Another cyclist dies in London

[rambo19]

Sadly, there are to many cyclists who put themselves in danger.
I lived and worked in london for years, and cyclists were, on the whole, a complete nightmare.
What I would like to see is the police doing more, but they are overworked as it is.

[Yabu]

80 deaths, 23,000 accidents involving cyclists in London over 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-316122...

[ZX10R NIN]

Yabu said:

80 deaths, 23,000 accidents involving cyclists in London over 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-316122...

The numbers are going down only 12 last year on London's Roads, 22 Motorcyclists died on Londons Roads last year to infact more Motorcyclists have died on Londons Roads than Cyclists so I don't get your point.

[Devil2575]

ZX10R NIN said:

Yabu said:

80 deaths, 23,000 accidents involving cyclists in London over 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-316122...

The numbers are going down only 12 last year on London's Roads, 22 Motorcyclists died on Londons Roads last year to infact more Motorcyclists have died on Londons Roads than Cyclists so I don't get your point.

Motorcyclists have a greater probability of being killed than any other group of road users.

[Mr2Mike]

ZX10R NIN said:

The numbers are going down only 12 last year on London's Roads, 22 Motorcyclists died on Londons Roads last year to infact more Motorcyclists have died on Londons Roads than Cyclists so I don't get your point.

The fatal accident data doesn't look that great for cyclists, unless there have been a significant improvement in the last couple of years?

The year-year cyclist fatality rate varies quite a bit, but the overall trend is pretty flat. In 2013 the number of motorcycle fatalities in the UK had halved compared to 2003, but the number of cyclist fatalities was about the same.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 25th February 18:57

[whysub]

ZX10R NIN said:

The numbers are going down only 12 last year on London's Roads, 22 Motorcyclists died on Londons Roads last year to infact more Motorcyclists have died on Londons Roads than Cyclists so I don't get your point.

From my observation over 15 years riding between home and my office i would say there are far more powered two wheelers on the roads than cycles. And it depends on what roads in London these figures were collated for. I dont see many cycles on the A13 (although there are a few-madness when there is a safe and fast cycle lane running parralel to it) but have seen a number of motorcycle collisions on it.

[Antony Moxey]

walm said:

NinjaPower said:

He certainly won't see a cyclist parked in front of his bumper.

Funnily enough, I wouldn't sneak into the blind spot (frankly that would be way more effort!).

You would end up around 6ft+ in front of him, at least.

The whole point is to AVOID the area within the yellow boundaries here:

If you couldn't see a cyclist on the bike in front of the truck or one where the plod is stood just to the front left of the truck then seriously, you shouldn't be driving. That isn't a blind spot, it's a cant be arsed to look properly spot.

[boz1]

Antony Moxey said:

If you couldn't see a cyclist on the bike in front of the truck or one where the plod is stood just to the front left of the truck then seriously, you shouldn't be driving. That isn't a blind spot, it's a cant be arsed to look properly spot.

Oh really? Have you noticed on which side of a vehicle the steering wheel is in this country? Have you also noticed that trucks have these weird things call "dasboards" and "steering wheels"?

The driver is going to be sitting a good metre back from the windscreen as per this pic:


So if he's looking at this box:


This is what he will see:


You'll find plenty of other sources also making this completely obvious point:
http://lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Transport_and_Streets...

Edited to add: Why are you even arguing about this? Why do you think plod set up the demonstration in the original photograph? For fun? As part of some elaborate conspiracy to give negligent lorry drivers an excuse for killing cyclists?

Err, no. It's to try and keep cyclists safe, by telling them some facts.

Edited by boz1 on Wednesday 25th February 13:10

[Antony Moxey]

boz1 said:

Antony Moxey said:

If you couldn't see a cyclist on the bike in front of the truck or one where the plod is stood just to the front left of the truck then seriously, you shouldn't be driving. That isn't a blind spot, it's a cant be arsed to look properly spot.

Oh really? Have you noticed on which side of a vehicle the steering wheel is in this country? Have you also noticed that trucks have these weird things call "dasboards" and "steering wheels"?

Yes, really. From the pic taken from inside the cab you can clearly see the tape marking the area in front of the cab, so the driver is able to see the ground. If you can't see a bike and rider perched four feet above this then you shouldn't be driving. Also, regarding the trucks shown in your pictures, if you're sat up at a set of lights your head isn't that far below the level of the bottom of the windscreen so should be visible. Unless of course you simply don't look properly.

[v12Legs]

rambo19 said:

Sadly, there are to many cyclists who put themselves in danger.
I lived and worked in london for years, and cyclists were, on the whole, a complete nightmare.
What I would like to see is the police doing more, but they are overworked as it is.

Two thirds of lorries defective or illegal

But yeah, I'm sure you're right that the problem mainly lies with cyclists.

[boz1]

Antony Moxey said:

Yes, really. From the pic taken from inside the cab you can clearly see the tape marking the area in front of the cab, so the driver is able to see the ground. If you can't see a bike and rider perched four feet above this then you shouldn't be driving. Also, regarding the trucks shown in your pictures, if you're sat up at a set of lights your head isn't that far below the level of the bottom of the windscreen so should be visible. Unless of course you simply don't look properly.

It's completely obvious that if the lady in the photograph were to move further left and closer to the truck, to where the officer is the earlier photograph, that she would easily be out of sight. The link posted earlier of the truck propelling the Clio along the A1 should also have this pretty obvious for you. Here it is again, for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJic8Z4Tx9Q

I also note that you do not address the obvious point I made that plod and others don't set up these demonstrations for the sake of it.

The formula for the distance you need to be from the truck for the top of your head to be seen:
a = your height
b = height of bottom of truck windscreen from ground
c = vertical distance from driver's eyes to bottom of windscreen
d = horizontal distance from drivers eyes to closest point of windscreen between you and driver

Distance needed = d/c *(b - a)

This means that the very top of the head of an average woman (160cm) will only become visible to the driver of a truck (where b = 230cm) when their head is 140cm (4.5ft) directly in front of the truck, if she is standing up straight, assuming that d/c = 2. (Driver 100cm from screen, eyes vertically 50cm above bottom of screen.)

So, a petite lady of 150cm at an angle from the truck such that d/c = 3 would need to be 2.4 metres (nearly 8 feet) from the truck before even the top of her head was visible.

• b = 230cm seems not unlikely for many trucks: http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/uk-market/en-gb/...

Obviously, I realise this can be (and is) partially mitigated by mirrors. However, there's no substitute for direct line of sight and no logical reason why cyclists wouldn't want to keep themselves safe, which is easy to do. I assume the reason many don't is due to ignorance.

Edited by boz1 on Wednesday 25th February 14:13

[heebeegeetee]

Antony Moxey said:

es, really. From the pic taken from inside the cab you can clearly see the tape marking the area in front of the cab, so the driver is able to see the ground. If you can't see a bike and rider perched four feet above this then you shouldn't be driving. Also, regarding the trucks shown in your pictures, if you're sat up at a set of lights your head isn't that far below the level of the bottom of the windscreen so should be visible. Unless of course you simply don't look properly.

Are you speaking from experience?

[walm]

boz1 said:

So, a petite lady of 150cm at an angle from the truck such that d/c = 3 would need to be 2.4 metres (nearly 8 feet) from the truck before even the top of her head was visible.

d/c of 2 is reasonable.
d/c of 3 is not.
d/c of 3 would require the driver being 1.5 metres back from the windscreen.
Or d/c of 3 would require just being say 30cm above the bottom of the screen - that's too low.

Also the bottom of the screen looks to be about around head height - well under 2m and nowhere near 2.3m.

[Antony Moxey]

heebeegeetee said:

Antony Moxey said:

es, really. From the pic taken from inside the cab you can clearly see the tape marking the area in front of the cab, so the driver is able to see the ground. If you can't see a bike and rider perched four feet above this then you shouldn't be driving. Also, regarding the trucks shown in your pictures, if you're sat up at a set of lights your head isn't that far below the level of the bottom of the windscreen so should be visible. Unless of course you simply don't look properly.

Are you speaking from experience?

No, I'm speaking from looking at posted photographs from inside a truck's cab where you can clearly see a cyclist within a taped box on the floor that you can also see.

[Antony Moxey]

boz1 said:

It's completely obvious that if the lady in the photograph were to move further left and closer to the truck, to where the officer is the earlier photograph, that she would easily be out of sight.

Yep, move the cyclists to where it supports your argument and it's job done. I'm just going on the pics posted on this thread.

[BugLebowski]

ZX10R NIN said:

Yabu said:

80 deaths, 23,000 accidents involving cyclists in London over 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-316122...

The numbers are going down only 12 last year on London's Roads, 22 Motorcyclists died on Londons Roads last year to infact more Motorcyclists have died on Londons Roads than Cyclists so I don't get your point.

Does it have to be a competition?

[GC8]

Antony Moxey said:

walm said:

NinjaPower said:

He certainly won't see a cyclist parked in front of his bumper.

Funnily enough, I wouldn't sneak into the blind spot (frankly that would be way more effort!).

You would end up around 6ft+ in front of him, at least.

The whole point is to AVOID the area within the yellow boundaries here:

If you couldn't see a cyclist on the bike in front of the truck or one where the plod is stood just to the front left of the truck then seriously, you shouldn't be driving. That isn't a blind spot, it's a cant be arsed to look properly spot.

To those who can do, and know what theyre talking about, you look particularly foolish.

Edited by GC8 on Wednesday 25th February 22:31

[The Vambo]

v12Legs said:

Two thirds of lorries defective or illegal

But yeah, I'm sure you're right that the problem mainly lies with cyclists.

That logical fallacy was written by an moron and posted by someone desperate to believe a moron.

The police and VOSA deliberately do not stop an even cross section of LGV traffic, if you are driving something like a Dentressangle wagon you are significantly less likely to be pulled than an unbranded or small operator vehicle.

They know what wagons are likely to be faulty so they pull them.

The large companies, in my experience are even more anal about vehicle maintenance than even VOSA.

V12Legs will be telling us that speed kills next

Edited by The Vambo on Wednesday 25th February 15:41

[heebeegeetee]

Antony Moxey said:

o, I'm speaking from looking at posted photographs from inside a truck's cab where you can clearly see a cyclist within a taped box on the floor that you can also see.

As I thought, you're speaking from absolutely zero experience, making strong pronouncements on an important topic based on no more that one picture on the internet.

Absolutely pathetic. Ridiculous.

[Antony Moxey]

heebeegeetee said:

Antony Moxey said:

o, I'm speaking from looking at posted photographs from inside a truck's cab where you can clearly see a cyclist within a taped box on the floor that you can also see.

As I thought, you're speaking from absolutely zero experience, making strong pronouncements on an important topic based on no more that one picture on the internet.

Absolutely pathetic. Ridiculous.

Yep, hands up, I'm pathetic and ridiculous. So what's the point of the photographs looking out of the truck windscreen? What are they illustrating - if it's a lack of vision why can I see a cyclist and tape on the floor when it's supposed to be a blind spot? As a driver would you not see that from your seat in your cab - I presume that's the whole point of that particular photograph.