accumulates at the edges of the roads. If I avoid a pothole and get in the way of a car, then by definition that car was too close.
Here is a picture of where yesterday's fatality occurred. "Super highway" it isn't - in fact you will see the bike lane peters out just where it is needed most.
Out of interest, is there a stop-giveway marking at the end of these cycle lanes that just end like this?Here is a picture of where yesterday's fatality occurred. "Super highway" it isn't - in fact you will see the bike lane peters out just where it is needed most.
DonkeyApple said:
Out of interest, is there a stop-giveway marking at the end of these cycle lanes that just end like this?
No, not usually and by the looks of google maps, not on this particular one.Sometimes you get a 'CYCLIST DISMOUNT' sign, which seems to basically mean the planner has just put his hands up and gone "f knows what to do here, you're on your own!"
Digby said:
HJE said:
Seriously? If the motorist wasn't too close to the cyclist a swerve around a pot hole would not be an issue. Plus you would have spotted the obstruction with enough time to anticipate a cyclist moving to avoid it in the first place.
So you are saying never pass a cyclist, then? That's what you are saying on the vast majority of London Streets I use because we are often a foot apart. Never pass one for fear they may dodge a black broken drain cover, on a black road, that I should have spotted. They do not need to look ahead to spot this drain cover themselves, nor do they need to look when they avoid it. All of that falls to the motorist?Incredible.
However, if you decide to overtake within this distance and take away their room for manoeuvre, then you need to be sure that they aren't going to need to manoeuvre.
If you do decide to overtake without giving them enough room to manoeuvre around the road hazards that you don't think you need to look out for, what exactly are you expecting them to do in the fairly common occurrence that they are confronted by a pothole?
George111 said:
walm said:
George111 said:
There's no point discussing things with the cyclists because they beat you down with stupidity - it's a waste of time. Happens all the time, every thread, they think they're entitled to 100% of the road and pavement 100% of the time.
Quoted in case I need a good solid example of hypocrisy.You're complaining about the cyclists wanting 100% of the road when they really want about 25%; whilst supporting Digby who wants 90% whether someone else is already there or not.
Mave said:
If you do decide to overtake without giving them enough room to manoeuvre around the road hazards that you don't think you need to look out for, what exactly are you expecting them to do in the fairly common occurrence that they are confronted by a pothole?
What do they do when they are passing slower vehicles on the inside? They should do that...Digby said:
What do they do when they are passing slower vehicles on the inside? They should do that...
You have done it again. It's an utterly moronic argument you are failing to make.Seriously Digby - you are sharper than this. It's not rocket science. It's ELEMENTARY PHYSICS.
An HGV hitting a cyclist is completely different to a cyclist hitting an HGV.
You are attempting to claim they are the same thing. They aren't.
This really isn't difficult.
For those who struggle.
If a cyclist passing an HGV wobbles into it - he will hit it with his full body weight + c.10kg of bike.
If a passing HGV hits a wobbling cyclist - that HGV will weigh CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN ONE HUMAN. Oh and it is sharp and metallic not soft and pudgy too.
This is why, for example, you might be happy to squeeze between two stationary cars in a car park but you would be rather unhappy if a car were to pass you withing inches as you walked down the road.
If a cyclist passing an HGV wobbles into it - he will hit it with his full body weight + c.10kg of bike.
If a passing HGV hits a wobbling cyclist - that HGV will weigh CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN ONE HUMAN. Oh and it is sharp and metallic not soft and pudgy too.
This is why, for example, you might be happy to squeeze between two stationary cars in a car park but you would be rather unhappy if a car were to pass you withing inches as you walked down the road.
Digby said:
I'm really not trying to claim that. I'm simply being realistic about traffic movements on busy steets and how things flow and progress.
So how is a wobbly cyclist next to a stationary HGV relevant to how much space you need to give when you overtake them?They just aren't comparable in any way.
By the way, I totally agree that it is impossible to give as much space as that legendary photo in the HC suggests in urban areas, that certainly is unrealistic sadly - but ONE FOOT????
IanH755 said:
Of course the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to ban cyclists from the roads meaning there'd be no more cyclist deaths, but seen as that's never going to happen then cyclists will still die, some through their own fault and some through the drivers fault.
Be careful what you wish for.The banning of cars/HGVs is infinitely more likely.
In fact, the HGV ban is regularly suggested.
saaby93 said:
I have a feeling this thread has been hijacked again
Have we had an instance where being passed at a distance of one foot has led to the demise of the cyclist?
Threads evolve saaby. Particularly after 120 pages.Have we had an instance where being passed at a distance of one foot has led to the demise of the cyclist?
If you want to police threads in an open forum, apply to be a mod.
Your requirement that someone has died from being passed too close is specious.
Digby appears to be arguing that since a cyclist will happily pass an HGV within a foot, that means it is perfectly acceptable for him to give that leeway when he overtakes.
And that is wrong.
Digby said:
I'm really not trying to claim that. I'm simply being realistic about traffic movements on busy steets and how things flow and progress.
Okay, let's leave the vehicle type out of this for a moment.A driver of a vehicle (vehicle A) chooses to overtake another vehicle (vehicle B). Vehicle B adjusts it's position within the lane that it was already occupying. This leaves vehicle A unable to avoid colliding with it. Did vehicle A leave sufficient space during it's overtaking manoeuvre?
walm said:
Be careful what you wish for.
The banning of cars/HGVs is infinitely more likely.
In fact, the HGV ban is regularly suggested.
I very much doubt that all cars, construction equipment, delivery trucks and bin collection vehicles etc will be banned from town centres with all the associated loss of business just to prevent a relatively "minor" amount of cyclist deaths (minor when compared to vehicle accident deaths anyway).The banning of cars/HGVs is infinitely more likely.
In fact, the HGV ban is regularly suggested.
As a cyclist I ride very passively so I always wear a high-viz with 2 sets of lights switched on (even in daylight), I don't undertake unless I'm in a cycle lane, no jumping lights, slowing to a crawl near junctions etc "just in case" and while I've seen a great number of potential incidents which I've avoided by being very aware, I've never had an issue so far (touch wood).
Digby said:
Mave said:
If you do decide to overtake without giving them enough room to manoeuvre around the road hazards that you don't think you need to look out for, what exactly are you expecting them to do in the fairly common occurrence that they are confronted by a pothole?
What do they do when they are passing slower vehicles on the inside? They should do that...Edited by Mave on Thursday 26th May 18:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff