Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
TroubledSoul said:
I agree completely with this point. Why then, is this not considered the case when a cyclist gets themselves crushed by a left turning vehicle? Why is it more often than not assumed to be the driver's fault when the cyclist made that choice to be there?
Just out of interest.
Well can you provide evidence that the cyclist made the choice? As often as not the cyclist was there first and the hgv pulled up alongside, the hgv driver made the choice. Just out of interest.
heebeegeetee said:
We're not all cyclists. Some of us are drivers who absolutely exasperated and fed up at attitudes like yours.
The TRY to answer at least one of the outstanding questions please@ 25mph, me overtaking, cyclist falls under my wheels = result ?
@ 25mph, cyclist undertaking, cyclist falls under my wheels = result ?
Why is it safe one way and not the other ?
Do you expect me to position my car close to the center line and endanger M/Bikes so a cyclist can filter on the inside ?
come on .....try
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
Stickyfinger said:
Yes: and I have never endangered a cyclist.....funny thing life
I still am waiting for an answer of why it is more dangerous one way but not the other
I gave various reasons earlier.I still am waiting for an answer of why it is more dangerous one way but not the other
FiF said:
Mave said:
FiF said:
Quite.
Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
I agree with the principal, but not with the details. Those 3 aren't equal - potentially surprise (or lack of information) is the most critical of the 3 because it prevents you adequately judging the margin of error for the other 2.Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
Stickyfinger said:
The TRY to answer at least one of the outstanding questions please
@ 25mph, me overtaking, cyclist falls under my wheels = result ?
@ 25mph, cyclist undertaking, cyclist falls under my wheels = result ?
If the cyclist is doing 10 mph and the car is doing 25mph, the cyclist is more likely to end up under the car wheels than if the speeds are reversed. The likelihood of there being a situation that leads to an incident in the first place is a separate debate. @ 25mph, me overtaking, cyclist falls under my wheels = result ?
@ 25mph, cyclist undertaking, cyclist falls under my wheels = result ?
What are the other outstanding questions?
Edited by Mave on Thursday 19th October 17:40
FiF said:
I think you can take that as a yes seeing as lunch today, being a Thursday is Pea and Ham Soup and Pancakes. Nom nom nom.
Ärtsoppa and pannkaka 
heebeegeetee said:
Serious question? Is there honestly any point? I don't think you're at all interested in an honest debate, that's all been done already time and again.
Serious. You made it sound like it's not the drag and risk of falling under the overtaking vehicle. I wonder what the reason for the 1.5m safety gap is, if it's not those two.heebeegeetee said:
I think you're only interested in bandying words, you want to win an argument with someone on the internet rather than have an honest debate
Strong words coming from a guy who wants to tear down and rebuild London and redesign vehicles, before we take the easier approach of educating cyclists of the dangers. The same guy who twists everything said by anyone with differing views.Mave said:
If the cyclist is doing 10 mph and the car is doing 25mph, the cyclist is more likely to end up under the car wheels than if the speeds are reversed. The likelihood of there being a situation that leads to an incident in the first place is a separate debate.
What are the other outstanding questions?
How does that work then ?...the speed differential is exactly the same and the dangers are the same.....What are the other outstanding questions?
Edited by Mave on Thursday 19th October 17:40
see above re M/Bike space/outside filtering
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
You have got to stop calling people trolls just because you disagree with them.
A car making a close pass on a cyclist is dangerous as they could be knocked off.
A close pass on a slow moving car is dangerous because you could fall off and go under the wheels of it.
Being close to another road user is pretty stupid and can be dangerous. Its always best to maintain a decent distance from each other.
The former, and the issue of drivers not seeing cyclists at all results in good many deaths and injuries and puts a hell of a lot of people off cycling in the uk altogether, especially when the sentences are then so derisory.A car making a close pass on a cyclist is dangerous as they could be knocked off.
A close pass on a slow moving car is dangerous because you could fall off and go under the wheels of it.
Being close to another road user is pretty stupid and can be dangerous. Its always best to maintain a decent distance from each other.
Do you have any figures about the latter? In my 40 years of driving I'm struggling to recall ever reading of a cyclist who went under the wheels because he rode too close.
I'm definitely not saying it doesn't happen, but also I'd say it is definitely not an issue that flags up so often that it can be described as a problem.
Also- I don't have a problem with anyone with an honest opinion, but SF and the like are trolling because they are saying things that they know to be untrue. I think it's fair to call that trolling.
Honestly you are not making your argument stronger by constantly calling others liars and trolls. They have a different point of view to you. The adult thing in a discussion is to prove that your argument is correct, its not very grown up to go down the route of name calling.
Mave said:
There's a difference between trying to position yourself to allow filtering of both sides (space permitting) and deliberately blocking cyclists on the inside.
I position myself safely.....how many single carriageways have the space to allow 1.5meters on the inside without either putting you car to close to the central line or endangering M/Bikes filtering down the center ?If a safe position for Me and M/Bikes prevents inside filtering by Cyclists within a SAFE SPACE of 1.5 meters....then so be it. (I do not wish to have their injury or death on my mind for the rest of my life)
Mave said:
SystemParanoia said:
If you want to draft a bus, you ride behind it up close in the vortex.
Riding beside it will give negligible benefit if any at all.
LOL
Like I said, I don't do it myself. But a vortex doesn't suddenly appear behind a bus. It extends from the front, around the sides, and then to the back LOL.Riding beside it will give negligible benefit if any at all.
LOL
the TURBULANCE at the side, whilst technically accelerated, and should technically give you a speed boost... in reality it doesn't happen... you have a face and chest full of wind slowing you down, and you're also in a blind spot meaning you are in fear for your life the whole time, and in the rain.. well, uugh.
its a s
t position to ride with maximum risk and minimal ( if any ) rewardSP = used to cycle commute 300miles per week
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
If the cyclist is doing 10 mph and the car is doing 25mph, the cyclist is more likely to end up under the car wheels than if the speeds are reversed. The likelihood of there being a situation that leads to an incident in the first place is a separate debate.
What are the other outstanding questions?
How does that work then ?...the speed differential is exactly the same and the dangers are the same.....What are the other outstanding questions?
Edited by Mave on Thursday 19th October 17:40
The speeds may be opposites, but the one bouncing on the floor / the one trying to stop are different.
In one scenario you've got a bike sliding along the ground at 25mph with a car behind slowing from 10mph trying to stop. In the other scenario you got a bike sliding along the ground at 10mph with a car at 25mph trying to stop. Just an example of how the opposite scenario doesn't play out equally the other way round.
Mave said:
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
If the cyclist is doing 10 mph and the car is doing 25mph, the cyclist is more likely to end up under the car wheels than if the speeds are reversed. The likelihood of there being a situation that leads to an incident in the first place is a separate debate.
What are the other outstanding questions?
How does that work then ?...the speed differential is exactly the same and the dangers are the same.....What are the other outstanding questions?
Edited by Mave on Thursday 19th October 17:40
The speeds may be opposites, but the one bouncing on the floor / the one trying to stop are different.
In one scenario you've got a bike sliding along the ground at 25mph with a car behind slowing from 10mph trying to stop. In the other scenario you got a bike sliding along the ground at 10mph with a car at 25mph trying to stop. Just an example of how the opposite scenario doesn't play out equally the other way round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
There's a difference between trying to position yourself to allow filtering of both sides (space permitting) and deliberately blocking cyclists on the inside.
I position myself safely.....how many single carriageways have the space to allow 1.5meters on the inside without either putting you car to close to the central line or endangering M/Bikes filtering down the center ?If a safe position for Me and M/Bikes prevents inside filtering by Cyclists within a SAFE SPACE of 1.5 meters....then so be it. (I do not wish to have their injury or death on my mind for the rest of my life)
SystemParanoia said:
And you've demonstrated my point. If a car had run into a stationary cyclist at the same speed, the outcome would have been different. Same speed differential but different scenarios = different outcomes.So in the case of cyclist at 10mph or 25mph Vs car other way round, that's close enough to the question I asked earlier that someone edited out of a quote and ignored it.
Anyway it's claimed that the cyclist is more likely to end under the wheels than the reverse situation. Not sure how that works but anyway.
It's also a possibility that injury to the unseated cyclist will come from hitting the ground. Won't the injuries be worse if they, cyclist, are travelling at 25 rather than 10. Or doesn't that come into the overall equation for some reason?
Obviously difference in relative kinetic energy of the two vehicles is still a big factor, but in my innocence it seems a tad more complicated than this way bad, t'other way no probs bud.
To be clear sticky I don't support your premise of positioning to block or assist or whatever. Middle of the lane for me, consistent speed and positioning as far as possible, let anyone who wants to overtake sort themselves out, overtaking vessel keeps clear and all that, I will not block etc but still keep a wary eye out in case they are tools with no idea.
Anyway it's claimed that the cyclist is more likely to end under the wheels than the reverse situation. Not sure how that works but anyway.
It's also a possibility that injury to the unseated cyclist will come from hitting the ground. Won't the injuries be worse if they, cyclist, are travelling at 25 rather than 10. Or doesn't that come into the overall equation for some reason?
Obviously difference in relative kinetic energy of the two vehicles is still a big factor, but in my innocence it seems a tad more complicated than this way bad, t'other way no probs bud.
To be clear sticky I don't support your premise of positioning to block or assist or whatever. Middle of the lane for me, consistent speed and positioning as far as possible, let anyone who wants to overtake sort themselves out, overtaking vessel keeps clear and all that, I will not block etc but still keep a wary eye out in case they are tools with no idea.
FiF said:
So in the case of cyclist at 10mph or 25mph Vs car other way round, that's close enough to the question I asked earlier that someone edited out of a quote and ignored it.
Anyway it's claimed that the cyclist is more likely to end under the wheels than the reverse situation. Not sure how that works but anyway.
It's also a possibility that injury to the unseated cyclist will come from hitting the ground. Won't the injuries be worse if they, cyclist, are travelling at 25 rather than 10. Or doesn't that come into the overall equation for some reason?
Obviously difference in relative kinetic energy of the two vehicles is still a big factor, but in my innocence it seems a tad more complicated than this way bad, t'other way no probs bud.
Yep it's way more complicated. My post was intended to illustrate the point that you can't assume that the 10 vs 25 plays out the same irrespective of who is travelling faster (but regarding ending up under wheels; if I were filtering at high speed through slow traffic - which I don't - and got it wrong and clipped a car, I expect my momentum would keep me going forward, not stopping dead and falling on the floor. Very different to bring side swiped and bouncing off a kerb at low speed)Anyway it's claimed that the cyclist is more likely to end under the wheels than the reverse situation. Not sure how that works but anyway.
It's also a possibility that injury to the unseated cyclist will come from hitting the ground. Won't the injuries be worse if they, cyclist, are travelling at 25 rather than 10. Or doesn't that come into the overall equation for some reason?
Obviously difference in relative kinetic energy of the two vehicles is still a big factor, but in my innocence it seems a tad more complicated than this way bad, t'other way no probs bud.
Of equal, if not more importance is the risk assessment of the under / overtake and being ready for it in the first place.
Edited by Mave on Thursday 19th October 19:21
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff