Another cyclist dies in London

[Mr Will]

saaby93 said:

Mr Will said:

They are all in place because you drive a large and dangerous vehicle that is easily kill or injure other road users. You are the danger, not the cyclists and pedestrians around you. All the training, lights and PPE in the world won't save me when an idiot in a tipper decides that getting paid for one more load that day is more important than my safety.

A 100 tonne crane has more restrictions than a 40 tonne truck. The 40 tonne truck has more restrictions than a 3.5 tonne van. The van has more restrictions than a car. A car has more restrictions than a bicycle. A bicycle has more restrictions than a pedestrian. That's just common sense - surely?

Tell me this - what do you think should be done about pedestrians? HGV drivers kill twice as many pedestrians as they do cyclists. Is the solution training, hi-viz and helmets for them too?

No - you see large trucks safely driving about all the time
You also see bikes safely cycling about

Where youve said HGV drivers kill twice as many pedestrians as they do cyclists you also have to ask the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists that kill themselves under HGVS and the numbers of either that travelled without such issue.

Youve got to report the stats fairly if we're to move forward
Can you do that?

Phrasing it fairly is much less fun, but since you've asked:

Collisions between HGVs and pedestrians result in twice as many fatalities as collisions between cyclists and HGVs. Ignoring the cycling issues for a moment, please answer these three questions.

1. Is the current level of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by HGVs acceptable?
2. What action (if any) involving the pedestrians should be taken to reduce this figure?
3. What action (if any) involving the HGV drivers should be taken to reduce this figure?

[anonymous-user]

Not sure if this has been posted before, no idea how this proposal will be "policed" or if it will work both ways...


"Motorists could face fines for driving too close to cyclists.

Ministers are weighing up whether to introduce policies similar to those in areas of Europe and Australia where minimum distances have been imposed on passing vehicles.

Transport minister Robert Goodwill said the Department for Transport is “interested” in the idea, which is under review."


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/motorists-could-...

[Digby]

Mr Will said:

They are all in place because you drive a large and dangerous vehicle that is easily kill or injure other road users.

Indeed. Which is why I want more cyclists to know what the dangers are as many seem blissfully unaware. Common sense, surely?

Would you happily let your child ride to school during rush hour through London with the only 'training' having been you letting go of their saddle and watching them just about be able to balance?

If not and you would rather spend more time yourself coaching them before you felt comfortable letting them out on their own, or, as we used to have to do, a proficiency test was required, then you would want what I want. Why is this such a bad thing?

[walm]

Digby said:

Why is this such a bad thing?

I am not sure ANYONE has suggested that it is a terribly bad idea.
But your insistence on bringing it up all the time, seems to imply that it is the BEST AND ONLY idea.
(You haven't said that explicitly but you refuse to address any suggestions that there are other potential options...)

And I am not sure the cycling proficiency test was ever compulsory was it?

But let's explore your insistence on compulsory testing.
Perhaps done at school?
Frankly, sounds great.

But it would be a very different suggestion to insist on compulsory training for every single cyclist in the UK TODAY, RIGHT NOW.
That IS a bad idea:
- Massively expensive to administer.
- Huge ball ache to enforce (more police?).
- Would put people off cycling - which means more congestion and worse national health levels.

Even if you did want to spend all that money, it is still far from obvious that it isn't better to do something else with the money - cycling infrastructure or HGV driver training for example. But you refuse to entertain these ideas as even an option.

I mean, why is more HGV training such a BAD thing?

[Finlandia]

Run ads about the dangers of cycling irresponsibly on TV, newspapers and online, that would be a good start.

[Mr Will]

Finlandia said:

Run ads about the dangers of cycling irresponsibly on TV, newspapers and online, that would be a good start.

Have you been to London recently? They are all over the place. TV, Radio, Papers, Billboards, Bus-stops, Tube-lines. We've ticked that one off the list already.

[walm]

Finlandia said:

Run ads about the dangers of cycling irresponsibly on TV, newspapers and online, that would be a good start.

Like this one?

[anonymous-user]

Little anecdote.

I went to Central London yesterday and walked about 25km. I didnt see a single cyclist behaving badly all day. Totally flies in the face of my Cambridge student cyclist experience, but it was noticeable how safe they all were.

[Digby]

walm said:

But you refuse to entertain these ideas as even an option.

I mean, why is more HGV training such a BAD thing?

You're just taking the piss now, or have never read anything I have written.

[Finlandia]

Not been to London since March, didn't see one sign warning cyclists then, maybe it's changed now. Not seen any ads of the sort on popular online sites or newspapers either.

[Digby]

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

Run ads about the dangers of cycling irresponsibly on TV, newspapers and online, that would be a good start.

Have you been to London recently? They are all over the place. TV, Radio, Papers, Billboards, Bus-stops, Tube-lines. We've ticked that one off the list already.

Really? I am there a lot listening to BBC Radio London and other stations and can't say I have seen or heard anything.

[walm]

Digby said:

walm said:

But you refuse to entertain these ideas as even an option.

I mean, why is more HGV training such a BAD thing?

You're just taking the piss now, or have never read anything I have written.

In fairness, I have probably missed a lot of it. Sorry!

You seem to keep listing lots of HGV training and assuming that it's enough. Again - why is more a bad idea? Do you want LESS? Do we have a just-right amount? Would it be more or less effective than enforcing training on an entire country (most people own a bike).

[Mr Will]

Digby said:

Mr Will said:

They are all in place because you drive a large and dangerous vehicle that is easily kill or injure other road users.

Indeed. Which is why I want more cyclists to know what the dangers are as many seem blissfully unaware. Common sense, surely?

Would you happily let your child ride to school during rush hour through London with the only 'training' having been you letting go of their saddle and watching them just about be able to balance?

If not and you would rather spend more time yourself coaching them before you felt comfortable letting them out on their own, or, as we used to have to do, a proficiency test was required, then you would want what I want. Why is this such a bad thing?

I'd no more let a child cycle unsupervised in London traffic than I would let them attempt to cross roads before they are ready. Exactly how many times have you seen either happen?

I've never said that training cyclists is a bad thing. I'm all for it. You are trying to argue against a point that nobody is making.

The question here is why do you think that training the vulnerable road users to dodge better is the only thing that needs to be done? Why does none of the responsibility to change fall upon drivers? Particularly the professional drivers responsible for controlling the 30+ tonne off-road vehicles that are disproportionally involved in the deaths of pedestrians and cyclists.

[Mr Will]

Digby said:

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

Run ads about the dangers of cycling irresponsibly on TV, newspapers and online, that would be a good start.

Have you been to London recently? They are all over the place. TV, Radio, Papers, Billboards, Bus-stops, Tube-lines. We've ticked that one off the list already.

Really? I am there a lot listening to BBC Radio London and other stations and can't say I have seen or heard anything.

You seem to have a lot of problems with observation. Perhaps you should get that checked out...

[Finlandia]

The problem for HGVs isn't so much the training given to the driver, but that there is only one pair of eyes to check the mirrors and screens. Each of these mirrors then create a blind spot of their own, usually covered by a mirror or another screen.

[Mr Will]

Finlandia said:

The problem for HGVs isn't so much the training given to the driver, but that there is only one pair of eyes to check the mirrors and screens. Each of these mirrors then create a blind spot of their own, usually covered by a mirror or another screen.

If these off-road vehicles are not fit for the purpose of use in cities then we need to design a better vehicle. It's not beyond the wit of man.

[Digby]

I'll ask again (although it will undoubtedly be shot down in flames again), but shall I list all we have had to go through and will have to continue to go through and the changes made to vehicles regarding cyclist safety?

Also worthy of mention is that not so long ago, the AA, the Road Haulage Association, British Cycling and the UK Health Forum asked that children in schools should be given lessons in riding a bike and negotiating traffic etc as part of their curriculum.

Studies also showed that those who took part in Bikeability cycle training used their cycles more often.

I think I will get my wish once a few more die.

Edited by Digby on Thursday 2nd June 18:15

[Finlandia]

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

The problem for HGVs isn't so much the training given to the driver, but that there is only one pair of eyes to check the mirrors and screens. Each of these mirrors then create a blind spot of their own, usually covered by a mirror or another screen.

If these off-road vehicles are not fit for the purpose of use in cities then we need to design a better vehicle. It's not beyond the wit of man.

These are normal lorries/HGVs, built for road use, huge A pillars, even bigger mirrors to hide everything behind them. Have you noticed the size of the A pillars in modern cars, they can hide a car behind them. Then try sitting in a lorry.

[Digby]

Mr Will said:

Digby said:

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

Run ads about the dangers of cycling irresponsibly on TV, newspapers and online, that would be a good start.

Have you been to London recently? They are all over the place. TV, Radio, Papers, Billboards, Bus-stops, Tube-lines. We've ticked that one off the list already.

Really? I am there a lot listening to BBC Radio London and other stations and can't say I have seen or heard anything.

You seem to have a lot of problems with observation. Perhaps you should get that checked out...

List where you see and hear them all and I will take a look.

[George111]

Finlandia said:

The problem for HGVs isn't so much the training given to the driver, but that there is only one pair of eyes to check the mirrors and screens. Each of these mirrors then create a blind spot of their own, usually covered by a mirror or another screen.

If cyclists never went alongside a HGV they would never die. You won't see a motorcyclist undertake a HGV or lane split between two HGVs on the motorway - we know what happens and the HGV always wins, 44 tonnes -v- 230Kg motorcycle and 100Kg or so rider, no contest.

I just don't understand why cyclists undertake HGVs. But we'll not get an answer here other than "they can" and "it makes the journey faster". I can make my car journey faster by not stopping at red lights but I'd end up with an injury, dead or a summons within the hour so I don't do it. I don't understand why it's so difficult for other road users to understand this.