Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
gazza285 said:
But not as a cyclist. If cycle paths were raised to the same height as the pavement they would be full of pedestrians, also where does the extra road width come from? Get off at every junction? Seriously?
In 2012 there were 17 cyclist deaths in London, there were also 629 motorcyclist deaths, perhaps they should get off and walk across junctions too?
629 motorcycle deaths in London or is that a figure for the UK?In 2012 there were 17 cyclist deaths in London, there were also 629 motorcyclist deaths, perhaps they should get off and walk across junctions too?
The walking across a junction is just a suggestion but in terms of safety why not.
Motorcycles have a lot more acceleration than a pushbike & most of the motorbikes will be to the right of vehicles.
Also if the cycle paths are already there the road space is already lost, so raising them to kerb height seems like a logical solution. Avoiding the odd pedestrian seems a much safer than interacting with HGV's Cars vans & buses etc.
I never said I was a cyclist, nor was I saying the cyclist was to blame in every incident but what I was saying that there needs to be more lane discipline & awareness from everyone.
AyBee said:
Another female aswell
O/T I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant. As for the debate around correctly adjusted mirrors, already started to turn and so forth, that's all well and good, but surely if you put yourself on the nearside of a massive, heavy vehicle that might be turning left, you run the risk of being squished? In the right, maybe, but still squished.
ZX10R NIN said:
629 motorcycle deaths in London or is that a figure for the UK?
The walking across a junction is just a suggestion but in terms of safety why not.
Motorcycles have a lot more acceleration than a pushbike & most of the motorbikes will be to the right of vehicles.
Also if the cycle paths are already there the road space is already lost, so raising them to kerb height seems like a logical solution. Avoiding the odd pedestrian seems a much safer than interacting with HGV's Cars vans & buses etc.
I never said I was a cyclist, nor was I saying the cyclist was to blame in every incident but what I was saying that there needs to be more lane discipline & awareness from everyone.
Damn statistics, it was 27 killed in London, 629 KSI. The walking across a junction is just a suggestion but in terms of safety why not.
Motorcycles have a lot more acceleration than a pushbike & most of the motorbikes will be to the right of vehicles.
Also if the cycle paths are already there the road space is already lost, so raising them to kerb height seems like a logical solution. Avoiding the odd pedestrian seems a much safer than interacting with HGV's Cars vans & buses etc.
I never said I was a cyclist, nor was I saying the cyclist was to blame in every incident but what I was saying that there needs to be more lane discipline & awareness from everyone.
As for the acceleration, without being rude, so what? What is the average speed of London traffic these days? About 10 mph? Cycles have better acceleration to 15 mph than cars, lorries and busses, so why should they have to stop at every junction and dismount, as they are travelling at the same pace as the traffic anyway?
You would never keep the raised cycle lane clear of pedestrians, having a raised pavement doesn't keep them off the road even.
ManFromDelmonte said:
But what's to say that all blindspot mirrors are correctly adjusted? it's still a powerful video.
I live and cycle in central London and have noticed a lot more trucks, lorries and buses are displaying warning signs on the back about not riding up the inside and some even play a recorded message warning against it when the vehicle is indicating. I think this is a good step.
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Sorry, but that is complete b*llocks!I live and cycle in central London and have noticed a lot more trucks, lorries and buses are displaying warning signs on the back about not riding up the inside and some even play a recorded message warning against it when the vehicle is indicating. I think this is a good step.
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
gazza285 said:
Damn statistics, it was 27 killed in London, 629 KSI.
As for the acceleration, without being rude, so what? What is the average speed of London traffic these days? About 10 mph? Cycles have better acceleration to 15 mph than cars, lorries and busses, so why should they have to stop at every junction and dismount, as they are travelling at the same pace as the traffic anyway?
You would never keep the raised cycle lane clear of pedestrians, having a raised pavement doesn't keep them off the road even.
Acceleration was in reference to the statement that was made about motorcyclists getting off at every junction, my point was pulling away from junctions is less of a problem for motorbikes as they accelerate far more quickly from a junction than push bikes, therefore less likely to be sat on the inside of a lorry getting squashed(not that you should be down the inside of one).As for the acceleration, without being rude, so what? What is the average speed of London traffic these days? About 10 mph? Cycles have better acceleration to 15 mph than cars, lorries and busses, so why should they have to stop at every junction and dismount, as they are travelling at the same pace as the traffic anyway?
You would never keep the raised cycle lane clear of pedestrians, having a raised pavement doesn't keep them off the road even.
Surely it's far better to have to avoid a pedestrian than a lorry?
rambo19 said:
ManFromDelmonte said:
But what's to say that all blindspot mirrors are correctly adjusted? it's still a powerful video.
I live and cycle in central London and have noticed a lot more trucks, lorries and buses are displaying warning signs on the back about not riding up the inside and some even play a recorded message warning against it when the vehicle is indicating. I think this is a good step.
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
Sorry, but that is complete b*llocks!I live and cycle in central London and have noticed a lot more trucks, lorries and buses are displaying warning signs on the back about not riding up the inside and some even play a recorded message warning against it when the vehicle is indicating. I think this is a good step.
As for jumping red lights. I think car drivers get hung up on it because they can't do it. The difference is that, on a bike you are far far more aware visually and aurally of what dangers are around you. Going through a red in a car is asking for trouble as you are largely blind and largely deaf whereas on a bike there are many situations where it is safer to jump than to not.
Most deaths are caused by cyclist riding up the inside of large vehicles turning left. If the cyclist, aware that the lights are about to change and that the road is clear, jumps the red by a few seconds, they are out of harms way. If they sit there waiting for the truck to move off with them, they are in far more danger.
I am not saying that all cyclists should jump the lights in all situations, I am just highlighting that it is not the same as doing it in a car.
miniman said:
O/T I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant.
As for the debate around correctly adjusted mirrors, already started to turn and so forth, that's all well and good, but surely if you put yourself on the nearside of a massive, heavy vehicle that might be turning left, you run the risk of being squished? In the right, maybe, but still squished.
Majority of the cyclists killed in london are women. Some schools of though suggest that it might be because they don't accelerate as quickly or don't jump the lights and as such are in a worse position when the traffic starts moving.As for the debate around correctly adjusted mirrors, already started to turn and so forth, that's all well and good, but surely if you put yourself on the nearside of a massive, heavy vehicle that might be turning left, you run the risk of being squished? In the right, maybe, but still squished.
gazza285 said:
I'd rather the lorry avoided me to be honest.
Shared paths, which is what a raised cycle path will become, are no use to any cyclist who wants to get anywhere faster than walking pace.
I'm sure the lorry driver would rather you didn't go up the inside of him that way there'd be no need to worry about crushing youShared paths, which is what a raised cycle path will become, are no use to any cyclist who wants to get anywhere faster than walking pace.
ZX10R NIN said:
I'm sure the lorry driver would rather you didn't go up the inside of him that way there'd be no need to worry about crushing you
And in the majority of crashes that isn't what happens. I believe early witness reports suggest that in this case the lorry overtook the cyclist and then turned left across them.zimzoom said:
And in the majority of crashes that isn't what happens. I believe early witness reports suggest that in this case the lorry overtook the cyclist and then turned left across them.
I'm not referring to this case, (hear say is never a good source of information) I'm commenting on what I have seen a lot of cyclists doing on a daily basis in London gazza285 said:
I'd rather the lorry avoided me to be honest.
Shared paths, which is what a raised cycle path will become, are no use to any cyclist who wants to get anywhere faster than walking pace.
Surely getting somewhere a little slower but safer is a better option with a shared pavement or have railings separating the twoShared paths, which is what a raised cycle path will become, are no use to any cyclist who wants to get anywhere faster than walking pace.
Gaz. said:
zimzoom said:
And in the majority of crashes that isn't what happens. I believe early witness reports suggest that in this case the lorry overtook the cyclist and then turned left across them.
The person who saw it all: said:
A truck driver interviewed by police at the scene who was driving behind the lorry and cyclist as they travelled down Seven Sisters Road towards Manor House said the collision happened as they both turned left into Amhurst Park.
The scaffolder, who wished not to be named, said: “We were behind and it was turning left and she was on the inside and was dragged under the lorry.
“She was just cycling and the lorry as it turned left while she was on the inside it hit her as she was next to it where the traffic lights are as you turn. So it didn’t hit her from behind it was while she was next to it.
The scaffolder, who wished not to be named, said: “We were behind and it was turning left and she was on the inside and was dragged under the lorry.
“She was just cycling and the lorry as it turned left while she was on the inside it hit her as she was next to it where the traffic lights are as you turn. So it didn’t hit her from behind it was while she was next to it.
The Vambo said:
This thread may go strangely quiet now......
No one has said the cyclist was at fault, all my comments were talking about in general & not this specific case.In this case we'll see what happens once all the statements are in also most people know that for a cyclist to be dragged under a lorry the cyclist has to be beside it. So I don't get your point.
miniman said:
AyBee said:
Another female aswell
O/T I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant. They can be cycling along not aware that the thing they feel is safely beside them, might be catching up behind them as well.
Whether it's hereditary or lack of artic trucks as toys who knows
Happens too many times
gazza285 said:
Both killed and the KSI numbers are higher than for cyclist, so why does it seem to be less of a concern to the media?
I think it's becaause as Motorcyclists we are seen to have brought it on ourselves for riding such a dangerous machine, I've been knocked off a couple of times & the polices attitude is it must have been the bikers fault, it's one of those things.The powers that be don't like motorbikes the BBC don't how else do you explain that when they done their race across London they didn't include a Motorbike? (both james May & Hammond ride motorbikes) okay so it would have won & then the message of using public transport because it's the fastest way around London would have been lost but hey when would a thing like facts get in the way of political will, whenever people talk about easing congestion they never mention Motorcycles.
We're still seen as rebels
An aware cyclist, filming some that aren't being so careful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff