Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Mave said:
I imagine that in most instances, when confronted by an obstacle with no room to go around it, they stop. Are you suggesting they do this when being overtaken?
Are you suggesting on streets where the nature of traffic flow is that of complete stops to 30 mph, numerous times over a several hundred yards, all extremely close together, that they should forget stopping if they are beside vehicles and should do as suggested and throw themselves away from the kerb and quote the highway code as they do so?Edited by Mave on Thursday 26th May 18:35
The perfect scenarios given regarding overtakes are rare on such roads. You slow down, they pass either side, you move again, sometimes level with them etc etc etc.
If it were me on the bike on such roads, I would stop, yes. What are the alternatives?
Edited by Digby on Thursday 26th May 21:29
saaby93 said:
h come on - of course being on 2 wheels isn't dangerous - unless you have a new definition of dangerous. Is driving around with a tank full of explosive liquid dangerous too?
Every day by far most people use roads on 2 wheels or otherwise perfectly safely
It's dangerous with regard to the consequances of any mistake. A car driver will have to wait for the AA/RAC, a cyclist/biker will have to wait for an ambulance.Every day by far most people use roads on 2 wheels or otherwise perfectly safely
Who taught me to spell
Edited by SlimJim16v on Thursday 26th May 23:36
SlimJim16v said:
It's dangerous with regard to the consequances of any mistake. A car driver will have to wait for the AA/RAC, a cyclist/biker will have to wait for an ambulance.
nah if you come off on a bike most times you get up and carry onIf you prang your car isnt it unlikely the AA will come out the RAC might but usually you'll need recovery
In both cases sometimes its far worse but that's realtively rare
For the most part it's a safe activity not a dangerous one
Digby said:
Mave said:
I imagine that in most instances, when confronted by an obstacle with no room to go around it, they stop. Are you suggesting they do this when being overtaken?
Are you suggesting on streets where the nature of traffic flow is that of complete stops to 30 mph, numerous times over a several hundred yards, all extremely close together, that they should forget stopping if they are beside vehicles and should do as suggested and throw themselves away from the kerb and quote the highway code as they do so?Edited by Mave on Thursday 26th May 18:35
The perfect scenarios given regarding overtakes are rare on such roads. you slows down, they pass either side, you move again, sometimes level with them etc etc etc.
If it were me on the bike on such roads, I would stop, yes. What are the alternatives?
If, in the circumstances I described you think that you would stop then I agree out of self preservation - but that doesn't forgive the poor driving that boxed the cyclist into needing to stop. The alternative would have been for the driver not to box the cyclist in in the first place.
If you were stuck behind a slow moving car which was approaching a parked car, would you overtake it knowing that the slow driver would need to brake to a halt to avoid an accident?
The average car can weigh up to 2500kg and is tested to safely protect it's occupants in a crash with another vehicle at 35mph, allowing it to be sold for use on British roads.
This is because it is recognized the roads are a dangerous place and collisions WILL happen, so vehicles are designed appropriately.
Bicycles are not crash tested, nor are they suitable for collisions with other vehicular traffic, there is no way around that fact, ergo cyclist and traffic should not mix ... separation is needed.
There needs to be some serious re-engineering of London's infrastructure to keep these incompatible methods of transport apart... otherwise the deaths will continue.
This is because it is recognized the roads are a dangerous place and collisions WILL happen, so vehicles are designed appropriately.
Bicycles are not crash tested, nor are they suitable for collisions with other vehicular traffic, there is no way around that fact, ergo cyclist and traffic should not mix ... separation is needed.
There needs to be some serious re-engineering of London's infrastructure to keep these incompatible methods of transport apart... otherwise the deaths will continue.
yellowjack said:
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.
Makes you wonder why so many cyclists squeeze up the inside, and fly past the outside, of moving vehicles, doesn't it? Are those vehicles not liable to make evasive maneuvers at any moment?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.
Perhaps they should try reading the highway code, or better still, have some form of training. I mean anything, just.....anything. Anything at all.
Mave said:
Digby said:
Mave said:
I imagine that in most instances, when confronted by an obstacle with no room to go around it, they stop. Are you suggesting they do this when being overtaken?
Are you suggesting on streets where the nature of traffic flow is that of complete stops to 30 mph, numerous times over a several hundred yards, all extremely close together, that they should forget stopping if they are beside vehicles and should do as suggested and throw themselves away from the kerb and quote the highway code as they do so?Edited by Mave on Thursday 26th May 18:35
The perfect scenarios given regarding overtakes are rare on such roads. you slows down, they pass either side, you move again, sometimes level with them etc etc etc.
If it were me on the bike on such roads, I would stop, yes. What are the alternatives?
If, in the circumstances I described you think that you would stop then I agree out of self preservation - but that doesn't forgive the poor driving that boxed the cyclist into needing to stop. The alternative would have been for the driver not to box the cyclist in in the first place.
If you were stuck behind a slow moving car which was approaching a parked car, would you overtake it knowing that the slow driver would need to brake to a halt to avoid an accident?
You talk of boxing in and overtakes and I agree with you regarding those scenarios, but those are not the common scenarios on city streets.
walm said:
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.
As far removed from what I am suggesting as is possible, sorry.And that is wrong.
Edited by Digby on Thursday 26th May 22:01
Digby said:
Mave said:
Digby said:
Mave said:
I imagine that in most instances, when confronted by an obstacle with no room to go around it, they stop. Are you suggesting they do this when being overtaken?
Are you suggesting on streets where the nature of traffic flow is that of complete stops to 30 mph, numerous times over a several hundred yards, all extremely close together, that they should forget stopping if they are beside vehicles and should do as suggested and throw themselves away from the kerb and quote the highway code as they do so?Edited by Mave on Thursday 26th May 18:35
The perfect scenarios given regarding overtakes are rare on such roads. you slows down, they pass either side, you move again, sometimes level with them etc etc etc.
If it were me on the bike on such roads, I would stop, yes. What are the alternatives?
If, in the circumstances I described you think that you would stop then I agree out of self preservation - but that doesn't forgive the poor driving that boxed the cyclist into needing to stop. The alternative would have been for the driver not to box the cyclist in in the first place.
If you were stuck behind a slow moving car which was approaching a parked car, would you overtake it knowing that the slow driver would need to brake to a halt to avoid an accident?
Edited by Digby on Thursday 26th May 22:01
skyrover said:
There needs to be some serious re-engineering of London's infrastructure to keep these incompatible methods of transport apart... otherwise the deaths will continue.
Even when the infrastructure is provided there are some that wont use it I've had the misfortune of having to use lower Thames street and the embankment over the last few days and each day I see a dozen or more cyclists using the road rather than the new cycle superhighway that's been created for them at the cost of many millions of pounds and massive disruption to traffic whilst the works were carried out
The traffic flow is now much reduced due to less capacity and because at each junction traffic is held for longer to allow cyclists to negotiate them without any traffic or pedestrians crossing - obviously creating more pollution due to cars sitting still just idling waiting for lights to change
The worst case so far was yesterday morning when I saw a cyclist trying to weave through slow moving traffic on the eastbound Lower Thames street between where it passes below London bridge up toward tower hill. The road has been narrowed considerably at that point (a car width plus maybe a foot either side) but he was still mixing it with the cars , trying to squeeze through tiny gaps despite there being a largely empty brand new cycle superhighway 3 feet to his left..
Digby said:
Mave said:
Yes it is if you've placed yourself in a position where it is impossible for them to avoid the obstacle.
Which obstacles are these cyclists not able to spot in advance that drivers of other vehicles are expected to see?What I said was that you shouldn't put yourself in a position where you stop people avoiding obstacles (the implication being that the cyclist has seen the obstacle to try to avoid it in the first place!)
Digby said:
walm said:
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.
As far removed from what I am suggesting as is possible, sorry.And that is wrong.
How is that relevant to the request that you give cyclists more room when overtaking?
4+ wheeled vehicles don't NEED to swerve to avoid potholes, their lives don't depend on it.
That's not true for cyclists, they really do need to avoid them!
Digby said:
I'm simply asking why, on roads where it is UNAVOIDABLE to be sometimes inches away from cyclists, that I, as a driver, should be looking for YOUR pot holes when I am already doing all I can to stop myself from crushing numerous other bikes. Is it honestly too much to ask for a cyclist to look for obstacles and then to look before avoiding them?
If you find it unavoidable then I strongly suggest handing in your driving licence. You are a danger to others and not fit to hold one.If there is not enough space to overtake safely then you should wait. It really is that simple.
Mr Will said:
Digby said:
I'm simply asking why, on roads where it is UNAVOIDABLE to be sometimes inches away from cyclists, that I, as a driver, should be looking for YOUR pot holes when I am already doing all I can to stop myself from crushing numerous other bikes. Is it honestly too much to ask for a cyclist to look for obstacles and then to look before avoiding them?
If you find it unavoidable then I strongly suggest handing in your driving licence. You are a danger to others and not fit to hold one.If there is not enough space to overtake safely then you should wait. It really is that simple.
Of course if you are sat stationary in a queue and a cyclist undertakes you to get to the front it is UNAVOIDABLE that you are inches away.
Nothing wrong with that!
Digby said:
yellowjack said:
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.
Makes you wonder why so many cyclists squeeze up the inside, and fly past the outside, of moving vehicles, doesn't it? Are those vehicles not liable to make evasive maneuvers at any moment?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.
Perhaps they should try reading the highway code, or better still, have some form of training. I mean anything, just.....anything. Anything at all.
king mental!/s
Digby said:
yellowjack said:
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.
Makes you wonder why so many cyclists squeeze up the inside, and fly past the outside, of moving vehicles, doesn't it? Are those vehicles not liable to make evasive maneuvers at any moment?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.
Perhaps they should try reading the highway code, or better still, have some form of training. I mean anything, just.....anything. Anything at all.
k is "They"? I am a cyclist AND a driver. I also hold every licence category available bar coach and motorcycle. I've driven, in no particular order, vehicles capable of bridging a river in mere minutes. Vehicles capable of ploughing a path through a minefield. A monster machine that can lift a 40ft ISO container into the air and move it across rough terrain, which also folds up to fit in an aeroplane. Then there are the boring, workaday vehicles. From a 3-door Escort estate, via Sherpa crew buses, Land Rovers between Series IIA Air Portables to current generation Defenders, Bedford 4, 8 and 14 tonners, Seddon Atkinson articulated plant transporters, Iveco flatbeds with drawbar trailers. Hell, I even had formal training to drive coaches but didn't get that license in the end.What more "some form of training" do you think I need? Every new vehicle in my FMT600 (military driving permit) needs familiarisation training. So that's a period of instruction, and an observed drive in every vehicle type - on top of the driving license category tests. I never did a 'cycling proficiency' course or test, but my dad took me out as a youngster and taught me quite formally to ride a bicycle properly, and I wasn't allowed out solo until he was happy I was safe.
The vast majority of adult cyclists also drive. They have had "some form of training", and they have passed a formal test which declares that they are fit and proper people to be in charge of a motor vehicle on public roads. The fact that some of them still can't ride a bike safely probably says more about the dire standard of the modern driver training industry than it does about formal cycling training and the need for it.
As for this nonsense about cyclists needing to look ahead for potholes and plan around them? I frequently do, and make sure that I act on that forward observation by making a planned position change further out into the traffic lane. All that ever happens then is that some f
kwit decides that I've only moved out to be deliberately awkward and 'punishes' me with a close pass, or a blast of their horn. Some cut in way too soon ahead of me, just to demonstrate where they think my place is (in the gutter). Well guess what? I don't, and never will ride 'in the gutter'. If you tin-canners are moving slower than I can, I'll be passing on your offside, in a safe and legal overtaking manoeuvre. I make small jumps between safe refuges in between vehicles, and if traffic speed picks up again I move back to my default nearside position.Something made me chuckle yesterday. I was pootling up a local hill at around 15mph, riding ON the white line of a marked 'cycle lane'. Up ahead was a deep pothole with relatively small circumference, so I checked early, moved out to make sure I had room to avoid it, but then a car rocked up, decide I was being an arse, tooted as he passed and cut in hard to the kerb. He promptly smashed through the pothole, possibly damaging his vehicle and definitely damaging the road surface further. I know people overuse the 'LOL' on the internet, but I actually did laugh out loud. Perhaps you stupid f
kers ought to be grateful when cyclists move out around potholes and other debris, like exhaust silencers, tie-down straps, lost wheelnuts, etc, because if you are giving a cyclist appropriate space when passing, it pretty much guarantees that it won't be your suspension crashing through the pothole, or your tyres suffering damage from surface debris. It's then a win for the cyclist, as they get to make small positional adjustments safely, and a win for drivers, as they don't risk a 'death by careless or dangerous driving' Police enquiry, and they reduce the risk of damage to the oily bits of their pride and joy. It's not rocket surgery, really... Digby said:
Perhaps they should try reading the highway code, or better still, have some form of training. I mean anything, just.....anything. Anything at all.
Among the stories yellowjack makes a great point. The vast vast majority of cyclists have a driving license.So just as much training as the majority of drivers.
In fact, it's usually seen that it is of HUGE benefit to get drivers to see things from a cyclists point of view and putting them on a bike for a day has shown good results. e.g. Addison Lee and some haulage companies.
Clearly it works both ways and cyclists should sit in an HGV and see how tough it is too.
Nevertheless to suggest cyclists "have no training" and should "try reading the highway code" is really missing the point and factually inaccurate.
Despite all the nutters on bikes, most of my cycling friends (typical MAMILs) have found that cycling on the road makes them a lot more aware and that they do a better job of reading the road ahead while on a bike and in a car than before they started cycling.
The reason is obvious - in a car, the downside of inattention is an insurance-repair job for a minor dent, in most cases.
On a bike, the downside is regularly a life-changing injury.
So you tend to pay more attention.
walm said:
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.
Sorry, but I think you'll find the physics are the same, both speeds being equal, as in the scenario of this thread.....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.
Whichever hits which, the weights, shape and materials are the same.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff