Some times an aggressive driver values their ego or road position more than your safety or the risk of a scratch to their vehicle or the risk of legal consequences (which seem low).... If a sixth sense tells you this is the driver behind you then bailing for the curb IS sometimes the right answer.
If you've cycled assertively long enough then you'll have come across drivers that see that assertion as a challenge, I have. I've brushed with drivers when minding my own business on quiet wide roads too....some drivers are just ****s. Recognising them and avoiding them is a valuable skill.
we can all get tarred with the same brush just because of a selfish few
I can think of no other minority group in any other context who would ever trot out logic like this. Cyclists have a kind of stockholm syndrome.
If any driver tells you that the actions of other cyclists give you, as a cyclist, a bad name, ask them what they're planning to do about drink driving, seeing as other people's drink driving gives them, personally, such a bad name.
If any driver tells you that the actions of other cyclists give you, as a cyclist, a bad name, ask them
In my experience, when drivers are screaming abuse at you about running red lights, they tend not to stop and listen to your retorts, however pithy.
We have five senses - what kind of idiot doesn't use as many as possible while cycling in potentially lethal traffic?
What kind of idiot chooses to cycle in potentially lethal traffic?
I was born in London and when I worked there I cycled for six years and motorcycled for twelve, in London and all over Britain. I have also driven vans and three-tonners as a job for several summers in London and the Midlands, so I feel I should have some experience of both sides of the coin.
On van driving: I was an inexperienced van driver and trailer tower in my early twenties and didn't really give a damn about much, least of all my road manners. There was no satnav so I was often lost or distracted and in a hurry to make a drop or pick up, I drove too fast and recklessly, even aggressively and treated the van with no mechanical sympathy because it didn't belong to me and nobody at the company seemed to be bothered. I certainly received zero training in towing or securing a load so I had to learn everything by trial and error. I don't know how I managed to avoid an accident except that in the 80s there was less traffic and I guess vehicles were slower. I do remember some close shaves though as well as some nightmares with the trailer.
On 3 ton truck driving: I was completely untrained and inexperienced but they gave me the keys wth the words: "Never driven one of these? You'll crash it within the week!" You can do a lot of damage with a loaded 3 ton truck with air brakes and despite also having some close shaves, luckily the worst that happened was that I nearly demolished Stafford General Infirmary.
I like to think that van and truck drivers are better trained nowadays but I suspect that the "don't care" attitude still prevails amongst many of them, as well as the distraction.
On cycling, I can't remember a single bad incident in six years of commuting in London and on motorcycling the only incidents I remember were all my own fault and caused by excess speed out on the open road.
Nowadays I seldom cycle in traffic because I have to drive to commute so all my cycling is on empty country roads. When I am in cities and I see the behaviour of some (not all) cyclists I shake my head in amazement that they are allowed to get away with such reckless stupidity. I see it all, riding with earphones, no lights, dressed in dark street clothing and of course the red-light jumpers, the pavement riders and the one-wayers. I even berated a bloke once for weaving against a red light through traffic crossing a junction, but I just got the expected abuse back. If the Police and PCSOs could be bothered to do anything about it and actually ENFORCE the law by fining some of the idiots and even confiscating bikes in lieu of a fine, word would soon get around and the bad behaviour would mostly stop. Unfortunately nowadays the tiny numbers of Police still working have given up patrolling and enforcing so there's never been a better time to break the law; as witnessed by the announcement recently that drink-driving is thought to be increasing. This applies as much to drivers as to cyclists, before anybody jumps down my throat.
The only answer is education and a few well-publicised prosecutions; otherwise the idiocy will continue on all sides.
Are some of you really trying to say wearing head/earphones does not reduce your ability to hear, or increase your level of risk?
You might say you can still hear with the volume low, but can you honestly say you can hear as well as without?
What others do in regards to listening to music or not being able to hear as well, or indeed at all, has no consequence to your own situation except potentially increasing the risk to you.
You can make a simple choice to minimise the risks under your control by using all your senses. Trotting deaf people out is a spurious argument, they don't have a choice in the matter.
Cycling with headphones just tells me you lack the intellect to think in abstract terms about the possible consequences; a sign of stratospheric stupidity.
It IS different for car drivers... in case you hadn't noticed a car weights over a ton, occupies a large chunk of road space and has windows, which prevent the driver from hearing environmental noise anyway. It also has mirrors and (usually) a driver who is trained to check before a manoeuver.
@Euro: people who work in London and wish to get there by bicycle.
For the record, when I hear a driver racing me for a pinch point (there are a few on my way home where this happens with monotonous regularity) I make sure I am well out in the lane, unless I hear from the tyres/engine note that the driver is nonetheless bent on getting there first. This rarely happens though, as there are parked cars too, so I am already door-and-a-bit-more away from them so there is no great additional movement required in order to control the pinch point.
There is a feature coming on bbc breakfast regarding the last two weeks, will be interesting to see how biased it is!
@Euro: people who work in London and wish to get there by bicycle.
It's been over 20 years since i last spent any time in London but i recall there being footpaths beside the roads. Have they all gone?
I know some people like to adhere to the law/highway code completely, but if by doing so you put yourself in danger then the law/code is a crock. I ride on the footpaths as much as possible. If it's too busy there, i'll nip onto the road until it's clear enough and pop back on again. Am i breaking laws/codes? Probably, but i don't care - [b]there are far too many inattentive drivers on the roads[/b]. It's not safe for cyclists at present, and unless something drastic is done, it never will be.
p.s. i've never even been close to hitting a pedestrian before anyone starts - and if that days comes, i doubt it would be fatal.
Some of you people really don't understand risk. Cycling in London isn't particularly dangerous, it just has a risk attached to it and in some places that risk is higher than others.
How many cyclists die in Scotland every year? Seeing as there's fewer people in Scotland than in greater London.
I'd like to see you try to ride my route from Heathrow into Victoria on the pavements. There's no way you'd be safer.
It's been over 20 years since i last spent any time in London but i recall there being footpaths beside the roads. Have they all gone?
Not wishing to be rude but if you think cycling on the pavement in London is in any way practical you're probably not well qualified to join in this one 🙂
What kind of idiot chooses to cycle in potentially lethal traffic?
Anybody on a bike on a road... 😐
Not wishing to be rude but if you think cycling on the pavement in London is in any way practical you're probably not well qualified to join in this one
+1 😀
While i accept that it isn't the most practical way to get from A - B, it's a lot safer than taking on motorised vehicles.
While i accept that it isn't the most practical way to get from A - B, it's a lot safer than taking on motorised vehicles.
Actually I've seen a study that showed a higher injury rate per mile for cyclists on the pavement than on the road.
What kind of idiot chooses to cycle in potentially lethal traffic?
You know this is a cycling forum? 🙂
Given that pedestrians are killed more often for each mile walked than cyclists are for each mile ridden, the logical conclusion that can be extrapolated from that rhetorical question is basically that nobody should go anywhere, ever, except in a tank
Suggest you all have a look at this survey, particularly Londonists. It's a chance to have your say
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/investigations/cycle-survey
I really hate the headphone argument for a number of reasons 🙁
As a partially deaf person it really winds me up because people imply that its dangerous if you cant hear by conflating wearing headphones with not listening. It is dangerous if you are not paying attention but that is different entirely.
I'll be the first to agree that having music on so loud that you can't hear and voluntarily remove one of your senses completely is a bit dim, but as evidenced every time this topic comes up, most people using headphones do not have them so loud that they cannot still hear!
There is a marked difference between someone listening to something at a sensible volume with headphones in, and still listening to their surroundings and paying attention, to someone not paying attention at all. The fine nuances of the argument around if you are more likely to be distracted when listening to music is still open for debate, but this black and white 'headphones=no hearing=dangerous' really boils my p155.
It's a funny old slope you start down when talking about banning headphones, should we also ban hats that cover the ears? buffs? etc.
People are often quick to say 'ahh, but it's different for car drivers being inside and whatnot', and point out that they can't hear as much, I assume by that logic then since you consider it so dangerous to have even a mild degradation to your hearing that you drive everywhere with the windows down then do you?
It's just more distraction form the main problems and serves neatly to point the finger back at the victims.
Is there *ANY* evidence that any of the recent deaths were caused by people not being able to hear?
Does anyone really think that it is not still blindingly obvious that there is a HGV/Bus/Coach next to you when you're wearing headphones? do you think they become invisible as well?
The problems we are facing are down to streets that are overcrowded, poorly designed infrastructure, lack of appropriate awareness of the dangers, big heavy vehicles mixing with vulnerable squishy humans, they are not being caused by the very small minority of bad drivers and bad cyclists.
Some of these problems can be helped with training, some of them with infrastructure, but ultimately it's going to take a mix of both the above AND a bit of a shift in attitude of ALL road users to a more co-operative mode of operation and basic respect for human life placed above the need to get to where you're going 10 seconds quicker.
There are bad cyclists, there are bad drivers, they are both in the minority, some of them are bad due to incompetence, some of them are bad due to lack of understanding/eduction, some of them are bad due to apathy and lack of awareness, a vanishingly small number are bad by intent, regardless of the above they are the minority, we should focus our efforts on the majority of road users just trying to get along, and make the roads safer for all, some of this involves appropriate enforcement and punishment for the bad ones, but even if we took them all off the roads there inherent dangers of the infrastructure and vehicle mix would still be there, it makes sense to focus efforts here, where we can make the most impact and benefit the most people.
We keep being distracted by the fringe cases, the nutjob cyclists, the pedestrians with a death wish, and the drivers who shouldn't be behind the wheel, they are a problem, but they are not THE problem.
I always promise myself I won't get drawn into these threads, but they are so emotive to me that I can't help it, and it's only by debate and
discussion that we will raise the profile of these problems so anyone who feels saddened by the current events I urge you to join in, join one of the campaigning groups, nationally, locally whatever, we can improve matters, we can sort this out, we can all get along on the roads if we stop pointing fingers of blame, stop fighting each other and start trying to work out how to do it properly, it won't be quick, and it won't be easy but it can happen.
Well put.
headphones have a useful feature called volume. Which can make music get louder and quieter! Who would have thought it? Some even have the volume control on the ear piece so it is super easy to change too. Especially if that pesky motorist is reving their engine too much and ruining your favourite track.
WELL SAID AMEDIAS 😉
As a partially deaf person it really winds me up because people imply that its dangerous if you cant hear by conflating wearing headphones with not listening.
With absolute respect, as someone that's partially deaf you will have adapted to having restricted hearing. Again, it baffles me that people will deliberately restrict their hearing before cycling in traffic when they have the option of not doing so.
I am aware that you can play music at a low volume and wear earphones that allow an element of outside noise in, but the fact remains - you are blocking access to your ears.
It is dangerous if you are not paying attention but that is different entirely.
I was always told while revising for exams not to listen to music because it was distracting. Is it so different while playing in traffic with 1 tonne+ lumps of metal? It's a distraction and it can affect your balance, not to mention the fact it's limiting a sense (as already discussed).
It's a funny old slope you start down when talking about banning headphones, should we also ban hats that cover the ears? buffs? etc.
What about headscarves? 😉 But seriously - like someone else on this thread, I stopped wearing a fleece beanie under my helmet because it impeded my hearing while cycling in traffic. Instead I wear a merino skullcap. Not ideal, but it keeps the sting of a northerly wind off my ears and my hearing is a lot less restricted.
Would I ban it if up to me? No. Would I discourage it? Most definitely.
It's just more distraction form the main problems and serves neatly to point the finger back at the victims.Is there *ANY* evidence that any of the recent deaths were caused by people not being able to hear?
I disagree. It just so happens that this thread has taken a turn down this route before Boris started pointing fingers!
As for evidence whether it's a factor, I don't know. But that's not really how the discussion came about - it came about because people are discussing ways to make cycling safer.
The problems we are facing are down to streets that are overcrowded, poorly designed infrastructure, lack of appropriate awareness of the dangers, big heavy vehicles mixing with vulnerable squishy humans, they are not being caused by the very small minority of bad drivers and bad cyclists.Some of these problems can be helped with training, some of them with infrastructure, but ultimately it's going to take a mix of both the above AND a bit of a shift in attitude of ALL road users to a more co-operative mode of operation and basic respect for human life placed above the need to get to where you're going 10 seconds quicker.
There are bad cyclists, there are bad drivers, they are both in the minority, some of them are bad due to incompetence, some of them are bad due to lack of understanding/eduction, some of them are bad due to apathy and lack of awareness, a vanishingly small number are bad by intent, regardless of the above they are the minority, we should focus our efforts on the majority of road users just trying to get along, and make the roads safer for all, some of this involves appropriate enforcement and punishment for the bad ones, but even if we took them all off the roads there inherent dangers of the infrastructure and vehicle mix would still be there, it makes sense to focus efforts here, where we can make the most impact and benefit the most people.
We keep being distracted by the fringe cases, the nutjob cyclists, the pedestrians with a death wish, and the drivers who shouldn't be behind the wheel, they are a problem, but they are not THE problem.
I always promise myself I won't get drawn into these threads, but they are so emotive to me that I can't help it, and it's only by debate and
discussion that we will raise the profile of these problems so anyone who feels saddened by the current events I urge you to join in, join one of the campaigning groups, nationally, locally whatever, we can improve matters, we can sort this out, we can all get along on the roads if we stop pointing fingers of blame, stop fighting each other and start trying to work out how to do it properly, it won't be quick, and it won't be easy but it can happen.
I absolutely, totally agree.
With absolute respect, as someone that's partially deaf you will have adapted to having restricted hearing. Again, it baffles me that people will deliberately restrict their hearing before cycling in traffic when they have the option of not doing so.
I have indeed adapted, my argument is with people making the assumption that headphones=unable to hear=dangerous. I firmly stick by my point that it is not so much the impact on your hearing that is the danger, it's not paying attention.
I am acutely aware of the extra care and steps I have to take to compensate (not just cycling but in daily life!) but its that awareness that keeps me checking.
People assume that headphone wearers are not listening, where as the opposite can often be true, often they are paying more attention. Obviously not in all cases, you do get the nutjobs with it cranked up to 11 bopping along without a care in he world, but that goes hand in hand with my last paragraphs, they are the minority, most people are switched on enough to realise that they do need to take extra care and not ride at a volume that puts them in danger.
It is dangerous if you are not paying attention but that is different entirely.
I was always told while revising for exams not to listen to music because it was distracting. Is it so different while playing in traffic with 1 tonne+ lumps of metal? It's a distraction and it can affect your balance, not to mention the fact it's limiting a sense (as already discussed).
i did say I'm still totally up for debate about whether or not it is distracting, but my point here is that why are people picking on cyclists? If it is as distracting as made out then we should really be banning listening to the radio for all those people in charge of those 1 tonne+ lumps of metal should we not? *
*no I dont think we should, in the same way I dont think we should be banning headphones.
in fact...
Would I ban it if up to me? No. Would I discourage it? Most definitely.
this is pretty much my stance as well 🙂
it came about because people are discussing ways to make cycling safer.
Some people are, you are, I am, many contributors to this thread are, it's even spilling out into the non cycling press and forums too which is great, but some people, especially in the mainstream media seem to be be looking more for people to blame and some magic bullet to fix it all or pile the responsibility on someone/group instead of **really** pushing for improvements and how to make the roads safer for all users, (not just cyclists!)
Such an emotive subject, and its always human nature to look for the explanation, for the blame, for somewhere to channel the anger, so much harder to look at it objectively and look at how we can all work together, hopefully this is the beginning, and with it reaching the headlines it is a start!
Some people are, you are, I am, many contributors to this thread are, it's even spilling out into the non cycling press and forums too which is great, but some people, especially in the mainstream media seem to be be looking more for people to blame and some magic bullet to fix it all or pile the responsibility on someone/group instead of **really** pushing for improvements and how to make the roads safer for all users, (not just cyclists!)
Agreed. And I think one major problem is that we have HGVs driving through over-crowded cities that were built around transport involving horses and carts. There is no quick fix, and hopefully the recent incredibly unfortunate happenings will highlight this.
Such an emotive subject, and its always human nature to look for the explanation, for the blame, for somewhere to channel the anger, so much harder to look at it objectively and look at how we can all work together, hopefully this is the beginning, and with it reaching the headlines it is a start!
It'd be nice, wouldn't it? 😉
it would, it really really would....
I think I'd probably turn my radio off driving through London.
Agreed. And I think one major problem is that we have HGVs driving through over-crowded cities that were built around transport involving horses and carts. There is no quick fix, and hopefully the recent incredibly unfortunate happenings will highlight this.
Quick fix, bomb London, start again.
That was tried in 1666.
I had another crazy ride home this evening.
lots of traffic, bad cycling, bad driving, bad walking...
saw a cyclist try and squeeze between a coach and a car when the coach moved off... policeman in a car driving a bit too assertively in the bus lane (no blues and twos)... seemingly overladen removal van doing a 3-point turn with cyclists, scooterists and cars trying to push their way past rather than waiting for it to finish, taxi parked on a double red then two taxis and a big old box van swung out onto the wrong side of the road where I was in the right-hand lane causing me to swerve out the way.
few plastic coppers out at junctions, stamping their feet, watching people, not doing a lot.
definitely something in the air.
maybe I'm just tired...
Quick fix... Start again.
We tried that. It's called America, and look what happened there.
In the CoLC report I linked on P2 of this thread there are a few salient conclusions:
82. Figure 37 shows cyclist casualties by type of vehicle involved for greater London and the City. This suggests that interventions and information that targets taxi and goods vehicles drivers would be efficient use of resources.
83. Figure 38 shows that 60% of cyclist casualties involved cyclists who were travelling straight ahead (Going Ahead Other) and not making turning or other manoeuvres.
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.
85. The key findings for cyclists are:
• There appears to be an increase in casualties since 2005, reflecting the growth in levels of cycling.
• Number of casualties reflects AM and PM peaks suggesting traffic volumes are a factor. There is a further evening peak in casualties.
• Taxis and goods vehicles are disproportionately represented in collision data.
• The largest increase in casualties has been seen on borough-managed roads.
• 84% of casualties are involved in collisions at intersections or junctions. This is in line with the Greater London average.
• Collisions more likely to occur mid-junction.
• Failure to see a cyclist appears to be a significant causal factor.
• A large proportion of cyclist casualties in the City are ‘educated, young and single’ reflecting the demographic of cyclists to the City.
• The main contributory factors identified in cyclist casualties are “turning right”, “changing lanes”, “opening vehicle doors” and “undertaking of large vehicles turning left across cyclists path”. The last factor being the most significant in KSI casualties.
All seems to back up the "educate both sides" argument.
There's a few graphs/charts that make interesting reading but I can't simply copy/paste those.
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 think you're right, I would imagine if you spilt it down further the Taxis are involved in quite a few of the 'collisions' but not necessarily the fatal ones, and the fatal ones will naturally get the more publicity.
It's not at all surprising Taxis figure highly given how many of them there are they are likely to figure highly in the stats.
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.
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...
"lanes-are-for-guidance-only-car-motorbike-kuala-lumpur-malaysia"
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
not sure why I am posting these here really, but I was warned that if you knock a scooter over them mob will kick you pretty bad
Good post Nobby, thanks. So, we need to do more to be seen ie positioning, clothing, lights in dark, rain etc (of which my opinion is that positioning is key), we need to not undertake vehicles turning left (to me, this is so common-sense and obvious but someone did it on both my last two trips) and drivers need to expect us, understand that some of us are travelling quite quickly, and also realise that roads are a shared resource and do not belong to any one group of users.
It all sounds so simple when you put it like that Karin!
now, if only we could all do those things....
I'm still amazed how many people do filter down the sides of big vehicles, and even small ones already indicating, it is common sense and obvious to us, but clearly not to everyone, a massive educational campaign (done right!) would hopefully help.
To the partially deaf comment. WTF?
Music distracts you. People tend to play it whilst riding etc to break up the monotomy/make the ride go quicker IMO. Therefore its purpose is destracting albeit directly or indirectly.
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.
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 an accident occurring this is open to interpretation
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.
To the partially deaf comment. WTF?
the argument started about not being able to hear, I was trying to point out that it was actually not paying attention and the distraction that was the potential problem, not necessarily the impact on hearing.
Music distracts you. People tend to play it whilst riding etc to break up the monotomy/make the ride go quicker IMO. Therefore its purpose is destracting albeit directly or indirectly.
so you'll be in support of banning car stereos then will you Hora?
arguably more important that you're not distracted while in control of over a tonne of metal compared to a few kilos of bike, my gripe is with cyclists being singled out not the relative merits of listenting or not listening to music while riding.
I'd expect that an automatic response to any collision [s]with a cyclist[/s] is SMIDSY
Sadly.
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.
[b]Drive safe, cycle safe[/b]
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.
[b][i]What cyclists would like motorists to know[/i]
[/b]
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.
[b]
[i]What motorists can do[/i][/b]
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.
[b][i]What motorists would like cyclists to know[/i][/b]
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.
[b][i]What cyclists can do[/i][/b]
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 - Memberthanks 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 [U]a further evening peak in casualties[U/].
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 cyclistshttp://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
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.