Another cyclist dies in London

[Mave]

Psimpson7 said:

Hope this guy gets well soon. Shows the danger of badly loaded vehicles, and the impact even something as 'minor' as a loose rope can have on a cyclist

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/31/17/32/...

Nasty. Hope he gets well soon.

[FiF]

Mave said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

The Keigan report is not specifically referenced at all in your post,

On Monday I wrote, very clearly.

FiF said:

The PPR report covering national road network refers to the report by M Keigan et al, a report specific to London. It's that report to which I refer.

HTH

We're not going anywhere with this. Done finally.

Yes you wrote that post on Monday, but it's downthread of my post about the skewed data. When I raised the issue of skewed data, I said "in your summary yesterday of the TFL report" so clearly I was referring to a post you had made in the past. HTH.

Sigh, if you look properly you'll see that I quoted your post in it's version at 8pm ish. Whilst I was writing that post you went back and edited your post some two hours later. I didn't see your update till the next day. Yes before you criticise again it took me a long time to write that post, distractions and tricky with multiple nested quotes on a phone. My apologies for not going back to see if you had edited your post thus resultant cross posting.

It's a straight forward situation where something that wasn't there at the time but added later was simply missed. No doubt you'll continue to infer some conspiracy, feel free to continue to ruin the thread.

Sorry, I'm going to correct myself, I quoted your post in the 20:55 version, not quite 8pm ish. You later edited your post at 22:06. I simply missed that edit when finally pushing the post button on mine later that evening.

Edited by FiF on Thursday 1st June 07:06

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

The Keigan report is not specifically referenced at all in your post,

On Monday I wrote, very clearly.

FiF said:

The PPR report covering national road network refers to the report by M Keigan et al, a report specific to London. It's that report to which I refer.

HTH

We're not going anywhere with this. Done finally.

Yes you wrote that post on Monday, but it's downthread of my post about the skewed data. When I raised the issue of skewed data, I said "in your summary yesterday of the TFL report" so clearly I was referring to a post you had made in the past. HTH.

Sigh, if you look properly you'll see that I quoted your post in it's version at 8pm ish. Whilst I was writing that post you went back and edited your post some two hours later. I didn't see your update till the next day. Yes before you criticise again it took me a long time to write that post, distractions and tricky with multiple nested quotes on a phone. My apologies for not going back to see if you had edited your post thus resultant cross posting.

It's a straight forward situation where something that wasn't there at the time but added later was simply missed. No doubt you'll continue to infer some conspiracy, feel free to continue to ruin the thread.

Why the sighing? I'm not making a meal out of cross posting timings. You asked me to explain my comment about skewed data which I did, and which you questioned, and I clarified.

Anyway, back on topic, happy with the 25% number?

Edited by Mave on Thursday 1st June 07:14

[Mave]

FiF said:

Sorry, I'm going to correct myself, I quoted your post in the 20:55 version, not quite 8pm ish. You later edited your post at 22:06. I simply missed that edit when finally pushing the post button on mine later that evening.

Edited by FiF on Thursday 1st June 07:06

That's fine, it's no big deal either way.

[budgie smuggler]

Mave said:

Psimpson7 said:

Hope this guy gets well soon. Shows the danger of badly loaded vehicles, and the impact even something as 'minor' as a loose rope can have on a cyclist

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/31/17/32/...

Nasty. Hope he gets well soon.

fking hell what a nightmare

[Hugo a Gogo]

how did he stay stuck to the bike?

[WinstonWolf]

Hugo a Gogo said:

how did he stay stuck to the bike?

Clipped in, we're all either in the club or about to join

[Hugo a Gogo]

stupid feckin things

[WinstonWolf]

They're bloody brilliant, right up until the moment you're about to fall off

[Hugo a Gogo]

or until the moment you are getting dragged along the tarmac

[FiF]

Mave said:

Anyway, back on topic, happy with the 25% number?

Seeing as you've mentioned it, it's not 18% is it?

Actually using the very broadest brush of accident type and HGVs it's only 25% if you include the 1 bus collision, just HGVs it's 23.9%. Still the highest, and double the next category.

However it appears you don't want to discuss the real story, keeping on with but we should look at the other 75% too. Of course we should, and I've already mentioned the next three categories which are less than half that, eg cyclists losing control, then cyclists riding across the road, then cyclists being hit from rear by other vehicle. Don't see much discussion of these.

Let's look at that last category, 4 of the cases the cyclist was hit by a speeding car or motorcycle, all the remainder were singletons from which difficult to draw conclusion of patterns ie different reasons e.g. cyclist goes to turn left across front of HGV and is struck from rear, or 1 where cyclist is hit from rear in bus/cycle lane.

However what is interesting, and of course you don't want to discuss this part of the HGV narrative, is the issue of combination of vehicles and collision location.

If you ignore location, then out of the 92 investigated incidents, 37 (40%) involved HGVs, 45 (49%) if you include buses, highest category by far. If you look at location too, then 69 (75%) out of the 92 occurred at a junction, 45 (65%) out of the 69 involving a large vehicle according to Keigan. I think she has her sums wrong on that and it's actually 41 (59%) out of 69, but it's still the most significant. Look for location, vehicle and turning left, then it's 22, again by far the biggest category, way more than twice the second largest, Keigan actually said, "the majority" but you'll have to argue that with her.

Even further look at the type of junction, 34 out of the 69 are where automatic traffic signals are located. 22 out of those 34 involved HGVs, 14 of them involved turning left.

So there's a real problem combination emerging, indeed if you look at the 23 collisions away from junctions HGVs are noticeable as being in a distinct minority, only 2 out if the 23 and only one of those by moving to the left. But we don't want to discuss any of this apparently.

So let's discuss fatalities during the hours of darkness. 20 fatalities, 14 using no cycle lights, 3 using lights comprising 2 using rear light only and 1 using front light only, final 3 cases unknown. Or maybe don't want to discuss that either.

One thing that people clearly don't want to discuss as evidenced by heated debate earlier in the thread is raised in the section about suggested Interventions to improve cycle safety, split into 3 areas, Education, Engineering and Enforcement. In the section about how could the fatal injury have been prevented, of the incidents examined top solution is cycle helmets, 26 cases, followed by improved HGV sideguards 20 cases, rest are also rans, eg speeding enforcement 3.

Going to leave it there, as far as I am concerned the case is made regarding the biggest problem having been identified, as to who, where and how, but also agree the other reasons also need to be discussed, but there needs to be context maintained regarding relative effects and likelihood.

[matchmaker]

Meanwhile, in Edinburgh;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...

BBC said:

A cyclist has died after her wheel became stuck in tram tracks and she fell into the path of a minibus in Edinburgh city centre.

The 24-year-old woman was struck on Princes Street, at its junction with Lothian Road, at about 08:30.

Police Scotland is appealing for witnesses to come forward and telling motorists to avoid the area.

The Rabbie's Tours bus had been taking passengers on a trip to the West Highlands when the incident happened.

A spokesman for the company offered their sympathies to the cyclist's family and friends.

The female driver of the minibus was "very distressed" and was at home now with her family after the tour was cancelled, he added.

Cyclists have been complaining about the dangers of tram tracks for some time, I believe.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

Anyway, back on topic, happy with the 25% number?

Seeing as you've mentioned it, it's not 18% is it?

No, 18% isn't 25%. Neither are 33%, or 42%, or 52% are they*? what's your point

• The numbers I have listed are some of the numbers I recall being discussed in earlier recent conversation. Its a ball ache going back and forth through pages on my phone to find the actual numbers, but I think those numbers are broadly representative.

FiF said:

However it appears you don't want to discuss the real story, keeping on with but we should look at the other 75% too.

How about you stop misrepresenting me, stop taking offence at things I haven't written, and have a civil discussion? To discuss the real story you need to agree what the real story is first. This thread has a habit of people changing the "real story" to suit an agenda. For example discussing cyclists RLJing (because the thread is about cyclists getting killed) but not car drivers RLJing (because cars aren't HGVs!). There's no point going into the details until you've broadly established what the real story is.

As these pages have shown clearly, what was stated as "established fact" by CB was not actually "established fact" by any means, certainly not in the context of the conclusion drawn from it. CBs implication that the real story is limited to HGVs turning left and nothing else, is flawed. I want to look at the other 75%

FiF said:

Lots of detailed stuff

Thanks for that, it'll take time to go through and digest.

[FiF]

Mave said:

There's no point going into the details until you've broadly established what the real story is.

That's what I have been trying to do, establish what the most significant story is, plus how it sits in significance to the other stories. What's wrong with that? Unless the most significant story isn't the "real" story, whatever that might be.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

There's no point going into the details until you've broadly established what the real story is.

That's what I have been trying to do, establish what the most significant story is, plus how it sits in significance to the other stories. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Establishing the significant story is what I was trying to do with CB when you jumped into the discussion. It started with CB making a statement about what had already been established, and me disagreeing with him...

[saaby93]

Dont forget the stats for London could be different for a number of reasons
Ive harped on before about how ASLs seem to be leading to poor behaviour and could be influencing the figures
London may have a higher proportion of ASLs than anywhere else (anyone know?)

If ASLs were taken out and perhaps cycle lanes designed the same way as bus lanes so they terminate and merge with all traffic about 50 metres before a junction, would that better encourage road users to share?

[Mave]

saaby93 said:

If ASLs were taken out and perhaps cycle lanes designed the same way as bus lanes so they terminate and merge with all traffic about 50 metres before a junction, would that better encourage road users to share?

You might (partially!) have something there. I only use ASLs if I'm first at the lights, to make sure I'm visible and to give me time to accelerate. Other than that I don't tend to use ASLs, and if there's a (painted) cycle lane then I'll get off it and into the main traffic flow on the approach to junctions, even if it carries on as a separate lane over the junction.

[FiF]

Mave said:

saaby93 said:

If ASLs were taken out and perhaps cycle lanes designed the same way as bus lanes so they terminate and merge with all traffic about 50 metres before a junction, would that better encourage road users to share?

You might (partially!) have something there. I only use ASLs if I'm first at the lights, to make sure I'm visible and to give me time to accelerate. Other than that I don't tend to use ASLs, and if there's a (painted) cycle lane then I'll get off it and into the main traffic flow on the approach to junctions, even if it carries on as a separate lane over the junction.

I think he's got a point. As earlier written problem with ASLs is that it encourages people to filter to the front, past all the vehicles that they may have been overtaken by,only for both parties to have to undergo it all again. If there's a decent cycle lane or lots of space after the lights then it's fair enough,but not if everyone is squeezing into a narrowing space. Problem is often both sides too often aren't prepared to hang back and wait behind when it doesn't make sense to overtake. Lots of scenarios when this applies. Lights with ASL I use most often doesn't have a cycle lane on approach, nor one after, chaos, however things work well when all sides show some sense and restraint.

[Rich_W]

matchmaker said:

Meanwhile, in Edinburgh;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...



Cyclists have been complaining about the dangers of tram tracks for some time, I believe.

Yes and No

Yes they are a hazard. But IME not anywhere near the level of incident this caused. So long as you don't try and cross them with your wheels parallel, you'll be fine.

[Psimpson7]

Rich_W said:

Yes and No

Yes they are a hazard. But IME not anywhere near the level of incident this caused. So long as you don't try and cross them with your wheels parallel, you'll be fine.

There do seem to have been a lot of injuries caused by these specific ones.

Apparently by March 252 people had been treated at hospital for injuries caused by the tram tracks there, 191 of which were cyclists.

link:

http://road.cc/content/news/223470-edinburgh-cycli...