I’d expect that an automatic response to any collision with a cyclist is SMIDSY. I’d expect it’s a proportionately high reason for most collisions between all kinds of vehicles. even so the logical conclusion is to make yourself more visible whether that be through what you wear or where you position yourself.

agreed, if you can get them to see you half the battle is won

Someone posted a link to a PDF from the Gov website some years ago. The PDF is no longer on their website, which I think is a shame. Here it is C&P’d – I think it has some balanced points, personally.

Drive safe, cycle safe

Motorists and cyclists both have a right to use Britain’s roads – a right to safe and enjoyable travel.

Both share a responsibility to understand each others needs – and to respond positively.

This information aims to make motorists and cyclists more aware of one another, and to counter the intolerance that can develop between them – in short, to establish a climate of mutual courtesy and
care.

What cyclists would like motorists to know

Cyclists are more vulnerable than motorists – drivers have the major responsibility to take care.

Rain, wind and poor visibility make conditions worse for cyclists.

Cyclists can feel threatened by inconsiderate driving. They have a right to space on the road and need extra room at junctions and roundabouts where cars change speed, position and direction.

Cyclists ride away from the kerb, not to annoy motorists but to:

avoid drains, potholes and debris

be seen as they come to junctions with side roads

discourage drivers from squeezing past when it’s too narrow

Cyclists turning right are exposed – and need extra consideration from motorists, especially on multi-lane roads with fast-moving traffic.

Cyclists can be forced into faster traffic – by vehicles parked in cycle lanes, at junctions or on double yellow lines.

Cyclists are dazzled by full-beam headlights, like everyone else.

Cyclists can be fast movers – 20mph or more.

What motorists can do

Think bike. Expect to see cyclists, and take care.

Slow down and drive smoothly. Keep within speed limits. Expect sudden movements by cyclists, especially in windy weather and on bad road surfaces.

Signal: always at roundabouts and every time you pass a cyclist

Watch for riders on the inside when you turn left. Don’t cut them up.

Give cyclists space – at least half a car’s width – and never force past them. Be patient – a few seconds for a cyclist hardly affects your total journey time.

Right-turning cyclists need space and time.

Park considerately. Always look for cyclists before opening a car door.

Use dipped headlights.

Expect speed from bikes. Think of a bike as a vehicle – it is.

What motorists would like cyclists to know

Motorists get upset if cyclists ride without lights at night, ignore red traffic lights or hop on and off the pavement.

Motorists usually travel faster than cyclists and may have less time to take account of hazards.

Motorists may not always see cyclists.

Motorists are made uneasy when cyclists seem hesitant, move out suddenly or wobble around potholes.

Motorists can feel delayed by cyclist.

Motorists don’t always understand that some road surfaces, junctions or traffic conditions cause problems for cyclists.

What cyclists can do

Follow the Highway Code.

Don’t:

jump red lights

ride on pavements (unless they are shared paths)

ride the wrong way in one-way streets (unless signs say that cyclists are permitted to do so)

ride across pedestrian crossings

Think ahead. Anticipate drivers’ actions. Catch their eye.

Be visible. Ride well clear of the kerb, wear bright clothing, and always use lights after dark or in poor day-time visibility.

Show drivers what you plan to do. Always look and signal before you start, stop or turn. Ride a straight line past parked cars rather than dodge between them.

Move over, when it’s safe and convenient. Two-abreast is often OK, but try not to hold up other traffic.

Ride positively and decisively. It helps motorists to understand what you plan to do.

Mutual respect and consideration make for safer and more enjoyable travel. Always acknowledging a courtesy does make a difference.

I like the last point; it does make a difference. I find that when I have to move out to avoid a pothole, a simple gesture toward the hole and a quick raise of the back of your hand helps them understand why you impeded their progress ( 😉 ). At least I like to think it does…

My Bus ran over a bike last night, cyclist rode through Red light and despite a large blat of the horn from the Bus driver cycle boy didn’t stop just rode through until he hit the kerb, fell off and the bike went under the wheels.
Bus driver drove on.

😕

There were 7 cyclists doing the same thing, all cutting Red lights, all suprised by the Horn blat, 6 stopped dead, 1 clearly didn’t.

brakes – Member

thanks Nobby, the conclusions there seem to match with those of people on this thread at least.
the taxi comment is interesting though – I guess it illustrates that it’s the HGV deaths that get more publicity than the taxi injuries, for obvious reasons. I wonder if that’s Hackney carriages (cabs) or licensed taxis, or both. I find the latter to be far worse drivers.

I found the report had a lot of interesting data from the perspective of Motorists, cyclists & pedestrians.

Nothing about headphones though 😉

Bus driver drove on.

That’s a bit worrying, apparent stupidity of the chap on the bike notwithstanding, surely the bus driver should have stopped!?

There’s a good section on the excellent bikesnobNYC blog at the moment, seems New York is having similar “problems” with it’s cyclists and are taking very similar enforcement tactics tp what the police in London are currently doing. ie don’t bother dealing with the tons of fast-moving metal, lets ticket/blame the cyclists instead!

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/and-thus-endeth-great-new-york-city.html

One interesting point I took from that summary of conclusions was;

Number of casualties reflects AM and PM peaks suggesting traffic volumes are a factor. There is a further evening peak in casualties.

The “Evening Peak” suggests that the prevailing light conditions are a significant enough issue to have a detectable effect. The seasonal changes in daylight conditions means that the “PM Peak” starts to coincides with that low light “Evening peak” about now making Nov ~ Feb from about 1700 hrs onwards about the most dangerous time to be riding a bicycle in London (or anywhere in the UK really)…

you could call the last two weeks a “Perfect Storm” for cycling accidents; Seasonal changes, a surge in 2013 cycling numbers (TBC?), ongoing construction work in parts of London. it all comes together to increase the risks of these incidents, the same factors will also apply to pedestrian KSI statistics I would imagine (Confirmation anyone?), so the two most vulnerable groups of commuters in London are bound to be affected… Right?

I suppose the real question to be asked is; Have these issues in combination been seriously considered by the City of London Environment and Planning authority? And if so how have they been addressed?

Construction in one part of the city is bound to lead to an increased demand for access along certain key routes for materials and equipment, the actual risk to cyclists and Peds might not be felt close to the site itself.
I’ll bet that any commercial organisation involved in such projects will have assessed these factors to some extent, but have the London authorities really thought about it in terms of wider transport impacts?

Blanket HGV exclusion is the quick and easy short term solution, but I think there is scope for some more flexibility that allows businesses to operate, and for safer cycling to take place in the capital…

Those in charge of planning and infrastructure should have forward visibility of potential clashes along key routes…
The current spate of incidents could have been foreseen to a certain extent, ask a contractor when their schedule has them shifting concrete or aggregate to a site, and they’ll more than likely be able to tell you approximate dates and volumes…

It requires joined up thinking from the initial planning stage right through to implementation, with some foresight risks can be minimised, measures could be put in place to minimise the chances of someone dying, that might be restricting the operating times and/or routes that HGVs can take, it might mean temporary re-routing of other traffic including bikes, but the overriding requirement has to be what is safest for all…

Similarly TfL put several hundred Tons of “Surface transport” on London roads every day, are they highlighting areas of increased risk and considering ways to reduce the likelihood of incidents?
Are they considering any and all variables, construction work, planned events, changes in transport usage profile over time (more cyclists)? London is not a “Static” environment…

I don’t reckon London is as “Joined up” a city as they’d have us believe… Finger pointing won’t help, there are separate stakeholder organisations all with bits of information that make up a picture, they need to be communicating more effectively with each other and decisions need ot be based on best practicable safety, not just reduced journey times… (IMO of course)…

84. The largest contributing factor was drivers failing to see cyclists, indicating the importance of developing ways in which cyclists could be more ‘visible’ to other modes of transport.

-VV-

This is the only bit that makes me go ‘hmmmm’, while I’m all for things that can improve safety and reduce the chance of and accident occurring this is open to interpretation, you can take this in two ways, either pushing the responsibility on to cyclist to ‘make themselves visible’ or improving the chances of cyclists being seen with improvements to infrastructure and possibly even technical improvements on large vehicles.

I hope its a mix of both with a good focus on the latter, but the cynic in me thinks this will reinforce the views of the hard-of-thinking that cyclists not wearing high viz is the problem…

Perhaps there is a compromise to be struck here, the issue is more about “cyclists being seen” than “cyclist’s visibility” you’re right its a subtle point, and there are several components to that:

-Visibility of the cyclist – The most obvious one, the rider and bike using high contrast, retro-reflective and active illumination to be seen, essentially the first two measures are mostly personal choice on the part of the cyclist, active illumination is mandatory…

-Environment, facilitating optimal visibility of cyclists – providing street lighting and space for cyclists so that they are where motorists “expect” them to be and a bike “appearing” to the left of a car is not an unexpected event for drivers.

-Training people to observe better – For motorists: What to look for, how to look and taking the time to look, for cyclists: how to be seen, how to position yourself and reading the road ahead so you are prepared to take action at points where your visibility to others might not be optimal… Rather simply “Look out for each other!”

I think if that lot could be agreed upon between Government, Police and Cycling groups, if they all supported “normalising the use of Hi-Viz and Helmets” without actually requiring a change in the law (which would just place another, largely unenforceable, burden on the police), with a clear statement from the Police, Prosecutors and Courts in the form of explicit guidance that absence of these (non-compulsory) items does not constitute evidence of a cyclists liability in any road traffic incident, then I think we could move on to addressing the various other causes for cycling KSI incidents…

[/and breath]…

Edinburgh clamping down on drivers and cyclists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-25036132

BoardinBob

Edinburgh clamping down on drivers and cyclists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-25036132

Will be fun seeing the rozzers trying to prosecute for riding on the pavement. The outdoor access code gives cyclists the right to ride on pavements IIRC.

That’s not a comment on the rights or wrongs of it btw… On that I have no opinion.

oh dear

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-peer-claims-london-cyclists-are-longing-to-be-run-down-by-drivers-so-they-can-film-them-doing-so-8955248.html

ps the bit about the mooning?!

What the flipperty flip?!!!!!

That Tory peer is an utter tool!

From the Edinburgh article:

They also said drivers had blamed their sat navs for taking them past “no entry” signs.

Anybody trying that excuse should have their fine doubled – or maybe just be charged with careless driving (or whatever the Scottish equivalent is).

As for the Standard article, read the comments underneath – it’s quite refreshing to have almost everybody calling him a berk, and nobody calling for cyclists to be taxed, tested and insured. Presumably the Standard attracts a different class of readership to the DM?

Isn’t the Standard owned by The Express?

i though was the same guy that owns the independent?

Could be. I remember the Express, Standard and Metro all running similar stories when I worked in London, but that was more than a few years back.

Evening Standard is part owned (29sh %?)by the Daily Mail

Metro is DMG owned (that’s the Daily Fail Group) and is generally recycled DM stuff, or as somebody in the office described it ‘yesterday’s news, today’

The House of Commons Transport Committee is also to hold an oral evidence session on cycle safety on December 2 to “stimulate debate”.

my hopes are not high

could we have a game of bullshit bingo on this
Im calling headphones,red light jumping and helmets,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25052674

Was just reading the Met chief’s comments. Not entirely helpful are they?… apparently the only reason people ride in London is because they can’t afford the congestion charge. WTF.

yeah the man is a first class pleb

Met man is right! Cancel the congestion charge, more people drive leading to more congestion and slower average speeds. Safer for the remaining cyclists who have not returned to cars to pass traffic (on outside preferably). Maybe.

That’s a bit worrying, apparent stupidity of the chap on the bike notwithstanding, surely the bus driver should have stopped!?

i trust the bus driver reported the incident, Remember Emma Way was fined £677 and 7 points for not reporting an accident….

Evening Standard is part owned (29sh %?)by the Daily Mail

Ah – could have been the Wail, ES and Metro that all ran similar stories.

Metro is DMG owned (that’s the Daily Fail Group) and is generally recycled DM stuff, or as somebody in the office described it ‘yesterday’s news, today’

so true. 😆 Who wants yesterday’s papers?

I had to mount the curb and pavement in an emergency move to avoid a black cab that cut the corner and totally ignored the cycle lane today…. I hate black cabs. I’ve put a complaint in via the tfl website. They say that matters of road law will not be dealt with and should be referred to the police…. Which is fair enough. It leaves me thinking though that tfl will probably dismiss my complaint but if I reported this to the police I doubtit would be taken seriously by them either. Leaves me thinking the taxi driver will not get any warning…. Shoes full of wee are what I’d Luke to dish out now.

What an RAF pilot can teach us about being safe on the road

Interesting stuff