Another "cyclist vs driver" rage story in the news...
Discussion
Digby said:
Mave said:
Digby said:
Mave said:
Why do I need to fire up another thread? This one was about a poor overtake followed by a ridiculous reaction. If it's ok to use this thread to recommend improvements to cyclists, then why not motorists as well?
I'm all ears.Brave Fart said:
Agreed, good post. And it seems to me that Digby is simply saying "I've done all that I can, now some cyclists need to take responsibility too." I do not know why some on this thread have been so negative/rude to Digby's generally reasonable tone.
Mike.
Which is the situation that we've already got. Mike.
Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
heebeegeetee said:
Which is the situation that we've already got.
Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
Suggested by whom? The voices in your head?Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
AW111 said:
Suggested by whom? The voices in your head?
For w
kers like yourself, why not spend ooh, 10 seconds on Google which will bring you stuff like"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
But if you're this ignorant of such matters anyway, why come on this type of thread?
heebeegeetee said:
Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
One would hope that this comes from more than just speculation, regardless of how educated it may be.Road deaths are all thoroughly investigated to the point that the cause of and circumstances surrounding the collision are pretty much established.
If that's indeed the case then I would think that 'strongly suggested' would not be a definite enough term.
DoubleD said:
CoolC said:
How old were you when you learned to ride a bike?
Why is that relevant?However, if you were a bit of a "late starter" and still had stabilisers into your teens then your suggestion is sad for a different reason.
[quote=walm]
Because suggesting licensing and formal testing for 4-year-olds is idiotic.
However, if you were a bit of a "late starter" and still had stabilisers into your teens then your suggestion is sad for a different reason.[/quote
What I wrote earlier was a joke. God some people take things far to seriously, lighten up.
Because suggesting licensing and formal testing for 4-year-olds is idiotic.
However, if you were a bit of a "late starter" and still had stabilisers into your teens then your suggestion is sad for a different reason.[/quote
What I wrote earlier was a joke. God some people take things far to seriously, lighten up.
Pete317 said:
One would hope that this comes from more than just speculation, regardless of how educated it may be.
Road deaths are all thoroughly investigated to the point that the cause of and circumstances surrounding the collision are pretty much established.
If that's indeed the case then I would think that 'strongly suggested' would not be a definite enough term.
It's a theory that I've frequently seen mooted with regard to female cyclists being flattened by hgvs. If anyone cares to look there's a whole raft of further gender-related stuff to, such as apparently men are much less likely to take up training that women 'because ego'.Road deaths are all thoroughly investigated to the point that the cause of and circumstances surrounding the collision are pretty much established.
If that's indeed the case then I would think that 'strongly suggested' would not be a definite enough term.
I make no comment about it all, I'm just saying it's out there.
heebeegeetee said:
Which is the situation that we've already got.
Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
My experience is that they are just far more clueless when it comes to safety and pay far less attention. Yes, they definitely appear to be more law abiding, I think you are spot on with that observation but I think they get flattened more because they just wander out in front of traffic without paying enough attention. You can see it almost daily. I had one of them yesterday and she would have been flattened under my car if I hadn't made the early assumption that she was an incompetent based solely on her bring a woman wearing non cycling gear. Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
The people I see undertaking left turning traffic seem to be white blokes openly willing to gamble with their lives to keep up their momentum or women seemingly oblivious to the risk they are taking.
heebeegeetee said:
Pete317 said:
One would hope that this comes from more than just speculation, regardless of how educated it may be.
Road deaths are all thoroughly investigated to the point that the cause of and circumstances surrounding the collision are pretty much established.
If that's indeed the case then I would think that 'strongly suggested' would not be a definite enough term.
It's a theory that I've frequently seen mooted with regard to female cyclists being flattened by hgvs. If anyone cares to look there's a whole raft of further gender-related stuff to, such as apparently men are much less likely to take up training that women 'because ego'.Road deaths are all thoroughly investigated to the point that the cause of and circumstances surrounding the collision are pretty much established.
If that's indeed the case then I would think that 'strongly suggested' would not be a definite enough term.
I make no comment about it all, I'm just saying it's out there.
Otherwise, they may just be speculation - which may even serve to detract from the real reasons for these episodes.
Edited by Pete317 on Monday 23 November 16:14
heebeegeetee said:
"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
If thats true its a very easy one to solve. You just make cycling up the inside of stationary vehicles illegalThis means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
In the other thread we saw a couple instances of cyclists holding station in traffic rather than trying to under/overtake. I cant say if its rare or common place as the vids were from cyclists doing under/over taking
heebeegeetee said:
For wkers like yourself, why not spend ooh, 10 seconds on Google which will bring you stuff like
"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
But if you're this ignorant of such matters anyway, why come on this type of thread?
There's yer problem, sitting in the drivers blind spot. kers like yourself, why not spend ooh, 10 seconds on Google which will bring you stuff like"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
But if you're this ignorant of such matters anyway, why come on this type of thread?
heebeegeetee said:
Which is the situation that we've already got.
Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
Heebeegeetee I think you may have misunderstood me. I was suggesting that cyclists that don't take responsibility, should do so. Clearly if they are already behaving responsibly - such as the women you describe - and bad lorry drivers kill them, that is different, and really not what I was saying.Indeed it is strongly suggested that the reason more women than men are flattened by HGVs is that women tend to be more law abiding and are taking responsibility for themselves, and thus are waiting at the red lights when the hgv comes along and places them in their blind spot or just plain runs them down from behind.
I, and if I may, Digby and DonkeyApple, am talking about the cyclists who gamble with their own lives despite the best efforts of these two posters not to kill them. Not that you have killed anyone chaps......you get my point.
Mike.
Brave Fart said:
Heebeegeetee I think you may have misunderstood me. I was suggesting that cyclists that don't take responsibility, should do so.
I doubt anyone would disagree, least of all me, but it's the same for everyone. Pedestrians, who have a higher casualty rate than cyclists, could also do likewise (and we're all pedestrians ourselves at times - do we all follow every tenant of the HC, including wearing reflective items of clothing when out at night, for instance? I know I don't) cyclists, car drivers, lorry drivers, motorcyclists, all have a 'reckless' element amongst our/their number who could do with taking responsibility for themselves. Cyclists don't differ from this in any way.heebeegeetee said:
For wkers like yourself, why not spend ooh, 10 seconds on Google which will bring you stuff like
"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
But if you're this ignorant of such matters anyway, why come on this type of thread?
This is the internet.kers like yourself, why not spend ooh, 10 seconds on Google which will bring you stuff like"In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
And there's lots more in a similar vein if you look.
But if you're this ignorant of such matters anyway, why come on this type of thread?
Posting "it has been suggested" with no attribution is not far from "I heard at the pub".
Thank you for providing some attribution.
heebeegeetee said:
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
From that link..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
Cyclists should never pass a lorry on its left side at a junction, even if there is a wide gap. In addition, they should never stop near the front left corner of such a vehicle as they cannot be seen.
Cyclists should always make sure they are far enough in front of the lorry so that the driver can see them - about 15ft (4.6m) for the largest'
These safety tips are something I rarely see. If a cyclist is far enough ahead to be seen, I doubt many of them made that decision due to being aware of the dangers; it's probably more to do with road layout.
I think the thing you are overlooking by mentioning a few tragic examples is that the above situations are evident hundreds of times a day in and around London etc. It's pointless to suggest that when a drunk trucker with no licence who is on his iPad runs someone over, it subsequently makes efforts by the haulage industry to keep cyclists safe fall flat on their face. It's the extremely safe and responsible drivers being surrounded by unaware cyclists that I am worried about.
Also from that link..
Marian Louise Noonan, 32, from south London, is a confessed kerb-hugger, and that leaves her feeling quite vulnerable on the roads, unlike her husband.
"He cycles much more aggressively and is aware of all the traffic around him. He cycles as if someone is going to hit him and makes sure he is in a safe position," she says.
"I'm much more nervous of my cycling ability, I'm frightened people might hit me, which means I don't cycle in a positive manner."
As I have said before, it's such a mixed bag. Whilst I am left wondering where the hell her husband has vanished to, I am left focusing 90% of my attention on her before any manoeuvre. That's just two cyclists. At busy junctions in the city, there will be twenty plus all around.
Again, I just can't get my head around H&S being involved in absolutely every rudimentary action these days, yet absolutely nothing is required to go play in traffic that can and will kill you if you or they get it wrong.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff