Another cyclist dies in London

[anonymous-user]

Moonhawk said:

It ends because there isn't enough room at the roundabout to accommodate the road lane and the cycle lane....seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Also - because it was the cycle lane that ended, the cyclist had to rejoin the main traffic lane - the onus is on the cyclists to ensure it is safe and that other road users are aware of their intention to do so as per HC rule 63:

"When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users."

I would treat the end of a cycle lane like the end of a normal traffic lane and merge with the traffic - I certainly wouldn't put myself alongside a large vehicle like a lorry. The cyclist behind the woman in this case clearly thought the same.

IMO - education is a big part of this. Cyclists (and pedestrians) are free to use the road without ever having had any formal training. Many won't even have picked up a copy of the highway code (which is crazy - considering it's free to view online). Whilst it wont prevent every incident (like it doesn't for vehicle drivers) - it may help to raise the general level of awareness.

IMO the HC should be taught at school. Schools teach the dangers of drugs, strangers etc, yet for kids aged 5-19, the biggest killer is road/transport accidents - but there is no mandatory education on how to use the roads safely either as a pedestrian or cyclist. Bonkers!

This ^^^^ 100% nail hit on head!

[blugnu]

Moonhawk said:

It ends because there isn't enough room at the roundabout to accommodate the road lane and the cycle lane....seems like a pretty good reason to me.

The evidence would suggest that it makes the junction dangerous. This isn't the only accident that has occurred here, I believe.

There is room for the cycle lane, it would just have to mean less room for the normal lanes. That might be mildly less convenient for drivers, but a small extras delay in London - which in my experience is pretty much continual traffic anyway - is hardly as inconvenient as being killed.

[Moonhawk]

blugnu said:

The evidence would suggest that it makes the junction dangerous. This isn't the only accident that has occurred here, I believe.

There is room for the cycle lane, it would just have to mean less room for the normal lanes. That might be mildly less convenient for drivers, but a small extras delay in London - which in my experience is pretty much continual traffic anyway - is hardly as inconvenient as being killed.

There is a pinch point at the zebra crossing before it goes into two lanes for the roundabout.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4946934,-0.12458...

As for "small extra delays" and "inconvenience" - the same argument could be used for the cyclist. Why not hold back for the sake of a couple of seconds (like the cyclist behind did) rather than try and push forward and take up a bad position up the inside of a lorry.

[blugnu]

Moonhawk said:

There is a pinch point at the zebra crossing before it goes into two lanes for the roundabout.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4946934,-0.12458...

As for "small extra delays" and "inconvenience" - the same argument could be used for the cyclist. Why not hold back for the sake of a couple of seconds (like the cyclist behind did) rather than try and push forward and take up a bad position up the inside of a lorry.

The general outcomes of making a mistake when riding a bike are worse than the outcomes making a mistake in a car.

[Stickyfinger]

http://www.velo-city2009.com/assets/files/paper-va...

Training in the Netherlands for immigrants even.....
I have no clue why cyclists keep going down the side of big metal things that can kill them

School run reduction and other benifits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16AO0_08r3o

[Hugo a Gogo]

Moonhawk said:

blugnu said:

The evidence would suggest that it makes the junction dangerous. This isn't the only accident that has occurred here, I believe.

There is room for the cycle lane, it would just have to mean less room for the normal lanes. That might be mildly less convenient for drivers, but a small extras delay in London - which in my experience is pretty much continual traffic anyway - is hardly as inconvenient as being killed.

There is a pinch point at the zebra crossing before it goes into two lanes for the roundabout.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4946934,-0.12458...

As for "small extra delays" and "inconvenience" - the same argument could be used for the cyclist. Why not hold back for the sake of a couple of seconds (like the cyclist behind did) rather than try and push forward and take up a bad position up the inside of a lorry.

as you can see that van doing in the maps link, looks/sounds like the truck moved left near the kerb (the pinch point) then ran her over from behind when she'd already got onto the roundabout front of him (bike ended up under his front wheels)

it's hard to imagine a scenario where the truck driver did nothing wrong there and she still got run over, at best he was only looking right as he entered the roundabout

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/2881/

[budgie smuggler]

Moonhawk said:

It ends because there isn't enough room at the roundabout to accommodate the road lane and the cycle lane....seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Also - because it was the cycle lane that ended, the cyclist had to rejoin the main traffic lane - the onus is on the cyclists to ensure it is safe and that other road users are aware of their intention to do so as per HC rule 63:

"When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users."

I would treat the end of a cycle lane like the end of a normal traffic lane and merge with the traffic - I certainly wouldn't put myself alongside a large vehicle like a lorry. The cyclist behind the woman in this case clearly thought the same.

No, it's not a good reason at all. The cycle lane exists to protect the cyclist from the main traffic. If it disappears at precisely the point they need protection then what is it for?

Needing to give way at the end is another good reason to ignore cycle lanes too. No need to give way if you don't use it.

Also total fking lol at 'CAN' make your journey safer in HC rule 63. Sure they do. A bit of blue paint that takes you right in the blind spot of an HGV.

[Moonhawk]

blugnu said:

The general outcomes of making a mistake when riding a bike are worse than the outcomes making a mistake in a car.

Surely that's all the more reason to take your time and not be impatient when you are on a bike.

[Moonhawk]

budgie smuggler said:

No, it's not a good reason at all. The cycle lane exists to protect the cyclist from the main traffic. If it disappears at precisely the point they need protection then what is it for?

Needing to give way at the end is another good reason to ignore cycle lanes too. No need to give way if you don't use it.

It does provide protection up to a point - but IMO, it's correct that it ends where it does as it should make cyclists look and assess their surroundings before rejoining the main carriageway (as should any vehicle in similar circumstances).

Your second point only serves to highlight the issue with some cyclists. Why would you want to intentionally go out of your way to avoid having to give way? What's the hurry - surely gaining a couple of seconds isn't worth the risk?

Also - not using the cycle lane doesn't negate the cyclists requirement to give way - the highway code contains a blanket statement in the opening paragraph of the "General Requirements" section which states:

"Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

[Hugo a Gogo]

Moonhawk said:

Why not hold back for the sake of a couple of seconds (like the cyclist behind did) rather than try and push forward and take up a bad position up the inside of a lorry.

the rider behind said he didn't go alongside the truck

there's nothing to suggest the woman was alongside the truck, rather she was in front of it, at least when she was hit

[heebeegeetee]

Moonhawk said:

It does provide protection up to a point - but IMO, it's correct that it ends where it does as it should make cyclists look and assess their surroundings before rejoining the main carriageway (as should any vehicle in similar circumstances).

Your second point only serves to highlight the issue with some cyclists. Why would you want to intentionally go out of your way to avoid having to give way? What's the hurry - surely gaining a couple of seconds isn't worth the risk?

Also - not using the cycle lane doesn't negate the cyclists requirement to give way - the highway code contains a blanket statement in the opening paragraph of the "General Requirements" section which states:

"Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

There's no indication of priority at the end of that cycle lane. Are we making an assumption that one lane has priority over the other?

[Moonhawk]

heebeegeetee said:

There's no indication of priority at the end of that cycle lane. Are we making an assumption that one lane has priority over the other?

Although priority is not explicitly marked - it is the cycle lane that ends. As I already stated - I would treat this like any other type of lane ending whether I was in a car or on a bike. If my lane ends - I would automatically give priority to traffic in the lane I was intending to join.

Also - the highway code rule I quoted above clearly states what the cyclist should do when leaving a cycle lane.

[budgie smuggler]

Moonhawk said:

budgie smuggler said:

No, it's not a good reason at all. The cycle lane exists to protect the cyclist from the main traffic. If it disappears at precisely the point they need protection then what is it for?

Needing to give way at the end is another good reason to ignore cycle lanes too. No need to give way if you don't use it.

It does provide protection up to a point - but IMO, it's correct that it ends where it does as it should make cyclists look and assess their surroundings before rejoining the main carriageway (as should any vehicle in similar circumstances).

Your second point only serves to highlight the issue with some cyclists. Why would you want to intentionally go out of your way to avoid having to give way? What's the hurry - surely gaining a couple of seconds isn't worth the risk?

Also - not using the cycle lane doesn't negate the cyclists requirement to give way - the highway code contains a blanket statement in the opening paragraph of the "General Requirements" section which states:

"Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

No I totally disagree. It offers no protection whatsoever and crams cyclists over the side implying it's okay for cars to whizz past at high speed without doing a proper overtake. Then it dumps them out where they actually NEED some protection, i.e. at pinch points, junctions and says "okay you're on your own now!". Not before making cyclists give way to all other traffic of course Absolute st tbh

Why would I avoid giving way? Would you prefer to use a road in your car where you had to keep stopping to give way to other traffic, or would you use one literally right next to it where you didn't? And as a motorist that doesn't even require any physical effort on your part. Imagine you'd have to flintstone your car back up to speed and it'd be clear which one you'd use.

So to summarise

1. cycle lanes broadly speaking are useless wastes of paint, in some cases are actually more dangerous
2. they make you give way/stop where if you were using the main part of the road you would not have to

[Moonhawk]

Hugo a Gogo said:

the rider behind said he didn't go alongside the truck

there's nothing to suggest the woman was alongside the truck, rather she was in front of it, at least when she was hit

http://road.cc/content/news/218199-lorry-driver-cleared-killing-moira-gemmill-london-junction-named-most-dangerous

"Footage showed her passing Kwatia's lorry to the nearside as they both approached the junction."

[Moonhawk]

budgie smuggler said:

No I totally disagree. It offers no protection whatsoever.....

Hang on a sec

budgie smuggler said:

The cycle lane exists to protect the cyclist from the main traffic.

and

budgie smuggler said:

Why would I avoid giving way?

budgie smuggler said:

Needing to give way at the end is another good reason to ignore cycle lanes too. No need to give way if you don't use it.

[budgie smuggler]

Moonhawk said:

budgie smuggler said:

No I totally disagree. It offers no protection whatsoever.....

Hang on a sec

Yes, in short what I am saying is that largely there is no benefit to them whatsoever. Cycle paths i.e. separate from the main carriageways are a different matter. If they are in good nick then by and large they are worth using

Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 28th February 10:46

[Hugo a Gogo]

Moonhawk said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

the rider behind said he didn't go alongside the truck

there's nothing to suggest the woman was alongside the truck, rather she was in front of it, at least when she was hit

http://road.cc/content/news/218199-lorry-driver-cleared-killing-moira-gemmill-london-junction-named-most-dangerous

"Footage showed her passing Kwatia's lorry to the nearside as they both approached the junction."

so she passed it, or was passing it? because she ended up run over by the front wheel

[Moonhawk]

budgie smuggler said:

Yes, what I am saying is that they are not fit for purpose.

Extending the cycle lane up to the roundabout would serve no purpose then - if the existing cycle lane already offers no protection.

[Moonhawk]

Hugo a Gogo said:

so she passed it, or was passing it? because she ended up run over by the front wheel

Which IMO was a risky move - one that the cyclist behind clearly recognised.

I would be wary about making such a move in a car - especially if the lorry's intentions were unclear.

[budgie smuggler]

Moonhawk said:

Extending the cycle lane up to the roundabout would serve no purpose then - if the existing cycle lane already offers no protection.

No you seem to be missing the point.

A cycle lane should appear where needed to direct cars and traffic away from cyclists where they need to. Pretty much the exact opposite of what we currently have.