Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
This is a thread about cyclist fatalities in London. Have any of them mentioned so far involved a red light? I can't recall that any of them do....
Which begs the question, why, as someone who is hardly ever there, have you spent an absolute age talking about how wonderful cycling is all round the world and that pollution is a bad thing etc?Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
This is a thread about cyclist fatalities in London. Have any of them mentioned so far involved a red light? I can't recall that any of them do....
Which begs the question, why, as someone who is hardly ever there, have you spent an absolute age talking about how wonderful cycling is all round the world and that pollution is a bad thing etc?Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
I am out now on the Safe Space conversation....now Heeebeee has begun to realise !.........took its time to sink in.
Digby said:
Which begs the question, why, as someone who is hardly ever there, have you spent an absolute age talking about how wonderful cycling is all round the world and that pollution is a bad thing etc?
Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
Which is cyclists skipping red lights?Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
heebeegeetee said:
Stickyfinger said:
No I don't...I comply with the law/Police advice and keep/give 1.5meters distance between my car and cyclists whenever I am in a moving car and allow space inside when stationary as long as there is space for M/Bikes filtering on the outside. As you have told us it is they is are the most in danger on the roads. (NOT Cars or Cyclists)
Heeebee please stop telling lies
Show us where the police have advised you "keep/give 1.5meters distance between my car and cyclists whenever I am in a moving car" and "allow space inside when stationary as long as there is space for M/Bikes filtering on the outside.".Heeebee please stop telling lies
I say they've said no such thing, and that you've made this up.
Stickyfinger said:
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
This is a thread about cyclist fatalities in London. Have any of them mentioned so far involved a red light? I can't recall that any of them do....
Which begs the question, why, as someone who is hardly ever there, have you spent an absolute age talking about how wonderful cycling is all round the world and that pollution is a bad thing etc?Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
I am out now on the Safe Space conversation....now Heeebeee has begun to realise !.........took its time to sink in.
heebeegeetee said:
If we're so interested, given the casualty rate of motorcyclists is so much higher, where are the threads, where is the never ending anti motorcycling rhetoric? Where are the constant complaints of Darwinism etc?
The only real whinge motorists have about cyclists is that they get held up, and that they can get away with road behaviour that motorists can't. Neither is an issue with motorbikes.Killboy said:
Digby said:
Which begs the question, why, as someone who is hardly ever there, have you spent an absolute age talking about how wonderful cycling is all round the world and that pollution is a bad thing etc?
Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
Which is cyclists skipping red lights?Will you be sticking to the topic from now on?
FiF said:
I'm going to introduce a diversion here, but feel it's relevant. Being interested in safety of myself and others, especially the vulnerable, I asked a question on another thread about the positioning of a cyclist I saw regularly as didn't understand why and needed some education as his motives and desires.
Briefly it concerns a road where into the city, not London, there is a wide, usually empty bus lane, cyclists permitted, and the two way traffic in and out is on the remaining carriageway on two, at times quite narrow lanes. This cyclist rides right up against the white line bordering the bus lane. We had discussions about whether it's avoiding grates, side roads, parked cars, pedestrians stepping out, but on face value it appears to be none of those as he still does it where none of these reasons are present. The reason some suggested, which they claimed to have done, is use a supposed pressure wave from the front of an overtaking vehicle to give them a lift by riding that pressure wave. No idea if that is right or not.
Personally it seems daft, when that guy is in that position, even though he is in the bus lane, the gap is too small and so apply restraint and hang back. Maybe someone woukd claim that the cyclist is holding them up, which suppose technically he is, albeit completely inconsequential in my view. But it's possibly back to point, a rule applies until someone decides they don't want it to apply, for all I know the guy is pissed off I don't overtake so he can get a lift.
There is no real aero benefit to getting passed by a bus (pressure wave??). Following a bus, yes, but not from passing one.Briefly it concerns a road where into the city, not London, there is a wide, usually empty bus lane, cyclists permitted, and the two way traffic in and out is on the remaining carriageway on two, at times quite narrow lanes. This cyclist rides right up against the white line bordering the bus lane. We had discussions about whether it's avoiding grates, side roads, parked cars, pedestrians stepping out, but on face value it appears to be none of those as he still does it where none of these reasons are present. The reason some suggested, which they claimed to have done, is use a supposed pressure wave from the front of an overtaking vehicle to give them a lift by riding that pressure wave. No idea if that is right or not.
Personally it seems daft, when that guy is in that position, even though he is in the bus lane, the gap is too small and so apply restraint and hang back. Maybe someone woukd claim that the cyclist is holding them up, which suppose technically he is, albeit completely inconsequential in my view. But it's possibly back to point, a rule applies until someone decides they don't want it to apply, for all I know the guy is pissed off I don't overtake so he can get a lift.
It's most like a cyclist that doesn't realise he/she is allowed in the bus lane, but is trying to keep out of the main carriageway.
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.
Why and where is it assumed to be the drivers fault? Of the various, sad, deaths on the roads caused by this, how many of the drivers have been prosecuted?Just out of interest.
yellowjack said:
This seemingly obsessive need to be thanked for getting the basics right smacks of road users who struggle to get the basics right. I'm OK on that score, thanks all the same.
Good manners cost nothing.However, if they did, the rest of PH might have been able to rejoice in the fact that you were able to spend the money you saved on some entry level common sense instead.
Edited by Kuji on Friday 20th October 14:03
Stickyfinger said:
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
You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
Ares said:
Cyclists don't just 'fall'.
You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
As said....I am out...You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
Stickyfinger said:
Ares said:
Cyclists don't just 'fall'.
You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
As said....I am out...You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
You guys really need to be more consistent, as I am beginning to believe the people claiming that you just make up new rules as it suits you.
cb1965 said:
Finlandia said:
Digby said:
You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.
I tried before.
"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"
"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."
"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"
"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"
"So why do so many riders risk it?
"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"
"That makes no sense at all"
"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"
Don't forget. I tried before.
"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"
"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."
"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"
"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"
"So why do so many riders risk it?
"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"
"That makes no sense at all"
"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"
"Cars going through red are a real problem"
"Yes, and cyclist going through red are too"
"No they are not, a cyclist colliding with someone will not kill that someone, while a car probably will"
"Yes and a cyclist going through red can be hit by a car"
"Umm, yeah but... green only means proceed if safe to do so"
"And red always means stop"
"Troll"
That just about sums one half of this thread up!
Stickyfinger said:
yellowjack said:
This!
Quite often I get a quizzical look from a driver who's let me go first (rare enough but it does happen ). They seem to be looking for some form of "thank you". But I've got my hands on the handlebars. Both hands, because that's where motorists who profess to care about cyclist safety suggest we cyclists should have our hands. And also because I need my hands covering BOTH brakes lest some woman steps in front of me and I have to avoid hitting them to avoid being "had up" on a manslaughter charge .
On a more serious note, if I'm turning in any direction, or there's even a vague possibility that I might have to use my brakes, the last place I want my hand is raised in a "thank you" no matter how nice you've been to me. For what it's worth I regard the best way of repaying a kindness on the road is to get the f
k on with it and get out of your way ASAP, instead of doddering around waving when I ought to be accelerating up through the gears.
Oh, and if (like many motorists local to me) you're expecting a "thank you" when all you have done is given way correctly, as instructed by regulatory signs and road markings, then you can sit there with that dumb look on your fizzer as long as you want, because no matter what I'm driving or riding, you ain't getting thanked for doing what the road markings already tell you to do. Would you expect a "thank you" from traffic at a junction just because you obeyed a red traffic light? It really is THAT stupid an expectation.
Try a nod of the head as ONE example, there are lots of ways to acknowledge without waving about like Mr Tickle........Quite often I get a quizzical look from a driver who's let me go first (rare enough but it does happen
). They seem to be looking for some form of "thank you". But I've got my hands on the handlebars. Both hands, because that's where motorists who profess to care about cyclist safety suggest we cyclists should have our hands. And also because I need my hands covering BOTH brakes lest some woman steps in front of me and I have to avoid hitting them to avoid being "had up" on a manslaughter charge .On a more serious note, if I'm turning in any direction, or there's even a vague possibility that I might have to use my brakes, the last place I want my hand is raised in a "thank you" no matter how nice you've been to me. For what it's worth I regard the best way of repaying a kindness on the road is to get the f
k on with it and get out of your way ASAP, instead of doddering around waving when I ought to be accelerating up through the gears.Oh, and if (like many motorists local to me) you're expecting a "thank you" when all you have done is given way correctly, as instructed by regulatory signs and road markings, then you can sit there with that dumb look on your fizzer as long as you want, because no matter what I'm driving or riding, you ain't getting thanked for doing what the road markings already tell you to do. Would you expect a "thank you" from traffic at a junction just because you obeyed a red traffic light? It really is THAT stupid an expectation.
The last paragraph betrays you.......for example, at a give way due to parked cars, I always say thank you to those who wait correctly, Cyclist = rude f
kers it seemsWinstonWolf said:
FiF said:
No no no, I got thanked by a cyclist yesterday, no genuinely I did. Though thinking back it might have been sorry, seeing as he came out of a narrow entrance, no look, no lights, dark clothing, good job quick reactions on my part.
I'm the cyclist you occasionally meet who nods if you pass courteously 
I have to say in Lincolnshire most of the HGV drivers I encounter are very good when passing cyclists these days, they even seem to hold back when approaching a roundabout behind you to help keep you safe.
Cycle as you would drive and you won't go far wrong...
Kuji said:
Stickyfinger said:
Ares said:
Cyclists don't just 'fall'.
You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
As said....I am out...You passing a cyclist to close at 25 or more often 35/45+mph is an issue.
A cyclist will not be undertaking you at 25mph. If filtering through stationary (or near stationary) traffic, as cyclist will typically be riding at less than half that) and is in control of what is happening.
You guys really need to be more consistent, as I am beginning to believe the people claiming that you just make up new rules as it suits you.
yellowjack said:
cb1965 said:
Stickyfinger said:
yellowjack said:
This!
Quite often I get a quizzical look from a driver who's let me go first (rare enough but it does happen ). They seem to be looking for some form of "thank you". But I've got my hands on the handlebars. Both hands, because that's where motorists who profess to care about cyclist safety suggest we cyclists should have our hands. And also because I need my hands covering BOTH brakes lest some woman steps in front of me and I have to avoid hitting them to avoid being "had up" on a manslaughter charge .
On a more serious note, if I'm turning in any direction, or there's even a vague possibility that I might have to use my brakes, the last place I want my hand is raised in a "thank you" no matter how nice you've been to me. For what it's worth I regard the best way of repaying a kindness on the road is to get the fk on with it and get out of your way ASAP, instead of doddering around waving when I ought to be accelerating up through the gears.
Oh, and if (like many motorists local to me) you're expecting a "thank you" when all you have done is given way correctly, as instructed by regulatory signs and road markings, then you can sit there with that dumb look on your fizzer as long as you want, because no matter what I'm driving or riding, you ain't getting thanked for doing what the road markings already tell you to do. Would you expect a "thank you" from traffic at a junction just because you obeyed a red traffic light? It really is THAT stupid an expectation.
Try a nod of the head as ONE example, there are lots of ways to acknowledge without waving about like Mr Tickle........Quite often I get a quizzical look from a driver who's let me go first (rare enough but it does happen
). They seem to be looking for some form of "thank you". But I've got my hands on the handlebars. Both hands, because that's where motorists who profess to care about cyclist safety suggest we cyclists should have our hands. And also because I need my hands covering BOTH brakes lest some woman steps in front of me and I have to avoid hitting them to avoid being "had up" on a manslaughter charge .On a more serious note, if I'm turning in any direction, or there's even a vague possibility that I might have to use my brakes, the last place I want my hand is raised in a "thank you" no matter how nice you've been to me. For what it's worth I regard the best way of repaying a kindness on the road is to get the f
k on with it and get out of your way ASAP, instead of doddering around waving when I ought to be accelerating up through the gears.Oh, and if (like many motorists local to me) you're expecting a "thank you" when all you have done is given way correctly, as instructed by regulatory signs and road markings, then you can sit there with that dumb look on your fizzer as long as you want, because no matter what I'm driving or riding, you ain't getting thanked for doing what the road markings already tell you to do. Would you expect a "thank you" from traffic at a junction just because you obeyed a red traffic light? It really is THAT stupid an expectation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff