Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[Hugo a Gogo]

Mad Jock said:

Swimmer goes out to swim in shark infested waters.

Swimmer gets eaten by shark.

Shark blamed for swimmers death.

mindless animal operating on instinct alone, unaware of the harm he can do

is that the tipper driver?

[croyde]

Just watched a cyclist undertaking a van that was slowing and had its indicators on nearly getting bashed and then turning on the driver and calling him a %$£$£@. Even as a sometimes cyclist I was going to join in on the driver's side but the pratt had cycled off.

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

I think the document reference is TRL PPR 445

The picture is, as always, more complex.

The only reference to balance of attribution of blame(factor) I can find is 'attribution seems to be split fairly equally between cyclist and driver/rider of motorised vehicle'

The big swing is age and severity - the more severe the accident the more likely (factor)blame is shared. Also the younger (under 24) have majority cyclist only factor, those 25-54 the car is majority. Slight accident & serious above age 24 is majority car

[irocfan]

v12Legs said:

Weird isn't it, how all these people find cyclists a "nightmare" and difficult to drive safely around.

I've been driving for 20 years, including London, and I don't think I've ever had a problem with a cyclist, even the unobservant crap ones. Maybe I'm just lucky.

you've been in London for 20 odd years and never had a problem with a cyclist - good for you. There are people who've been mugged at knife-point/robbed, just because it hasn't happened to you or someone you know doesn't mean it doesn't happen

[Mad Jock]

I don't hear of many motorcyclists getting trapped down the inside of trucks, and they are just as vulnerable as cyclists. Could it be that they realise that it's not a good idea to pass a big truck/bus/car on the nearside near a junction, or is it perhaps that they notice the truck's indicators, and maybe also use the rule "if you can't see the driver in his mirrors, then he can't see you"?

I don't believe for one minute that drivers set out to kill a cyclist, nor do I believe that cyclists deliberately put themselves in vulnerable positions. I have seen car drivers position themselves is such a way that a truck can't make a turn. Articulated lorries turning left down a side street need a lot of room to make the turn, then get stymied by the car driver coming up on their nearside, despite the truck's left indicators being on.

The difference is that the car will just get bent a bit if the truck driver doesn't see it in it's blind spot, but a cyclist will get seriously hurt or killed. Both acts are just as dumb, but the outcome is very different.

While it's hard to catch a cyclist breaking the law, when they are caught they get a fine of some sort. Why not send them on a Cyclist Safety Awareness Course, and charge them the same as car drivers doing a Speed Awareness Course.

[Mave]

Mad Jock said:

I don't hear of many motorcyclists getting trapped down the inside of trucks, and they are just as vulnerable as cyclists. Could it be that they realise that it's not a good idea to pass a big truck/bus/car on the nearside near a junction

The main difference is that motorcyclists can keep ahead of the traffic after the junction. Cyclists will normally want to be on the left after a junction to facilitate being overtaken; if you filter on the right then you run the risk of being trapped on the right with cars undertaking you if you can't find a gap to cut through while everyone is accelerating.

[Digby]

Mr Gear said:

Digby said:

So they can avoid all the scanning, braking, need for mirrors and looking over shoulders, presumably?

I was talking about the circumstances mentioned when you are surrounded by cycles and they just keep coming.

I suggest then that you have a little cry about on the internet.

[Vipers]

Do the statistics of cyclists being injured break them down to those who are motorists as well, and therefore some knoweldge of the highway code?

[Mave]

Well, they break them down by age, I guess most of the under 16s aren't motorists ;-)

[Vipers]

Mave said:

Well, they break them down by age, I guess most of the under 16s aren't motorists ;-)

Are you a member of Mensa by any chance

[saaby93]

wsurfa said:

The picture is, as always, more complex.

The only reference to balance of attribution of blame(factor) I can find is 'attribution seems to be split fairly equally between cyclist and driver/rider of motorised vehicle'

The big swing is age and severity - the more severe the accident the more likely (factor)blame is shared. Also the younger (under 24) have majority cyclist only factor, those 25-54 the car is majority. Slight accident & serious above age 24 is majority car

Nice graph but it's based on each group adding up to 100%
It would be useful to see each group scaled by the percentage size of each age group - notice the age group sizes vary too
Or make each age group the same size and ahow actual numbers

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Nice graph but it's based on each group adding up to 100%
It would be useful to see each group scaled by the percentage size of each age group - notice the age group sizes vary too
Or make each age group the same size and ahow actual numbers

Perhaps you could aim your complaints at the authors of TRL PPR445 as that's the source. Have some more from the report below.

[saaby93]

wsurfa said:

Perhaps you could aim your complaints at the authors of TRL PPR445 as that's the source.

Yes. Sorry not aimed at you

[deeen]

Wow is this still going? I cycled from Clapham Junction to Earls Court today, I didn't die.

I did have to brake for 2 cars, a Prius and an Addison Lee taxi. I don't think I unduly held up any cars.

Does that help?

[Vipers]

deeen said:

Wow is this still going? I cycled from Clapham Junction to Earls Court today, I didn't die.

I did have to brake for 2 cars, a Prius and an Addison Lee taxi. I don't think I unduly held up any cars.

Does that help?

But your now one day nearer to dying though.

[Hackney]

Mr Will said:

Hackney said:

Mave said:

Hackney said:

Define "safe".
And if your definition involves, "when there is a suitable gap between cyclists" then I'm afraid "safe" will never happen.

Well then you just have to carry on waiting! Consider the analogies I suggested, would you pull out from behind a 50mph lorry into the path of a 70mph overtaking car, or woukd you carry on waiting for a gap irrespective of how long you'd been baulked?

In your example I'd still be making progress even if I stayed where I was, rather than being stationery in the middle of the road as bikes and cars swarm past me.
I'll answer it for you, you have to risk pissing off the cyclists with no road sense in order to get out of the way of everyone.

Okay, try this example: Stuck a bus in one of those stupid lane-blocking bus stops in the left hand lane of a two lane road with a line of 30mph traffic in the right hand lane.

Alternatively; stuck in the right hand lane trying to turn left across a bus lane when there is a line of buses and taxis passing in it.

Is it okay to force your way out in either scenario?

In either scenario I'd have the indicator on and someone would inevitably let me out.
If no-one was letting me out I'd wait until there was a gap big enough and go. In that instance I wouldn't expect the abuse I regularly get when it's cyclists rather than cars.

[Hackney]

deeen said:

Wow is this still going? I cycled from Clapham Junction to Earls Court today, I didn't die.

I did have to brake for 2 cars, a Prius and an Addison Lee taxi. I don't think I unduly held up any cars.

Does that help?

You're lucky to be alive! You encountered the two most dangerous types of driver on the road and came away unscathed.
I trust you bought a lottery ticket as that was truly your lucky day!

[sparkyhx]

wolves_wanderer said:

sparkyhx said:

The Vambo said:

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

I think the document reference is TRL PPR 445

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at
junctions).

Not exactly conclusive proof. Define how have they classed 'failed to look properly'

Dark and cyclist no lights/dressed in dark clothes - failed to look properly
coming up the inside of you when you're turning left - failed to look properly
overtaking when you're turning right - failed to look
cyclist falls out of the sky and lands in front of you - failed to look properly

TBH I would class all those as the cyclists fault.

Its impossible to look everywhere your attention is focused on the main risk areas. you can look left and someone will appear on the outside of you look right.you get the idea. London is just a nightmare with all the cyclists

What exactly would be conclusive proof for you, given that a Department for Transport report apparently isn't?

Define Failed to look properly - do all the above come into that category or are they classes as cyclists fault. there is nothing to say in the report. I suspect (not prove) that all the above are classed as 'failed to look'. but we will never know.

[sparkyhx]

Mave said:

sparkyhx said:

Not exactly conclusive proof.

Somewhat more conclusive and independent than some bloke on the internet saying "cyclists are the main problem"

where have I said that? - I was just highlighting the statistics are not backed up by a published methodology for classification - so its impossible to know if they reflect the real life situation or what the average man in the street would classify as 'fault'.

If you read the report it breaks down deaths by age. If the high percentage was down to drivers then there should not be such a significant differences across the age groups. The statistics seem to suggest (not prove) attitudes to risk and risk avoidance linked to age appear to be a significant factor - i.e. just the kind of things that have been discussed in this thread.

[sparkyhx]

Mr Gear said:

sparkyhx said:

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at
junctions).

Not exactly conclusive proof. Define how have they classed 'failed to look properly'

Dark and cyclist no lights/dressed in dark clothes - failed to look properly
coming up the inside of you when you're turning left - failed to look properly
overtaking when you're turning right - failed to look
cyclist falls out of the sky and lands in front of you - failed to look properly

TBH I would class all those as the cyclists fault.

Its impossible to look everywhere your attention is focused on the main risk areas. you can look left and someone will appear on the outside of you look right.you get the idea. London is just a nightmare with all the cyclists

sounds like driving isn't really for you if you find it that hard do safely.

how do you get that? I'm clearly giving examples of what I would consider to be Cyclist being a significant contributory factor to their own demise, and how they in theory may be classed as 'failed to look' as per the report.

I'm an ok driver actually, 30+ years driving a year, no speeding tickets etc, advanced, taught advanced, taught the people who teach advanced, won through to top 6 national drivers completion, done police driving course, skid pan several times, taught skid pan driving. 40+ track days. I know enough to know I'm no driving god, but I do have some idea.