Another "cyclist vs driver" rage story in the news...

[IanH755]

It seems like Darwin needs to do some major work on a lot of cyclists I see (not all) who somehow don't realise that they are the most fragile thing on the road, don't ride in a way that protects themselves from idiot drivers and who expect everyone else on the road to be perfect.

People make mistakes, that'll never change so I'd rather be alive and a bit annoyed by a poor driver who is in the wrong than in the right but dead/injured.

The amount of cyclists I see at weekends who ride down the A20, a road with the 2nd heaviest HGV traffic in Kent, for fun whilst wearing dark tour-de-France clothes, no lights and very few helmets etc amazes me. If I was the most vulnerable fragile thing on the road I'd make sure I could always be seen (bright yellow jacket - bike lights, even during the day) but I'd also ask "is it really worth all the potential risk of using such a road, considering the large amount of HGV/high speed traffic? Is there a quieter road I could use?".

As a cyclist, self preservation should mean that you should do everything in "your" power to keep your frail fleshy body away from all the high speed heavy metal objects, even if that means getting out of the way of some idiot driver who is in the wrong, because at the end of the day the cyclist will always come off worse in a collision, no matter how "in the right" they are.

[GC8]

Digby said:

Explain how I can be better. How, for example, do I keep track of twenty plus cyclists in seven mirrors, the images in which change every second meaning there is no chance to check them all and be certain the situations reflected in them will have remained the same. How do I be better when those twenty plus cyclists will vary from those topping 30 mph, to those sitting perfectly still in a blind spot somewhere around my near 40 foot length? How do I make better all the implemented cycle friendly additions to my vehicle which are often completely ignored? Tell me.

Not checkmate perhaps, but certainly check. Cyclists should stop, read this and think.

[80sMatchbox]

St John Smythe said:

Digby said:

Makes you wonder why several million tourists flock there every year making it one of the worlds most popular destinations, doesn't it? Perhaps they should knock down all that attracts them and make a super, super, SUPER cycle lane.

Good thinking. I mean do we really need the VAST amount of income that tourism generates in the capital? I don't think so. What really matters is that deputy pedals is happy cycling about on his Brompton.

We're these 2 comments made after a few shandies? There has to be some excuse, I'm sure.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

Explain how I can be better. How, for example, do I keep track of twenty plus cyclists in seven mirrors, the images in which change every second meaning there is no chance to check them all and be certain the situations reflected in them will have remained the same. How do I be better when those twenty plus cyclists will vary from those topping 30 mph, to those sitting perfectly still in a blind spot somewhere around my near 40 foot length? How do I make better all the implemented cycle friendly additions to my vehicle which are often completely ignored? Tell me.

Maybe even more training would help? Maybe more lights, more audible warnings, proximity alarms and stickers. Maybe even more mirrors, more safety inspections, more laws passed to allow us to operate. Perhaps more vosa checks and more courses dedicated to city driving and the influx of cyclists? How about more refresher courses and CPC's without which you can no longer drive.

Alternatively, leave it the way things are and wait for the next bit of sickening news.

I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who has to drive an hgv in London, but - if you're talking compulsory training for cyclists then you're into certification and some sort of registration, which then means you're wrong if you think that will make the roads safer. Other nations states have tried it and I believe no-one has come up with a system that a) can pay for itself and b) can show any measurable improvement in road safety.

[heebeegeetee]

IanH755 said:

It seems like Darwin needs to do some major work on a lot of cyclists I see (not all) who somehow don't realise that they are the most fragile thing on the road,

No they're not, pedestrians are. And before you mention anything about pavements, according to the highway code and the law the pavement is part of the road, and in any case, I don't see the relevance of where pedestrians collide with vehicles (including bicycles), the fact is that they do, at a higher rate per mile than cyclists do, I believe.

[IanH755]

Wow, I typed out a long rational answer but in the end I think you're comment shows you're an idiot and not worth my time so I'll just say this and leave you to your unbelievable "A pavement is a road" mindset.

As a driver of over 25 years (without accident), and a road cyclist of over 10 years (without accident) I believe this to be an absolute truth -

"A cyclist is the most vulnerable road user - if a cyclist does not ride with any hint of self preservation in mind then at some point they will be in a collision and, regardless of who is at fault, the cyclist will ALWAYS end up hurt the most"

Ride safe folks!

[heebeegeetee]

IanH755 said:

Wow, I typed out a long rational answer but in the end I think you're comment shows you're an idiot and not worth my time so I'll just say this and leave you to your unbelievable "A pavement is a road" mindset.

As a driver of over 25 years (without accident), and a road cyclist of over 10 years (without accident) I believe this to be an absolute truth -

"A cyclist is the most vulnerable road user - if a cyclist does not ride with any hint of self preservation in mind then at some point they will be in a collision and, regardless of who is at fault, the cyclist will ALWAYS end up hurt the most"

Ride safe folks!

It's not my "unbelievable "A pavement is a road" mindset" it's just simply what the law and the highway code says. I just say it because many motorists are completely unaware that everybody is a road user, and that they think the roads are only for them.

It's also statistically correct that peds are more vulnerable than cyclists, and also when hospitalized on average their stay in hospital is longer than the average for cyclists.

[Mr Gear]

Digby said:

Explain how I can be better. How, for example, do I keep track of twenty plus cyclists in seven mirrors, the images in which change every second meaning there is no chance to check them all and be certain the situations reflected in them will have remained the same. How do I be better when those twenty plus cyclists will vary from those topping 30 mph, to those sitting perfectly still in a blind spot somewhere around my near 40 foot length? How do I make better all the implemented cycle friendly additions to my vehicle which are often completely ignored? Tell me.

Maybe even more training would help? Maybe more lights, more audible warnings, proximity alarms and stickers. Maybe even more mirrors, more safety inspections, more laws passed to allow us to operate. Perhaps more vosa checks and more courses dedicated to city driving and the influx of cyclists? How about more refresher courses and CPC's without which you can no longer drive.

Alternatively, leave it the way things are and wait for the next bit of sickening news.

So is it your truck that is inherently unsafe or your driving?

I only ask because everyone knows that bikes are not actually dangerous.

[Digby]

Well, as I keep saying, leave things as they are. If you ride and are unaware of the dangers or choose to ignore all that the haulage industry has done to keep you safe, crack on. With 20 tons onboard, I'll feel like I have driven over nothing more than a cats eye should the worst happen.

[Digby]

One thing is for sure, some of these cyclists appear to be a sensitive bunch. To suggest some of them are a danger to themselves and to offer up suggestions of how we can change this results in name calling, anger and sarcastic comments.

How fortunate we don't all have that attitude.

[Mr Gear]

Digby said:

Well, as I keep saying, leave things as they are. If you ride and are unaware of the dangers or choose to ignore all that the haulage industry has done to keep you safe, crack on. With 20 tons onboard, I'll feel like I have driven over nothing more than a cats eye should the worst happen.

You're making a great case for some fundamental changes to the haulage industry. Well done.

[Digby]

Mr Gear said:

You're making a great case for some fundamental changes to the haulage industry. Well done.

At least they have done something. Maybe they should suggest a cycle ban during rush hour.

[Mr Gear]

Digby said:

At least they have done something. Maybe they should suggest a cycle ban during rush hour.

Yeah, i think you'll find the wind is blowing the other way. Your stty attitude is in the minority thank goodness.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hazardous-we...

http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/london-...

[ZX10R NIN]

heebeegeetee said:

No they're not, pedestrians are. And before you mention anything about pavements, according to the highway code and the law the pavement is part of the road, and in any case, I don't see the relevance of where pedestrians collide with vehicles (including bicycles), the fact is that they do, at a higher rate per mile than cyclists do, I believe.

True they're not even Second on the list in London, makes you wonder why they're getting so much press.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

Well, as I keep saying, leave things as they are. If you ride and are unaware of the dangers or choose to ignore all that the haulage industry has done to keep you safe, crack on.

I'm not having a go at you, and I'll always have sympathy for anyone who has to operate an hgv in London 'cos I imagine it'd be pretty horrendous, but surely you have to admit that when the facts are looked into concerning the drivers who have flattened cyclists - and I know the cyclists may be unaware of blind spots (just like the vast majority of drivers are) - but when it keeps turning out that the driver was on the phone or had no licence or had stopped in the ASL or drove clean over the cyclist who was right in front of him, then all the well-intentioned hard work by the haulage industry goes down the pan, doesn't it?

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

I'm not having a go at you, and I'll always have sympathy for anyone who has to operate an hgv in London 'cos I imagine it'd be pretty horrendous, but surely you have to admit that when the facts are looked into concerning the drivers who have flattened cyclists - and I know the cyclists may be unaware of blind spots (just like the vast majority of drivers are) - but when it keeps turning out that the driver was on the phone or had no licence or had stopped in the ASL or drove clean over the cyclist who was right in front of him,

Are you sure about that
Doesnt it turn out there were lots of other things not far off 50:50
Whats on your list altogether?

oh I see youre just talking about drivers who have flattened cyclists as you put it rather than all the cycle vs vehicle collisions

(being stopped in an ASL is a weird one to add in there as it isnt necessarily a crime and no ones going to come a cropper while youre stopped unless they crash into you )

I wish some of this stuff was balanced

Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 21st November 17:05

[ZX10R NIN]

Mr Gear said:

Yeah, i think you'll find the wind is blowing the other way. Your stty attitude is in the minority thank goodness.

I don't agree with banning anything that is small minded short sighted thinking IMO & is the reason London's roads & junctions are in the state they are, How cyclists have lost their lives on London's Roads this year & how does it compare to other Road Users Excluding Pedestrians?

The number of trucks that have to be in London can't be under estimated nor can the amount of Money they bring into the City they are a vital part of commerce as are vans etc, especially with more people living in Central London.

Now think about what a ban on these vehicles during the Rush Hour would do, you'd have to have a lot of people working later or earlier in the morning/evening (as a result family time is out of the window) also where do these trucks go during the rush hour? Do they just Park up in London somewhere? Using smaller trucks means more costs (2 drivers means double the wages fuel & maintenance costs etc) which always end up on the end users lap.

Surely the answer is to make cyclists come into work early or make them finish later, cyclists are even the most vulnerable road user in London (let's exclude pedestrians I know some will want to class the Pavement as part of the road but it's not if it was we'd be driving cars down it) according to TFL's own figures but yet no special lanes for them which I find very strange if road safety rather than political brownie points were the real concern.

Cyclists do need to take more responsibility for their own actions & should be less dependent on others for their safety at the same time all of those in cars van trucks & motorbikes should be aware of their & those surrounding them.

For me the priority of every road user should be that TFL gets traffic moving if it's moving then it works better for everyone, also it means better air quality which benefits all TFL has reduced the carriageway capacity by nearly a quarter this leads to frustration which leads to bad driving/riding by all.

Segregation is not the answer all the time we're arguing with one another we're not putting the pressure on those that are wholly responsible for this "the Politicians" (Boris) who dictate what the road planners do.

As a side note the drawing of the new super highway with the bikes riding along with four cars on the other side of the road always makes me laugh. Nothing like being optimistic it'll be more like solid traffic on the other side of the road.

Also not every driver involved in a fatal crash has been on the phone (one driver had no License as he was serving a Ban) or doing anything wrong in 2014 4 involved buses are we banning those from rush hour to?

[DoubleD]

ZX10R NIN said:

I don't agree with banning anything that is small minded short sighted thinking IMO & is the reason London's roads & junctions are in the state they are, How cyclists have lost their lives on London's Roads this year & how does it compare to other Road Users Excluding Pedestrians?

The number of trucks that have to be in London can't be under estimated nor can the amount of Money they bring into the City they are a vital part of commerce as are vans etc, especially with more people living in Central London.

Now think about what a ban on these vehicles during the Rush Hour would do, you'd have to have a lot of people working later or earlier in the morning/evening (as a result family time is out of the window) also where do these trucks go during the rush hour? Do they just Park up in London somewhere? Using smaller trucks means more costs (2 drivers means double the wages fuel & maintenance costs etc) which always end up on the end users lap.

Surely the answer is to make cyclists come into work early or make them finish later, cyclists are even the most vulnerable road user in London (let's exclude pedestrians I know some will want to class the Pavement as part of the road but it's not if it was we'd be driving cars down it) according to TFL's own figures but yet no special lanes for them which I find very strange if road safety rather than political brownie points were the real concern.

Cyclists do need to take more responsibility for their own actions & should be less dependent on others for their safety at the same time all of those in cars van trucks & motorbikes should be aware of their & those surrounding them.

For me the priority of every road user should be that TFL gets traffic moving if it's moving then it works better for everyone, also it means better air quality which benefits all TFL has reduced the carriageway capacity by nearly a quarter this leads to frustration which leads to bad driving/riding by all.

Segregation is not the answer all the time we're arguing with one another we're not putting the pressure on those that are wholly responsible for this "the Politicians" (Boris) who dictate what the road planners do.

As a side note the drawing of the new super highway with the bikes riding along with four cars on the other side of the road always makes me laugh. Nothing like being optimistic it'll be more like solid traffic on the other side of the road.

Also not every driver involved in a fatal crash has been on the phone (one driver had no License as he was serving a Ban) or doing anything wrong in 2014 4 involved buses are we banning those from rush hour to?

The above should be read several times until it sinks in with everyone. It's not one-sided like many comments and it makes a lot of sense.

[anonymous-user]

Digby said:

One thing is for sure, some of these cyclists appear to be a sensitive bunch. To suggest some of them are a danger to themselves and to offer up suggestions of how we can change this results in name calling, anger and sarcastic comments.

How fortunate we don't all have that attitude.

You're supposed to be a 'professional driver' it seems like you struggle with the general concept. It's not difficult, look twice, pay attention. What you drive kills cyclists, a cyclist will only ever slow your progress.

Have a little think about it. If you can get over your own self importance.

[Pete317]

Mr Gear said:

So is it your truck that is inherently unsafe or your driving?

I only ask because everyone knows that bikes are not actually dangerous.

Bikes, lorries and other vehicles, are not inherently dangerous, and neither are people.
But people do create dangerous situations for themselves and others, or place themselves in dangerous situations. The fact that cyclists are likely to be the worst affected by the danger doesn't alter the cause.

Edited by Pete317 on Saturday 21st November 22:31