Forum menu
personally we are only as safe as how safe we ride. cant put all blame on motorists even though generally it is their fault keep out of the way.
these cycle highways that people say lull you into a false sense of security, really? or is it that people switch off instead of always looking around. never safe anywhere on a bike except off road personally. could be just as easy to get sideswiped by another cyclist on a bike only lane as a car. could still come off badly etc. (yes admit you wont get crushed to death by one)
the thing is it doesnt matter how many of us die nothing can be done quickly enough by boris etc to end all problems overnight so we have to look after ourselves and dont rely on others.
RIP. After seeing the aftermath of a cyclist death and the lack of clean up it left a huge impression on me about commuting by bike. I just don't think its worth the risk. ****ing sad, really ****ing sad to think this.
But Boris says it is wonderful! (24 hours after a fatality)
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24841596 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24841596[/url]
hora: it is incredibly sad, but please remember that people die in equally horrific ways when commuting in cars and on foot.
Another one last night, lucky to be alive apparently
You've got to ask what a lorry that size was doing in Oxford Circus at 6:15 in the evening, thats pretty much kicking out time at th office!
[img] 
[/img]
borris opened an extension to the fatal route yesterday, that bit is segregated at least
but shouldnt he be wearing some more reflective clothing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24841596
as for oxford st its madness to cycle down there in any direction, its a nightmare of scaffoding extending into the road, hgvs, buses, taxis and kamikaze pedestrians
these cycle highways that people say lull you into a false sense of security, really?
really, big issue i have with Hi-Viz, lights, bleepers etc etc*. The more that cyclists do to make drivers lives easier the less attention many drivers will pay.
* lights hi-viz etc can make sense from a protect me point of view, but they make it worse for everyone else.
The real solution involves the elephant in the room, motor vehicles.
Someone mentioned Radio4 earlier. The programme was discussing a system which can be installed in trucks and on bikes. The bike unit (a tiny transmitter) costs just £20. The truck's unit was a fair bit more... There seemed to be four sensors on the truck - front, back, left and right. If a cyclist with a chip fitted was anywhere near the truck, an audible "Cyclist" alarm sounded in the cab.There followed a decent debate about whether this would actually make drivers more complacent and less safe, as they would be more reliant on the system and pay less attention to the road.
Personally, I reckon it's worth a try, and if I commuted by bike, I'd happily spend the £20, even if only half the trucks on the road had the system installed.
So how do you know which trucks have the system installed, how does a truck driver know if a cyclist has it? Might a cyclist think "oh it's fine to go up the inside of this truck, his little bleeper will go". Might a truck driver think "oh I can make this left turn cos there have been no bleeps" (only to then find himself running over a cyclist without a chip).
Same with things like hi-vis and helmets, it all detracts from the main argument - why are there massive lorries like that in London at that kind of time? Why is the infrastructure so poor? Why are incredibly vulnerable squashy things made to mix with incredibly heavy solid things?
lights hi-viz etc can make sense from a protect me point of view, but they make it worse for everyone else.
Same goes for that Cyclist Detector thing mentioned above - makes you safer at the expense of all other cyclists, when the real issue is that HGVs can't see well enough to operate safely in city traffic.
personally we are only as safe as how safe we ride. cant put all blame on motorists even though generally it is their fault keep out of the way.these cycle highways that people say lull you into a false sense of security, really?
This attitude beggars belief. By all accounts both the lorry collisions involved the cyclists and lorries travelling in a straight line and being hit from behind.
I think that if you are in a marked cycle lane you should be able to have a high degree of confidence that you will be safe from vehicles infringing your space. If you can't have that confidence the cycle facility is not fit for purpose.
In exactly the same way you should be able to walk down the pavement without worrying about thinking you need to watch out for motor vehicles.
cyclist with a chip fitted was anywhere near the truck, an audible "Cyclist" alarm sounded in the cab.
Why do we need a chip at 20 quid? I bet an app on a phone could do the job better and cheaper. Most of us have our phones on us. As you set off on the commute, activate app on phone and ride away. Kickstarter anyone?
[i] I just don't think its worth the risk[/i]
But it is and if every cyclist thought like that we wouldn't be allowed on the road.
That bleeber thing doesn't make sense to me, in central london for example would it not be going off constantly - so would just be ignored.
I prefer to ride with common sense rather than let some sensor look out for me.
ride with common sense
Hear, hear!
Just a shame it isn't as common as it should be.
I cycle 10 miles through central London from East to west most mornings then back west to east in the evenings.
This morning I had a very close call, which was in fact my fault completely. Has really made me start thinking twice about doing the daily cycle commute.
I am a firm believer that every road user should have respect and consideration for the other.
Just the other day I saw two cyclists almost run pedestrians over at red lights whilst trying to jump them. It makes me upset as that type of behavior will just give cyclists a bad name and less respect.
I would love to see London 'go Dutch' and really like ideas like the one below:
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/spectacular-new-floating-cycle-roundabout/
The real solution involves the elephant in the room, motor vehicles [i]and road awareness training for cyclists.[/i]
FIFY. We cannot deny the fact that some accidents could be avoided if cyclists were better trained. (riding up inside of lorries for example)
franksinatra - MemberThe real solution involves the elephant in the room, motor vehicles and road awareness training for cyclists.
FIFY. We cannot deny the fact that some accidents could be avoided if cyclists were better trained. (riding up inside of lorries for example)
which doesn't answer why two cyclists were run down whilst going in straight lines by HGVs. However much training a cyclist does is nothing in that situation.
As i said the real issue is vehicles not cyclists. We all know cyclists and pedestrians are there. We all know kids on bikes do stupid things, call it errors of judgement about distances, and no amount of training is going to solve that. Yes there does need to be more training avaiable to all, but end of the day should HGVs with crap sighlines be anywhere near busy roads at rush hour? Should any HGV driver be paid piece work?
it's always large vehicles involved - why don't people have the common sense to just steer clear of them
ride with common sense
We cannot deny the fact that some accidents could be avoided if cyclists were better trained. (riding up inside of lorries for example)
Seems to be quite a lot of victim blaming going on here. 😐
Are we saying that every cycling fatality is due to someone NOT riding with "common sense"?
I don't know the details of the two fatalities in this thread, but I've certainly heard of people killed after being hit from behind by traffic, particularly HGVs.
Most publicly the Eilidh Cairns tragedy which her sister Kate bravely describes:
On 5th February 2009 my sister, Eilidh, was cycling her usual route to work from Kentish Town to Chiswick on her beloved ‘Fixie’. It was a 20mile round trip which she had tracked every day for three years. She cycled everywhere she went but during her commute alone she had racked up 12,000 miles.At approximately 8.56am at Notting Hill Gate she was struck from behind by a fully laden 32tonne tipper lorry and dragged under its wheels. Fully conscious pinned under a double wheel that had completely crushed her pelvis she quietly asked passers-by "Please help me, please help me".
At 10.58am my sister’s life was pronounced extinct by surgeons at The Royal London Hospital.
Eilidh and the truck were travelling on a one-way two-lane road with no nearby junctions. Just before the collision she was in front towards the right of the lorry. She was not filtering up the left, she was not riding next to the kerb, she was not in the passenger side blind spot, and the lorry was not turning left.
For another example see [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/drivers-killing-cyclists-the-system-really-is-broken ]the thread from the other day[/url] where an experienced cyclist was killed by a car overtaking on the wrong side of the road on a bend. What common sense would have saved her?
Are we saying that every cycling fatality is due to someone NOT riding with "common sense"?
I don't think so, just that more common sense would be a very strong benefit to ALL road users.
ti-pin-man: forget to activate app. die.
just off the top of my head...
I don't think so, just that more common sense would be a very strong benefit to ALL road users.
Indeed.
[i]Common sense[/i] would be preventing massive vehicles with huge blind spots and severely restricted vision from mixing with pedestrians, cyclists and other traffic in busy city centres at rush hour.
[i]Common sense[/i] would be providing usable segregated lanes for the most vulnerable road users, not strips of coloured tarmac with no meaning in law.
[i]Common sense[/i] would be proper enforcement of the traffic laws that are supposed to keep vulnerable road users safe.
[i]Common sense[/i] would be that people in charge of machines which injure around [b]200,000 people a year in the UK[/b] should face regular re-testing to ensure they have sufficient training to operate these machines! Not just sit one test at 17.
[i]Seems to be quite a lot of victim blaming going on here[/i]
Not at all but going up the left side of a large stationary vehicle, without applying common sense, is stupid. I apply common sense when I drive or ride on the road.
[i]Common sense would be that people in charge of machines which injure around 200,000 people a year in the UK should face regular re-testing to ensure they have sufficient training to operate these machines! Not just sit one test at 17.[/i]
You could apply that equally to people riding bikes with no road sense whatsoever.
Not at all but going up the left side of a large stationary vehicle, without applying common sense, is stupid. I apply common sense when I drive or ride on the road.
What's your point?
Should we react differently if you are crushed by a truck because you applied "common sense" and were still killed?
And did the victim in the OP actually ride up the inside of a truck? The witness in the article says: [i]"The lorry was behind the cyclist and sort of went into the back of him. He hit the cyclist who went under the lorry which just ran over and crushed him."[/i]
You could apply that equally to people riding bikes with no road sense whatsoever.
You could - and if cyclists injured 200,000 people a year then I'd be the first to call for them to be tested, licensed, or whatever - but they don't.
Not at all but going up the left side of a large stationary vehicle, without applying common sense, is stupid. I apply common sense when I drive or ride on the road.
And when the road markings tell you to go up the left of a large stationary vehicle? ASL feeder lane anyone? Into a box that is just the right size and shape to place you in a trucks bind spot?
Afterall aren't you taught that the road markings and signs are what you obey? You see a red light stop and do not cross the line for ANY REASON etc.
Exactly mrmo - when "common sense" is to ignore the road markings and provisions that are supposed to be there help you then something is seriously wrong.
Not at all but going up the left side of a large stationary vehicle, without applying common sense, is stupid. I apply common sense when I drive or ride on the road.
So we get back to implementing infrastructure which actually protects users
[img] 
[/img]
In case you've not seen the crap on the back of the bus before
[img] 
[/img]
@simons_nicolai-uk, there are a couple of errors in that photo, must be photoshopped. The bus isn't half blocking the lane and where is the bus stop?
So we get back to implementing infrastructure which actually protects users
Yep!
[img] 
[/img]
Which is effectively saying
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://lcc.org.uk/articles/superhighway-blue-paint-is-not-adequate-says-coroners-report-into-cycling-deaths-at-aldgate-and-bow-roundabout ]As confirmed by the cornoner on recent aldgate death[/url]
This common sense that you're all speaking of, i'm doing my best to impart it to my daughter but how old do you think she should be before she should know better and you'll be blaming her for getting run over?
She's 3 at the moment, and rides on the pavement, illegally of course.
I used to use one of the blue highways along the embankment and can say that I felt a small sense of relief when I got there on my commute, it wasnt physically segregrated, just a wide blue ribbon and it didnt stop me being wary of cars/lorrys but what it did do is make drivers more aware of the fact that bikes are around and they should be more aware. this is a good thing. I am sure some of them dont work at key points but generally I am in favour of them.
Incidentally, as I understand it a fair bit of the CS blue ribbon isn't [i]actually[/i] a cycle lane, not even an advisory one.
The bits that are real cycle lanes have a white border (solid for mandatory, dashed for advisory) as described by traffic law ([url= https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/multilane-carriageways-133-to-143 ]Highway Code rule 140[/url], Law RTRA sects 5 & 8).
The rest of it just indicates the CS route. Nothing more.
I suspect that is a subtlety that is lost on 99% of road users. Cyclists included.
make drivers more aware of the fact that bikes are around
Does that mean they can relax, and be less careful, on roads where there isn't any paint? London is a densely populated urban area. There are lots of cyclists. Surely drivers should be anticipating cyclists all the time?
This is why the 'blue paint' approach fails. Some of CS8 is not bad but you're still worryingly close to fast moving traffic. If it is wide enough you have to ask why it couldn't have been properly segregated.
Worth reading [url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/guest-post-two-people-killed-at-same.html ]this post[/url] and this description of someone using a painted on cycle lane on Upper Thames Street
A nice eye witness report on that one -
"Our cctv caught the accident and according to the health and safety officer who saw the footage there were two lorrys following one another .The cyclist slighty [sic] swerved(not out of the bike lane) and basicly the lorry “hovered” [sic] him up and he come [sic] out the back."
I'm sure the cyclist should have been more careful.
[i]What's your point?
Should we react differently if you are crushed by a truck because you applied "common sense" and were still killed?
And did the victim in the OP actually ride up the inside of a truck? The witness in the article says: "The lorry was behind the cyclist and sort of went into the back of him. He hit the cyclist who went under the lorry which just ran over and crushed him."[/i]
I made my point clearly, don't see whats ambiguous about it.
Where did I link riding with common sense to any of the accidents that have taken place?
Some people appear to be suggesting we don't bother taking a common sense approach!
Some people appear to be suggesting we don't bother taking a common sense approach!
I think in some respects the [b]increased[/b] use of control factors (traffic lights, blue paint, ASLs etc) actually contributes to a lack of awareness and common sense.
People expect everyone to conform to "their" bit of road space and when something happens to prevent that (a cyclist not in "their" bit of blue lane, a bus not in "their" bus lane), it leads to frustration, confusion, mixed messages ("well the cyclist should have been in his lane but he wasn't so I hit him") and actually erodes any sense of mutual respect and common sense.
Some people appear to be suggesting we don't bother taking a common sense approach!
but your "common sense" approach is at times illegal and at other times runs counter to the road infrastructure in place.
I will cross a stop line if i think it is the right thing to do, but it is illegal to do it! I might use a filter lane, i might not, even though it is legal to do so.
This isn't about common sense, it is about people obeying the law and getting killed.
I don't know why, the statistics point to more women being killed then men, is this the result of men using "common sense" and women following the letter of the law?
Does that mean they can relax, and be less careful, on roads where there isn't any paint?
no not less careful but car drivers are more aware that they are actually sharing a road.
no not less careful but car drivers are more aware that they are actually sharing a road.
I do understand what you are saying, IME the result is us and them, this is my lane, this is your lane. Observation doesn't improve, and if the road service is bad, you get agro for moving out of "your" lane into "their" lane.
And if you dare to block/adopt primary position/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, the road at a pinch point some drivers take this as an act of war!
I feel pretty safe riding down an empty road. I feel pretty safe if any overtaking traffic puts a couple of meters between me and them.
But I feel very uncomfortable when traffic passes closely, sticks its nose into a main road that I'm riding along, I feel at risk when drivers tailgate me, lean on their horns when driving behind or scream and shout at me
I can see a very easy solution here - there are rules already defined about all these things but they're not being enforced.
More Police, arresting people for breaking the law when driving, or at least a proper bollocking, taking cyclists' complaints seriously, accepting headcam footage etc.
The harrassment of cyclists is beyond belief. I never get as much grief when I'm walking, driving or on the Tube. The problem's a behavioural one pure and simple and the rule are already in place to deal with it... but for whatever reason the Police don't seem to be bothered anymore
Hmm. Mobile phone use by drivers.
I see this every day, and now the clocks have gone back I can see their faces being lit up by their screens as they sit in traffic.
I have had a couple of close shaves over the years in London - and all have involved drivers using their phones in some capacity.
I would like the Police to get tough on this - not just check phone records after accidents for prosecutions for careless driving / death by careless driving.
That 2 - 3 seconds someone looks down at their smart phone / iphone is the thing I fear the most.
Where did I link riding with common sense to any of the accidents that have taken place?
For me that was at the point where you posted [i]"I apply common sense when I drive or ride on the road"[/i] on a thread about the accidents that have taken place.
Don't know if it was your intent, but to me that implies that cyclists killed in accidents did not apply common sense.
the result is us and them, this is my lane, this is your lane. Observation doesn't improve, and if the road service is bad, you get agro for moving out of "your" lane into "their" lane.
As if to prove the point, here's a lovely video of a woman shouting at children for daring to leave the (terrible) cycle lane and take the primary at a major junction:
[i]but your "common sense" approach is at times illegal[/i]
Sorry but can you give an instance where I've suggested illegal riding?
GrahamS you've jumped to conclusions.
GrahamS you've jumped to conclusions.
Okay, so then you must be saying that those killed [i]did[/i] apply common sense and they still go killed? Then what good is common sense?
that woman in the audi is just horrible
[i]Okay, so then you must be saying that those killed did apply common sense and they still go killed? Then what good is common sense? [/i]
I was referring to a recent experience and as I have no knowledge of the recent incidents highlighted on this thread then I am in no position to comment on them. So I haven't.
You're being deliberately argumentative so lets just leave it. Although I'm sure you'll come back with a smart arse comment.
Common sense would generally say ride on the pavement unless you're a confident 'vehicular cyclist'