[Closed] Another dead cyclist in London

Im with Shermer. I sat on the steps of St Pauls the other day and watched the cyclists going by, to my horror, many could barely ride the things (lots of boris bikes), and didn't have the faintest clue of looking over your shoulder etc.

I don't know anything about this case but the answer is not banning lorries from London (it is a working city).

The only long-term solution is complete separation between cyclists and other road users.

The whole ASL entry needs to be revised to prevent this from happening. Everybody seems to want to ignore this and I can see why as it would involve a lot of work. The road layout places cyclists on the inside of vehicles and when that vehicle happens to be one with [s]badly adjusted mirrors[/s] a large blind spot, the result is another dead cyclist.
If anyone in charge actually wants to stop this from happening, the road infrastructure needs to be redesigned, but it's cheaper to tell cyclists to not go up the inside (contrary to the lane markings) and to legislate so lorries get additional safety systems. Lets not pretend that anyone that can fix this really gives a **** or that anything is going to change soon.

prezaxctly, mefty.

even if "it was cyclists, and not motorists, who first pushed for high-quality, dust-free road surfaces" arguing that roads were built for bicycles is a bit of an extrapolation, to say the least, and isn't going to get you very far as an argument, particularly as so much of the road construction, marking and infrastructure, priority etc. clearly is designed for motorised traffic.

B) the number of cyclists who I see taking crazy risks as well as having absolutely no intention at all of following any of the basic rules (red lights, one way systems, cycling on pavements etc) are, well, certainly the majority if not pretty much all of them.

Don't know where in London you cycle, but I don't see that at all. Same proportion of rule breakers on bikes as anything else. Cars might be RLJing on "only just red" rather than mid-cycle, but 90%+ of the cyclists I see will wait for the green light.

Sad, sad news. Feel awful for the victim and their families. Sickening that something as simple as going to work can end up like this.

Anyone know how the cyclist death rate compares to the scooter death rate at these type of junctions? Is it a similar story for other vulnerable road users?

In 2013...
11% of fatalities were cyclists, who have 2% modal share (measured by "journey stages")
17% of fatalities were powered 2-wheelers, who have a 1% modal share

The whole ASL entry needs to be revised to prevent this from happening.

I see a lot of ASLs where the entry, such as it is, is on the right of the leftmost lane. Don't know how prevalent it is in what cities though.

I've ridden through this junction every day for the past 8 years. First cyclist fatality that I'm aware of. I've seen the aftermath of a few car crashes, scooter/ motorbike crashes and pedestrians being hit in that time.
It is a terrible junction, especially where you get traffic turning right as there are no lines guiding you where to be, and you've got situations where there can be a flow of traffic in the junction turning right then another light will go green whilst the traffic is still flowing through.
You don't see tipper trucks going through the junction regularly though.
I've always thought about avoiding Bank - I might do so now.
Regardless of who is to blame for this death - there needs to be action on cyclists being educated about not going near lorries and lorries having better visibility of other road users (cars, m/bikes, cyclists and pedestrians).

B) the number of cyclists who I see taking crazy risks as well as having absolutely no intention at all of following any of the basic rules (red lights, one way systems, cycling on pavements etc) are, well, certainly the majority if not pretty much all of them.
Don't know where in London you cycle, but I don't see that at all. Same proportion of rule breakers on bikes as anything else. Cars might be RLJing on "only just red" rather than mid-cycle, but 90%+ of the cyclists I see will wait for the green light.

+1 - sounds like you live in a different London to me. Or suffer from confirmation bias or are simply jaded... it's also an incredibly subjective view and thus is unhelpful in finding any kind of solution.

My preference would be to accept that roads are dangerous for cyclists - mainly from a combination of lousy infrastructure and lousy attitude towards cyclists and provide more training so cyclists can minimise that risk.
And let's be clear, bad attitudes towards cyclists CAN be changed - other European countries have far most positive attitudes than UK.

Evidence at the moment appears to be that both infrastructure and culture are improving, but very slowly...

In the meantime, I cycle c100 miles a week in London and on club runs and as yet, have not been hit. I've been riding for 38 years, and not been knocked off... so safe riding is 100% possible. I give credit for this to my grandad who told my mum in the 1950s when she was learning to drive to assume everyone else on the road is an idiot and drive accordingly... plus ca change!

I did my Bikeability Stages 2 and 3 a couple of years ago and learnt loads. This, I think is the solution... not mandatory, but massively, massively encouraged. We don't throw trainee skydivers out of the plane lack a sack of spuds, we put them through several days of training as it's accepted there's a risk so newbies are taught how to manage that risk. Same with cycling - all new bike purchases should come with a voucher for Bikeability (which is provided FOC of the local authority anyway) + a massive push from local authorities and TFL. An idea from one of my clubmates yesterday - if you can prove you've done your Bikeability, discount off the new bike...

This is NOT victim-blaming, it's accepting there's a risk for cyclists until infrastructure and culture change, and in the meantime, give us the tools to manage that risk... every adventure sport - skydiving, climbing, mountaineering, caving, diving etc have been working like this for decades - accept there's risk, identify the risks, work out a plan for dealing with it, teach it to the new starters... the process is well-established so no reason not to apply it to cycling.

Just fixing the infrastructure is only part of the answer

Legislation for 'Professional' drivers need to follow the same principles as HSAW

those owning, Managing, directing transport need to share the sanctions of the Law for the actions of those in their employment. Only then will it get the attention needed.

There are undoubtably drivers who should not be in charge of a wheelbarrow....however people making £££ put them behind the wheel

so you may have unsuited people..un unsuitable vehicles...with dangerous deadlines to meet....

There are of course many highly skilled and considerate drivers out there...but unless the penalties flow upward through organisations then these tradgedies will continue

Fair enough, it is a subjective opinion, I agree with you there. It would be useful if there were some actual statistics, but I couldn't find any. So here's an equally subjective video to not really back up my case either:

I'm not sure how, if at all, the media's attention on cyclists contributes to accidents, but there is certainly far more attention given to cycling fatalities in the London and National media than other fatalities on London's roads.
You hear about every cycling death, but there are 4 times as many pedestrian deaths and 2 times as many motorbike/scooter deaths and you don't hear about all of them.

The HSE has been working with the construction industry to improve site safety for several years now. In particular I remember this report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. ‘One Death is too Many: an Inquiry into the Underlying Causes of Construction Fatal Accidents’, July 2009.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/policy-publications/fatal-accidents-inquiry.shtml

However it seems that it doesn't matter that construction vehicles that are slaughtering cyclists on the highway because it's someone else's problem. Imagine the outcry if there was a construction worker death a month due to unsuitable and lethal machines on site.

Is there a hierarchy of truck drivers?

Of course there is, it's not usually an Eddie Stobart truck, or one from the big well maintained fleets is it?

People, stay away from tippers, scaffolding lorries, bin lorries, and cement mixers (although some of these seem a little better over the last year).

Being a regular commuter in London I'm not scared at all on the roads, you just need to use your loaf. The thing that gets me is that there is no law enforcement for anyone, [u]all[/u] types of road users get away with whatever they feel that they can as there's an extremely small chance that they'll get caught.

I'll just repeat what I've said on all the previous sadly similar threads:

Until we have the full facts as to what and who did what and when, all this seething rage, jumping to conclusions and pitchfork sharpening may be in vain.

[quote=ninfan ]We could put all the technology in the world on board
You would still see people [s]cycling up the inside of them at traffic light[/s] driving them into ASL boxes

Based on the video evidence you provided.

Though as already pointed out, being daft enough to cycle down the inside of a truck shouldn't be punished by a death sentence - improving the visibility from the cabs of the trucks might stop them driving over people. Because let's not forget, even if the cyclist made a mistake in where they positioned themselves [b]all[/b] of the danger still comes from the truck. It's the truck which drives over people and kills them. If Google made tipper trucks there wouldn't be a problem with cycling down the left side of them at junctions, as they simply wouldn't run over anybody who did that.

We could put all the technology in the world on board

You would still see people cycling up the inside of them at traffic lights

[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]I'll just repeat what I've said on all the previous sadly similar threads:
Until we have the full facts as to what and who did what and when, all this seething rage, jumping to conclusions and pitchfork sharpening may be in vain.

and I'll repeat what I've already said. It makes no difference what those facts are - a tipper truck (which is acknowledged to have poor visibility from the cab) has driven over somebody. How the person got there is irrelevant, we need to start acknowledging the elephant in the room.

Within the construction industry , the big players are very focused on safety within their demise.

The principles I alluded to were that by following the principles used within HSAW and treating the highway as a workplace for Professional drivers the responsibility for other occupants would extend beyond the drivers to the managers, directors ...and thence to the pockets of shareholders....

[quote=shermer75 ]But I have absolutely had enough of people blaming the motorised traffic for every incident and death that occurs on the roads.
... If you want the motorists to drive well, then feel free to start showing them how it's done. Ugh!!!

So how many people do cyclist kill on the roads every year? Even if it's not directly the motorists who've done something wrong in every single incident (though it is in the vast majority), they're still the ones who've introduced a killing machine to the roads which would be perfectly safe for other road users if they weren't there. How well cyclists ride is an irrelevance. Not only that, but your last sentence introduces one of the standard fallacies - that how other people riding bikes behave somehow has an effect on my safety when I'm on a bike. I expect motorists to drive well because that's only reasonable - I could mention that I always follow the rules when cycling as a reason for expecting them to drive well, but actually that is also a complete irrelevance.

very sad news. I know the junction well and whilst a busy section, its equivalent can be found across London in various configurations.

The cycle lane on the inside of that junction. Judging by the positioning of the stationary lorry, my guess is the cyclist went into the cycle lane on the inside. Once the lights went Green the lorry turned left and the cyclist went straight, resulting in a collision and the subsequent head injuries which have resulted in another lost soul.

There are two things to consider:

1. whether it is appropriate to have cycle lanes approaching junctions. In my view (and i commute via moped and cycle on a regular basis into london) is that all cycle lanes should terminate 50 meters before a junction - to avoid giving the cyclist the impression they are safe / have right of way.

2. We can all play the blame game / unsuitable infrastructure / banning lorries. Banning lorries during the day into London would have a major consequence to business and livelihoods, at the same time major changes to infrastructure don't happen over night. The key thing is to educate in safety and be hard on those who break the law / drive dangerously. To me the recent sentences handed down are far too lenient.

[i]The first video shows...[/i]

Losing battle, neil. People will see what they want to see.

(I'm inclined to agree with an earlier story - the only one in the wrong is the guy filming and uploading those videos.)

[i]How the person got there is irrelevant, we need to start acknowledging the elephant in the room. [/i]

We have, folk take stupid risks.

How the person got there is irrelevant, we need to start acknowledging the elephant in the room.

im sorry but its very relevant - me walking into the middle of a road expecting to be safe is not sensible!

me walking into the middle of a road expecting to be safe is not sensible!

but walking down a part of the road, painted a special colour that means it is only for pedestrians to use that are hailed as a great revolution in transport infrastructure ?

If when you walked into the middle of the road the lorry driver which ran you over couldn't see you then that would be a valid analogy. You still seem to be missing the big issue here of the lack of coincidence of the lorry type involved.

I was surprised to read this in the 2013 annual report on road traffic casualties

"Pedal cyclist deaths have seen a long-term fall, but have fluctuated
between roughly 100 and 120 over the last six years. Since records
began in the 1920s, the highest annual figure seen for cyclist deaths
was 1,536 in 1934. The lowest annual figure for pedal cyclist deaths
was 104 in 2009, 93 per cent lower than the 1934 high".

1536!!!! What was that all about? OK there were probably more bikes but a hell of a lot less motor traffic.

driving them into ASL boxes

95% of the time ASL boxes are perfectly safe, in fact they are a really good invention that enhance both speed and safety for cyclists 95% of the time

The other 5% of the time, they have an HGV in them - personally I reckon that I can normally tell those occasions, because, well, there's a dirty great HGV in front of me.

The rider in the video also seemed to notice the presence of a large vehicle in the box and didn't ride into it - it's a fairly simple move that mitigates the risk, and means you don't have to rely on someone else spotting you, or not.

1536!!!! What was that all about?

The almost complete lack of stopping power especially in the wet during that era I would imagine.

Cheap heavy steel frames combined with heavy steel wheels and hopelessly inadequate brakes makes stopping safely rather more difficult.

I suspect that there was also less tarmac roads and more cobblestone roads........riding on wet cobblestone on a half a cwt steel bike with crap brakes and only cloth on your head for protection must have been a risky experience.

Possibly too many brown ales too.

The other 5% of the time, they have an HGV in them - personally I reckon that I can normally tell those occasions, because, well, there's a dirty great HGV in front of me.

What seems bleeding obvious to you and me, isn't for newbie cyclists. Which is where training comes in. Commonsense isn't that common unfortunately.

I apologise for the rant but, honestly, I've had enough if this moany, whiny hipocrisy. If you want the motorists to drive well, then feel free to start showing them how it's done. Ugh!!!

Well. I have been cycling absolutely perfectly for the last 6 months. For some strange reason I see dozens of examples of bad driving every day. I don't understand how that can still be happening.

Yeah, it's a weird one that. It's almost as if the entire world isn't watching your every move and adjusting their behaviour accordingly

I work in construction and tipper trucks as they seemingly have been tagged within this post are the life blood of the industry. Various guises of lorry run on that 8 or 6 wheeled wheelbase from concrete lorries to actual tippers.
The lads I have delivering to my sites all seem pretty competent and haven't run over or killed anyone as I know of. Banning them from the roads is never going to happen as they genuinely are the life blood of the industry especially in very built up areas where say arisings can't just be pushed to another area of the site.
It's surely got to be a programme of better education for cyclists and drivers alike and the use of modern technology.
Balfours years ago introduced cameras/sensors on 360 machines after numerous deaths, these sensors cameras literally cut out the machine if someone was to encroach into the "swinging area" of the machine. Has it been adopted natinal by other companies ? Has it bollox, and I suppose it's down to money as usual.

The principles I alluded to were that by following the principles used within HSAW and treating the highway as a workplace for Professional drivers the responsibility for other occupants would extend beyond the drivers to the managers, directors ...and thence to the pockets of shareholders...

Vicarious liability would cover this??

Nice to see some common sense from wrightyson on what is understandably a very emotive problem

Balfour Beaty are not the only major in the UK with 360' technology

Tort could in theory, however having the muscle of a act like HSAW is a far bigger impact it was necessary to make HSAW bite

I just quoted balfours as an example of a forward thinking company as I knew someone who worked there and had made me aware of it being introduced. That in my mind is a far more productive way of thinking safety wise than say some of the other big companies who go to ridiculous lengths to make you wear a pair of gloves and safety glasses regardless of your intentions on site.
Very sad for all those involved and that includes the driver.

So.....

Motorists are SOLELY responsible in 70% of accidents including cyclists (DoT research). And of course that understates as very difficult to assess when cyclist is dead.

Trying to show cycling's 'not that dangerous' using annual deaths figure is not necessarily the best to use - medical advances mean more serious injuries are now survivable. Frankly, that horrible phrase 'life changing injuries' terrifies me more than anything.

In any other situation - rail, air, any workplace - every one of these incidents would be properly investigated and changes made. On the road we're just collateral damage - usually for people who are being criminally inattentive if not criminally negligent in their driving.

Danger to pedestrians of cyclists is massively overstated. Stats below are for pedestrian injuries ON THE PAVEMENT, not even on the road.

[img] :large[/img]

Banning them from the roads is never going to happen as they genuinely are the life blood of the industry especially in very built up areas where say arisings can't just be pushed to another area of the site.

They've banned them in peak hours in Paris and the city hasn't shut down. They're simply not safe as currently configured - on site they go nowhere without a banksman at walking pace, yet once out the gate you've got an underpaid driver on piecework. You can make trucks safer with low cabs with more glazing - they're standard issue for bin trucks and should be for any trucks entering the city....

Then you change how the drivers are paid.

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/cemex-drivers-gets-clearer-view-with-new-20-tonne-econic--tipper
[img] [/img]

Oh. And trucks yeah?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/100-hgvs-taken-off-roads-in-londons-square-mile-in-crackdown-on-dangerous-lorries-10336095.html

And the people dying?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/us-not-them/

The Paris scenario was made clear earlier. There's also some absolute rubbish being spouted about drivers being on piece work when a great many are on hourly rates.
And regardless of what your facts and figures say if you were to remove lorries from London roads during the day the price of construction would rocket due to night work rates.

There's also some absolute rubbish being spouted about drivers being on piece work when a great many are on hourly rates.

And regardless of what your facts and figures say if you were to remove lorries from London roads during the day the price of construction would rocket due to night work rates.

....increased construction costs is a small price to pay for people not dying on bikes. Or to put it a slightly different way - i'm not prepared to have people die to let us build a cheap railway

that's about it isn't it, cycliosts are seen as an overhead cost to the construction industry, cheaper to kill a dozeon or so a year than regulate or modify their industry practices.
As has been mentioned above a few times, plenty of H&S regulations protecting those who work around trucks on site (their 'own people') but nothing protecting us when the monsters take over the public roads.