Rethink on cycling deaths

[saaby93]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34604622
Good idea they've decided to look into this but from the prosecution angle rather than trying to uncover whats going on?

The article headline is good too 'rethink on cycling deaths' i.e. trying to find out whats behind it
but within the article what could be taken as a one sided point of view 'cyclists were killed'
However in taking the line why were cyclists killed it could include whats leading to the deaths i.e. not just looking at whether cyclists or drivers created the dangerous situation but looking at policy eg is road layout misleading or psychology behind what are supposed to be helpful measures such as where we've questioned whether Advanced Stop Lines or cycle highways encouraging cyclists to adopt more risky behaviour in places like London. Are motorists affected too? Where do pedestrians fit in?
There'll be a lot to look at.

[anonymous-user]

A major issue seems to be the Police and a simple lack of understanding regarding cycling. Look at all those quotes from Senior Officers who say its too dangerous, too risky etc to cycle in London. They are putting the blame on the cyclist post collision by implying that the cyclist has placed themselves in a position of danger and as a result, if they get killed, its their fault.

Even as a regular cyclist though, the issue of presumed liability is not one I would like to go down just yet as I still see many people riding bikes on the road with inadequate lights/clothing. For presumed liability to work, the cyclist must have taken some steps to ensure their safety.

[SteveSteveson]

I feel like the issue is that the police in general just don't take cycling seriously. They don't see it as a serious means of transport and don't see cycling as anything more than a thing for those who can't afford a car, a weekend hobby and possibly a high risk sport. I think this is true of the public in general, including many of the issues that exist revolve around that, on both sides.

Cyclists are not taken seriously, so poor cycling is just seen as a byproduct and something to be accepted, like kids being naughty, and poor treatment of cyclists by drivers is seen as the cyclists fault. This is the big difference I see to places like Holland. There infrastructure is a little better, but in my experience their driving is worse and their cycling is just as variable as the UK. But cycling is seen as a viable way to travel, and cyclists are held to the same standards as other road users, and cycle accidents are treated just the same as car accidents rather than being seen as an inevitable consequence of cycling, and precipitated by things like lack of high viz or other excuses. Part of this is a very "them and us" attitude. Many drivers see cyclists as all being an annoyance and contemptible, cycling pressure groups have too many "cycle supremacists", both feed each others anger rather than actually moving forward.

Oh, and strict liability would be stupid and strike at the heart of a fair legal system.

Edited by SteveSteveson on Monday 26th October 09:12

[untakenname]

I think those victim blaming comments by senior police are unacceptable. Asking if the cyclist was wearing high vis and a helmet is unacceptable as well, you wouldn't ever get a victim in a car being blamed for not having a roll cage or having a silver/black coloured car.

I do think by law all cyclists should have lights on even during the day, was driving yesterday down a NSL road and didn't see one till really close due to the dappled shade and the cyclist wearing dark colours.

[Kell]

What I would like to know when it comes to verdicts of 'accidental' death is how that's allowed to be a verdict when the police are so convinced that there's no such things as an accident any more.

Hence changing RTA to RTC. Someone has to be at fault.

Of course, I'm not saying that it's always the driver, but all those "I was blinded by the sun" comments you hear may be a reason, but they're not an excuse.

[SteveSteveson]

untakenname said:

I do think by law all cyclists should have lights on even during the day.

I don't know about by law, but people should be encouraged to use them. People should be driving within what they can see, but a flashing rear light can make a big difference to your own safety in many weather conditions.

[TwistingMyMelon]

I have a front flashing light all year round, on the basis that every little helps. I find it grabs peoples attention at junctions so they they see and dont pull out at me. Its also great if I get caught out on a evening ride and it gets dark.

[Fastpedeller]

SteveSteveson said:

untakenname said:

I do think by law all cyclists should have lights on even during the day.

I don't know about by law, but people should be encouraged to use them. People should be driving within what they can see, but a flashing rear light can make a big difference to your own safety in many weather conditions.

So what about all pedestrians??? Crazy pandering to the people who can't be bothered to look properly!

[fangio]

SteveSteveson said:

.....a flashing rear light can make a big difference to your own safety in many weather conditions.

Bloody flashing lights, they're only on half the time!
I look the other way when they dazzle me.

[SteveSteveson]

Fastpedeller said:

So what about all pedestrians??? Crazy pandering to the people who can't be bothered to look properly!

Pedestrians act very differently to cyclists. Walking on pavements or standing back as cars pass on roads without pavements not out in the road. In an ideal world no one would ever make mistakes, but why refuse to do something simple like put a flashing light on your bike? I do, for the same reason I keep my lights on when riding a motorbike without running lights. If you don't want to, fine, but why get angry about encouraging being seen?

[Fastpedeller]

SteveSteveson said:

Fastpedeller said:

So what about all pedestrians??? Crazy pandering to the people who can't be bothered to look properly!

Pedestrians act very differently to cyclists. Walking on pavements or standing back as cars pass on roads without pavements not out in the road. In an ideal world no one would ever make mistakes, but why refuse to do something simple like put a flashing light on your bike? I do, for the same reason I keep my lights on when riding a motorbike without running lights. If you don't want to, fine, but why get angry about encouraging being seen?

Not getting angry - just expressing another view
Too many lights in town means the cyclist or pedestrian (the most vulnerable 'road users') gets lost in a sea of lights... The introduction of DRL's on all new cars was seen as a danger (rather than a merit) by ROSPA, who opposed (unsuccessfully)the use of the technology. Unfortunately the EU rules us. It's like the MOT not being required for pre 1960 cars - who could possibly think this is a benefit? Maybe (due to very low mileage) reduce to 2 year interval, but not required!! The mind boggles

[grumbledoak]

article said:

Liability change

Cycling campaigners are calling for a change in liability - who is considered responsible for a collision - in civil cases.

If you saw me on my road bike you might assume I was 'a cyclist'. Campaigns like this make me want to emphasise that I am nothing like those people.

[ClassicMercs]

Hi-viz clothing = tick
Flashing LED's = tick
Strong static front LED = tick

So why did I have to dive into a hedge back tonight !

For the second time in two weeks a car coming towards me has decided to overtake other cars in front of it on narrow rural roads. I almost thought the first time was partially my fault as it was dusk and I only had my older front light on rather than the better one. But tonight ! Not sure if they were racing or what - and being rural the police had nothing to go other than it was a larger saloon car - possibly on older 5 series. I did get a lift 5 miles home though as the bike needed some adjustment under some decent light.

And that's after yesterday when a HGV tractor unit thought he deserved to beat me through the pinch point in the road - where highways designers have decided central islands help slow traffic. No ! They add dangers - luckily the HGV didn't have a trailer on - but how many times has similar happened to you ? Certainly happens to me often - cars either making it or slamming on the anchors behind me.

Clock changing is also a big factor in accidents apparently the PC was saying - a sudden change in light on a normal drive home and drivers are not able to judge distances etc as they did a few days earlier.

Is cycling worth it any more - the weight I have lost - the fitness I have gained. Should I have continued eating myself to death - or just decided to get killed on the roads ?

Is a GoPro worth it ? How good do they work on dark rural roads ?

[duckwhistle]

I wonder if any consideration has been given to standardising lights on bikes. I stood at a busy city junction recently and watched numerous bikes passing. Some were lit up like Christmas trees, others just with those little pea lights. Against a background of shops,other traffic etc some were almost invisible and even the bright ones were not always immediately identifiable as bikes. One rider in particular had two very bright front lights which looked like a car far away rather than a bike 50mts away. Lots of helmet lights bobbing away at random heights and patterns but no one feature identifying the bike as such. Even the dayglow jackets seem to vary from lime green to almost red, some sleeved some tabards. All types of road users have an expectation of what they are likely to see but with no 'pattern' for bike lights it's no surprise that some go unseen. One glance should say ' bike'. Any thoughts on this ?

[RCBRG]

duckwhistle said:

I wonder if any consideration has been given to standardising lights on bikes. I stood at a busy city junction recently and watched numerous bikes passing. Some were lit up like Christmas trees, others just with those little pea lights. Against a background of shops,other traffic etc some were almost invisible and even the bright ones were not always immediately identifiable as bikes. One rider in particular had two very bright front lights which looked like a car far away rather than a bike 50mts away. Lots of helmet lights bobbing away at random heights and patterns but no one feature identifying the bike as such. Even the dayglow jackets seem to vary from lime green to almost red, some sleeved some tabards. All types of road users have an expectation of what they are likely to see but with no 'pattern' for bike lights it's no surprise that some go unseen. One glance should say ' bike'. Any thoughts on this ?

i think the problem is not people being unable to decide if its a bike, car etc. its people being unaware/uninterested in the risks of cycling, and seemingly not caring about the lives of other people!

i often find people appear to be staring directly at me, whilst pulling out directly in front of me. my front light is on par with the brightness of a car head light and i wear a bright green jacket, so i dont think visibility is a good excuse

[Fastpedeller]

RCBRG said:

i think the problem is not people being unable to decide if its a bike, car etc. its people being unaware/uninterested in the risks of cycling, and seemingly not caring about the lives of other people!

i often find people appear to be staring directly at me, whilst pulling out directly in front of me. my front light is on par with the brightness of a car head light and i wear a bright green jacket, so i dont think visibility is a good excuse

Indeed, some look around a bike/rider to see if there is anything else coming. Yesterday, in double queue to roundabout, where a cycle lane crosses, Car in front moves, but there is a cyclist coming across cycle lane, and traffic is moving very slowly anyway. I wait to allow him to cross, but car on my right just totally ignores him and carries on to join the queue! Gobsmacked that she couldn't wait a couple of seconds.

[yellowjack]

duckwhistle said:

I wonder if any consideration has been given to standardising lights on bikes. I stood at a busy city junction recently and watched numerous bikes passing. Some were lit up like Christmas trees, others just with those little pea lights. Against a background of shops,other traffic etc some were almost invisible and even the bright ones were not always immediately identifiable as bikes. One rider in particular had two very bright front lights which looked like a car far away rather than a bike 50mts away. Lots of helmet lights bobbing away at random heights and patterns but no one feature identifying the bike as such. Even the dayglow jackets seem to vary from lime green to almost red, some sleeved some tabards. All types of road users have an expectation of what they are likely to see but with no 'pattern' for bike lights it's no surprise that some go unseen. One glance should say ' bike'. Any thoughts on this ?

In the "good old days" when 'British Standard" marked lights were easy to come by, it was dead easy to buy a bike light tested to British standards. The trouble was, they were crap. And the 'Standard' is the same today, despite the accelerated development of LEDs, rechargeable batteries, and technical lenses/reflectors. And the fact that we HAVE to accept 'EU' standard marks parallel with our own.

It's now almost impossible to find a lamp that complies with the British Standard 'BS 6102/3'. Many of the lamps on sale on t'internet, and even some of those in 'proper' bike shops are technically illegal through non-compliance with the legal Standard. But the fact is, that even the "illegal" lamps are likely to be many times BETTER at being bike lights than the bulk of compliant lamps. Plus there is still some confusion over the status of 'flashing' lamps and LEDs, after updates to RVLRs in 2005.

Have a look at this... http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-lighti... ...but bear in mind that some of it's statements are now out of date, and need to be read in conjunction with the more recent changes to RVLRs.

Key amongst the observations, though (for me at least), is this bit...

linked article said:

"...general anecdotal experience is that most police forces have better things to do than enforce bicycle lighting regulations. They would far rather penalise failure to light at all than use of a flashing light. Most would recognise reality and congratulate the users of flashing LEDs on their efforts to improve their conspicuity..."

Sorry to link to such an outdated article, but it is (or was, when first published) a pretty well thought through item.

**Edit**
I've found a more up-to-date article from the CTC... http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations... ...which might be of more use to current riders in the UK.

[yellowjack]

Fastpedeller said:

RCBRG said:

i think the problem is not people being unable to decide if its a bike, car etc. its people being unaware/uninterested in the risks of cycling, and seemingly not caring about the lives of other people!

i often find people appear to be staring directly at me, whilst pulling out directly in front of me. my front light is on par with the brightness of a car head light and i wear a bright green jacket, so i dont think visibility is a good excuse

Indeed, some look around a bike/rider to see if there is anything else coming. Yesterday, in double queue to roundabout, where a cycle lane crosses, Car in front moves, but there is a cyclist coming across cycle lane, and traffic is moving very slowly anyway. I wait to allow him to cross, but car on my right just totally ignores him and carries on to join the queue! Gobsmacked that she couldn't wait a couple of seconds.

I've experienced this many times. To the point where I now look behind me whenever a driver "gives way" to me, especially at traffic calming 'chicanes' etc, to see if indeed it is me that they've "given way" to, or if there is something behind me which forces them to 'play nice'.

If it turns out that the road behind me is empty, then I make a point of thanking those that drive properly, with consideration for me as a cyclist.

[davepoth]

I think the big problem right now is that the rapid growth of cycling has caught traffic engineers on the hop.

For the last two decades the direction of travel in urban and semi urban road management has been to reduce the amount of road space available to slow cars down. In my home town, two of the major roads into and out of the centre have been reduced from 30mph four lane roads to two lanes by building out kerb extensions and bus stops into one of the lanes. Slows the traffic down - it's a bloody nightmare in rush hour - but it means that roads where it was once easy to pass a cyclist has now become dangerous.

Or the two lane road that connects us to the nearest big city. When I started driving it had a cross-hatched section down the middle more or less as wide as a traffic lane - again, perfect for making it safely past a cyclist. That now has traffic islands every 200 yards, which makes any pass much more aggressive.

They don't know how to plan roads to keep cyclists safe, or when it's better to segregate them completely, and most of the infrastructure they have needs to be razed to the ground and started again to fix it.