What does the forum think of this then?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21875593
I'm neutral, although think if it's safer and doesn't impact on a lorry driver's overall safety, then why not.
However, I still think that cyclists safety could still be dramatically improved if they didn't put themselves in harms way in the first place...i.e. don't go sneaking up the inside of an HGV and even more importantly, don't pedal to the front and stop in front of one e.g. at red lights.
If cyclists stayed BEHIND lorries/buses at lights, they'd have half a chance of not being run over, because the driver in front of them is going to move forward and any lorry/bus coming from behind will be able to see them as he/she approaches, prior to the cyclist being in a blind spot.
Road planners need to sort themselves out as well, what's the point of allowing cyclists to queue up at the head of traffic lights, then pull away slower than everyone else and be in harms way from the big stuff?
|
|
Most cyclist deaths and injuries are self inflicted. Why not redesign cyclists, - education, licencing, insurance, etc.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 14:47
|
ON and WP on matters cycling.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 14:53
|
>>Most cyclist deaths and injuries are self inflicted.
Really? which research gave you that idea?
Presumably not the one featured by The Times.
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece
"Of the 122 deaths, 106 are known to have taken place due to a collision with a motor vehicle"
So, hardly self-inflicted then even if the strict responsibility is not known.
|
>>"Of the 122 deaths, 106 are known to have taken place due to a collision with a motor vehicle"
And of those, any that involved putting themselves in a position where they could not be seen by the driver of said motor vehicle and subsequently getting splattered are self-inflicted.
|
Not self-inflicted, but quite possibly at fault.
This report from RoSPA would tend to suggest that everybody needs to grow up and behave better.
www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/info/cycling_accidents_factsheet.pdf
|
As it happens I do have a bicycle and I do not ride it down the inside of trucks and buses, unless there's a proper cycle lane to do so in[1].
I also ride motorcycles. As that behaviour is well known amongst bikers to be suicidal to the point of lunacy and pushbikes do not appear to come equipped with magical protective force fields, I just assume it applies there too.
[1] and not one of those "paint a line 2 feet from the kerb and call it a cycle lane" ones.
|
|
I assume lorries have evolved the way they are because of cost. I can't see manufacturers doing a radical re-design. If the engine's under the cab at the moment, then to go down the path of lower cabs would mean putting it somewhere else. So you either make them longer or reduce the load capacity for the same length.
|
Your rapid response beat my expectation, Bromp. :-)
As Wp was talking about the redesign of lorries I should have worded my response better.
I will try again.
Any cyclist who gets in the blind spot of any vehicle is asking for trouble and that makes the result self inflicted.
When driving my car I keep out of lorry blind spots, and am aware of whether it is LHD or RHD. it is not rocket science.
Maybe cyclists aren't bright enough to have self preservation. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 15:14
|
Look, the idea that 'cyclists' are some homogenous group of unsafe and unruly lycra clad lefties is utter bunk.
In fact it would be difficult to identify a more heterogeneous clan. It's simply an easy cheap and in London very rapid, means of transport.
Sighted today along with the students, messengers, office janes/johnnies etc was a High Court Judge and a UCL Professor. Seen BoJo a few times as well. Bernard Jenkin, Chair of the Public Administration Committee is a well known Bromptoneer as is Sir George Young - Chief Govt Whip IIRC.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 15:25
|
Why do people on this forum have to bring politics etc into everything??
Whoever they vote for, however they are dressed cyclists who put themselves into severe danger by cycling up the inside of a large vehicle whose driver cannot see them easily are unsafe, largely responsible for whatever happens to them and need to be trained out of it.
I spent several years running school cycling courses at my kids' school , even after they left and the message then, as it should be, is to avoid confrontation with vehicles, especially lorries on the simple basis that a cyclist will always lose such a confrontation, why is that so difficult for many, not all but more than a few, adult cyclists in cities especially to understand?
|
>> why is that so difficult for many, not all but more than a few,
>> adult cyclists in cities especially to understand?
>>
Coz they iz entitled to go as fast as they can and get to the front of every queue, otherwise they wouldn't be able to exercise their God-given right to charge through red lights. Innit.
And I cycle sometimes. But where I differ from most is that I adhere to the Highway Code as a minimum standard for preserving my own life and limb. Others seem to see it as something which only applies to car drivers, as they are immortal.
|
Commer,
I agree that cycling up the nearside of a lorry is dangerous and needs to be addressed by training. However, people will still do it whether through youth, ignorance or arrogance. Cycle lanes often encourage the habit. If you're young and perhaps unfamiliar with UK roads (young foreign women are over represented amongst London casualties) following the green tarmac might seem normal. The driver needs a fair chance of seeing those people.
There is also evidence that several of the London accidents, particularly those with construction traffic have involved lorries close passing cyclists and/or turning across them.
Certainly avoid deliberate confrontation with vehicles but don't confuse that with a failure to be assertive and make yourself visible. The most common cause of accidents is being unseen and 'keeping out of the way' is an excellent way to avoid being seen or seen but ignored.
|
Most of the "urban" cyclists, especially in London are over 16 and many cycle every day, there is no excuse for them to plead youth or ignorance. Similarly I do not accept that many are unfamiliar with UK roads. What are the cycling movement, magazines, websites, etc trying to do to stop cyclists putting themselves in danger in such situations. There is a difference between assertiveness , which has its place, and aggression and stupidity which do not.
Where a lorry overtakes a cyclist who is travelling at a sensible pace the cyclist has plenty of time to avoid a problem, many of the cyclists in London do not seem to realise that you cannot safely cycle at the same pace in busy traffic as you can on an empty or quiet side road.
|
>> many of the cyclists in London do
>> not seem to realise that you cannot safely cycle at the same pace in busy
>> traffic as you can on an empty or quiet side road.
>>
Boom. Headshot.
|
>> Where a lorry overtakes a cyclist who is travelling at a sensible pace the cyclist
>> has plenty of time to avoid a problem, many of the cyclists in London do
>> not seem to realise that you cannot safely cycle at the same pace in busy
>> traffic as you can on an empty or quiet side road.
The assertion that a cyclist can get out of the way of an overtaking lorry is utter nonsense even on a straight road.
Where does he go? Into other traffic? Over a kerb? through a fence? Factor in a bend so the lorry's rear wheels track closer to the kerb than the fronts or worse a lorry turning left over you and everything happrns too quickly to escape.
The trick, at least in Central London is to do exactly what you decry and integrate with the other traffic.
Stick to teaching kids to ride round cones in the playground and leave urban cycling to those of us who've done it safely for a few decades.
|
Don't get drawn in Bromp. I'm not going to. Just let them chunter on. They almost certainly will anyway no matter how well constructed any counter argument is put.
:-)
|
>> no matter how well constructed any counter argument is put.<<
But it never is. All that happens is that it's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem and someone else who has to change to solve the cyclists problem.
They have now decided to design a lorry to avoid them...who pays for this design?
The Road Haulage industry certainly can't afford to...shall we put a tax on cyclist to pay for it?
Oh no, that would be unfair to cyclist... and of course, they are not part of the problem, are they?
Pat
|
>> >> no matter how well constructed any counter argument is put.<<
>>
>> But it never is. All that happens is that it's always someone else's fault, someone
>> else's problem and someone else who has to change to solve the cyclists problem.
Not at all Pat. I entirely accept there's a problem, particulalry with construction traffic in London and that part of it is the cyclists responsibility. Don't go nearside is a training message that needs emphasisng through posters, signs on lorries and perhaps public information films. The danger is simply not as obvious as people who've been around a bit think it is.
What I do object to is people who don't ride in urban traffic and in some cases believe it too dangerous to try telling those of us who do it sucessfully day in day out for decades that we're wrong.
That and the tax/test/register assertion - 'cos we all know how good the taxed tested and registerd motor vehicle drivers are at doing no wrong.
|
>> Don't get drawn in Bromp. I'm not going to. Just let them chunter on. They
>> almost certainly will anyway no matter how well constructed any counter argument is put.
>>
>> :-)
You didn't need the smiley. Your point is bang on.
I am shocked at the attitude from otherwise apparently intelligent people.
|
Well, I will chunter on.
It's ok to lower the seating position to maximise visibility of cyclists while reducing it for seeing every other road user?
It's ok to expect a driver to remain alert and fresh while driving around in a greenhouse on a warm summers day?
It's ok to fit more glass, which reduces the rigidity of the cab design and puts the driver at far more risk?
Once again, I ask why?
Pat
|
>> I am shocked at the attitude from otherwise apparently intelligent people.
>>
Well in that case you need to ask yourself.
Why would an intelligent person, one with a bit of insight into the problems of urban roads, (having been an advanced police driver from 1986 until 2012 and a police driving assessor from 1999 to 2012, all in our capital city) and someone with a degree of common sense....
....disagree with you so much?
If two people disagree to such a degree i.e. there's no real room for compromise in the arguement... then someone has got it badly wrong.
Are you that confident that it's definitely me?
|
>> Are you that confident that it's definitely me?
Not especially directed at your comments in this thread. I have decided that making any argument at all when this subject comes up only raises my blood pressure.
My position, if I am to be given one, is what Humph says at 19.50.
Live long and prosper.
|
>>I have decided that making any
>> argument at all when this subject comes up only raises my blood pressure.
Why though? Those that post that they think cyclists could do more to look after their own safety..presumably think that. If you and others think differently, explain your case.
|
>> Why though? Those that post that they think cyclists could do more to look after
>> their own safety..presumably think that. If you and others think differently, explain your case.
We have done.
Repeatedly.
Dialogue of the deaf.
|
>> We have done.
>>
>> Repeatedly.
>>
>> Dialogue of the deaf.
>>
Well you haven't done it well enough..or...your arguement is flawed.
What i'm saying is, whether you are a cyclist, motor cyclist, pedestrian, car/van or whatever driver....don't put yourself in unnecessary danger. That's it.
You have yet to post anything on this subject that appears or even tries to be balanced.
You know and I know there some urban cyclists who are hooligans. They might well be better paid or have better jobs than the average description of 'hooligan'..but they are there and they are a nuisance.
Why do you overtly or covertly stick up for them?
Dialogue of the 'heard it, but don't agree with you'.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 22:06
|
>> Well you haven't done it well enough..or...your arguement is flawed.
>>
>> What i'm saying is, whether you are a cyclist, motor cyclist, pedestrian, car/van or whatever
>> driver....don't put yourself in unnecessary danger. That's it.
>>
>> You have yet to post anything on this subject that appears or even tries to
>> be balanced.
>>
>> You know and I know there some urban cyclists who are hooligans. They might well
>> be better paid or have better jobs than the average description of 'hooligan'..but they are
>> there and they are a nuisance.
>>
>> Why do you overtly or covertly stick up for them?
>>
>> Dialogue of the 'heard it, but don't agree with you'.
The don't put yourself in unnecessary danger thing is about perception. Yours as 'Captain Sensible' differs from mine. I'm happy to put myself where the vehicle driver can see me, experience says that's less dangerous than keeping out of way risking being sight/mind too.
You may know there are some urban cyclists who you see as hooligans. I might have a different rationalisation for their behaviour. And don't patronise me with the 'you know and I know line'
I don't stick up for the truly egregious but a lot of the stuff you define as 'selfish' I'd view as necessary for self preservation.
If you prefer heard but don't agree then that's a valid compromise.
As humph says it's the catch all 'cyclists' that gets me. No more true than ACAB.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 22:23
|
>> The don't put yourself in unnecessary danger thing is about perception. Yours as 'Captain Sensible'
>> differs from mine. I'm happy to put myself where the vehicle driver can see me,
>> experience says that's less dangerous than keeping out of way risking being sight/mind too.
I understand that...don't always agree with it....but do agree with some of the principles. But that's not what we are talking about here.
This discussion is about lorries having more glass to be able to see more....and the rights/wrongs of cyclists being too close to HGVs or buses etc.
Your thoughts on lane ownership, with which I can see some merit (within reason..and I believe some over egg the pudding) is completely different to a cyclist coming up on a large stopped vehicle, from the rear...and then going down a tight space to the side and/or then parking themselves below the front nearside...and then wondering why when they both move off the heavy vehicle turns left/keeps going and runs them over.
That is the problem with many urban accidents...the heavy vehicle does not see the vulnerable road user...BECAUSE THE VULNERABLE USER HAS PUT THEMSELVES IN A VULNERABLE POSITION.
If we are going back to your lane ownership angle versus hugging the kerb.. presumably all but the most myopic of drivers will see the cyclist from some distance away, as they approach?...and the only real problem there is if a larger vehicle tries to squeeze past, which you take action with by riding more assertively in the middle of the lane.
I am advocating that the cyclist wait behind the heavy, in the circs I've described above. Just so my words are not twisted by anyone...I am not advocating a doffing of the cap and a complete withdrawal from the road for a more important road user..just a 'don't go up there it's dangerous'..in the similar fashion I wouldn't overtake an articulated lorry on a roundabout in or on whatever I was riding/driving.
Do I think the culture will change...and my thoughts win the day....well you answer that.
>> You may know there are some urban cyclists who you see as hooligans. I might
>> have a different rationalisation for their behaviour.
Are you able to rationalise the 'speed and momentum at all costs' that some cyclists deploy?
And don't patronise me with the 'you know
>> and I know line'
I happen to believe it...so posted it. It wasn't meant to be patronising, I consider it to be fact, just that you are not willing to confirm it.
In the same way I can say as a motorcyclist some/quite a few motorcyclists are total idiots, but the majority are not...why can't you do the same for some cyclists?
>> As humph says it's the catch all 'cyclists' that gets me. No more true than
>> ACAB.
Agreed...but I don't know why it was posted. A 'cyclist' could be me on my mountain bike 20 times a year in my country lane...a 5 year old...Miss Marple......and everyone in between. The ones we are both talking about are a certain section of the cycling fraternity.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Thu 4 Apr 13 at 08:57
|
>> This discussion is about lorries having more glass to be able to see more....and the
>> rights/wrongs of cyclists being too close to HGVs or buses etc.
The design proposal is specific to construction vehicles - the skip/tip jobbies that service London's myriad of building sites. Better driver visibility would reduce accidents on site too.
>> Your thoughts on lane ownership, with which I can see some merit (within reason..and I
>> believe some over egg the pudding) is completely different to a cyclist coming up on
>> a large stopped vehicle, from the rear...and then going down a tight space to the
>> side and/or then parking themselves below the front nearside...and then wondering why
I agree with you that it's lethally dangerous to go down the nearside of a lorry (though it can be OK if it's got no scope to move and you've got an escape line to the pavement). However, and for whatever reason, these sort of accidents still happen. By no means all are down to the cyclist creeping. Olaf Storbeck's spreadsheet catalogues fatals in London tinyurl.com/bo28n4v . Several rivers have been convicted. The man who killed Eilidh Cairns is now doing time for another fatality where he ran down an elderly lady in Marylebone.
>> all but the most myopic of drivers will see the cyclist from some distance away,
>> as they approach?...and the only real problem there is if a larger vehicle tries to
>> squeeze past, which you take action with by riding more assertively in the middle of
>> the lane.
It's not just lorries that squeeze. Drivers see the cyclist but too many suffer from 'funnel vision' ie they're focussed on 70 degree splay directly in front. As soon as you're out of the funnel you're forgotten. That's why cars close pass even when there's space not too.
>> Are you able to rationalise the 'speed and momentum at all costs' that some cyclists
>> deploy?
I recognise it, messengers mostly but I rarely see it deployed egregiously. OTOH keeping up with and integrated in traffic is good practice.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 17:25
|
>>
>> The design proposal is specific to construction vehicles - the skip/tip jobbies that service London's
>> myriad of building sites. Better driver visibility would reduce accidents on site too.
>>
It might. The usual chassis of choice for this is the Volvo FM, one of which I drive myself. The blind spots caused by the door mirrors are a well-known failing, and have nearly caught me out more than once.
|
>> I agree with you that it's lethally dangerous to go down the nearside of a
>> lorry (though it can be OK if it's got no scope to move and you've
>> got an escape line to the pavement). However, and for whatever reason, these sort of
>> accidents still happen. By no means all are down to the cyclist creeping.
A lot of them happen at junctions. Cyclists need to be aware of this and look after themselves...in the same way that a motorcyclist has to forward plan for SMIDSY's. The bottom line for me is a cyclist (or pedestrian) does not under any circumstances want to be stationary at the front nearside of a lorry/bus, when it is likely to pull away. Stay out of that zone and you'll improve your chances of survival. It matters not what the road planners have done or what a cycling forum suggests or what the bloke down the pub said...it's looking after yourself in a vulnerable situation.
>> It's not just lorries that squeeze. Drivers see the cyclist but too many suffer from
>> 'funnel vision' ie they're focussed on 70 degree splay directly in front. As soon as
>> you're out of the funnel you're forgotten. That's why cars close pass even when there's
>> space not too.
You are right and that IS a responsibility of the car driver...however, how many cyclists allow for that properly...(again, in the same way as a motorcyclist allowing for a SMIDSY)...I've forgotten the amount of times when I've driven down an urban road, seen a cyclist in lane 1 or the nearside of a single lane road...seen them approaching parked vehicles...thought to myself they'll be pulling out soon...and witnessed no lifesaver whatsoever, they just pull out....they rely on my driving skill and forward thinking. In my case, no problem... trouble is there's plenty of dimbo driver's out there, (we all see them)..where there is a problem, a big problem. Who is the one likely to die out of those two?
You need to create your own luck, whether or not you are in the right, or have the right of way.
>> >> Are you able to rationalise the 'speed and momentum at all costs' that some
>> cyclists
>> >> deploy?
>>
>> I recognise it, messengers mostly but I rarely see it deployed egregiously. OTOH keeping up
>> with and integrated in traffic is good practice.
I'm not talking about messengers or those that match traffic speeds in a sensible fashion. I am talking about everyday folk, who regularly cycle...and for some reason think that momentum is more important than sense.
A couple of saturday's ago, I drove into a village on an old 'A' road, went into the 30's on a good straight bit approaching a hill, with a T junction to my nearside. The 'T' junction has a Stop sign and I had the right of way.
A plethora of cyclists (it is quite usual here on saturdays) i'd guess at a club outing or organised training session or similar. As I approached from a distance NOT ONE was stopping at the Stop sign. To start with didn't affect me at all, but as I got nearer, I had to factor in them as well as me (fortunately nothing coming the other way). As I got to the convergence point, with loads of cyclists still streaming out, a couple stopped for me...but loads didn't. One bloke didn't even look....so I carried on, mostly on the opposite carriageway...300-400 yards up the hill, I wished to merge left into a side road, trouble is you can't dive in there too fast as it's a bottleneck...plus there wasn't much gap in the cyclists...so what do I do? Wait in the middle of the road with my left indicator on, blocking the main highway in a semi-vulnerable position..or try to merge with the cyclists gradually, with a left indicator on hoping one or more is sensible enough to let me in...which is what I did. Several pedalled off a bit and let me in...however one dick was on a charge and he wasn't stopping for anyone...I saw him in the mirror and made sure it wasn't a problem and went in anyway...but saw him mouthing off all aggressively..why?
It annoyed me. It will annoy me next time and the next. There's no need for it, the roads can be shared by all...but it takes all to achieve that.
Oh and the other thing that irritates is those that stick up for their own regardless. If someone within your group, race, religion, ethnicity or whatever is being a clown...say so, then there'd be considerable more harmony.
Lastly when I say 'cyclists' I mean those whose actions bring their fellow cyclists into disrepute...not each and every being that ever gets on a bicycle.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 16:46
|
>> Lastly when I say 'cyclists' I mean those whose actions bring their fellow cyclists into
>> disrepute...not each and every being that ever gets on a bicycle.
>>
Thought i'd add that the same applies to horse riders...just so that some of you licra louts don't get the humph.
I get horse riders past my house every day. The local hunt exercise horses several times a day and always have extra ones on long leads.
I like that, it's rural people enjoying rural pursuits.
Most by far, will wave courteously as you pass carefully and will go into single file as soon as is reasonable...some however (and they are a noticeable minority)...do not. They stare right at you in that semi-aggressive waiting for the confrontation style, do not move from their two abreast..and leave you to sort yourself out at their convenience...it is ignorant, rude and unnecessary and grates...and does nothing whatsoever to encourage harmony and sharing on our roads.
When I say 'horse riders'..I mean....etc...you get my drift.
|
>> A couple of saturday's ago, I drove into a village on an old 'A' road,
>> went into the 30's on a good straight bit approaching a hill, with a T
>> junction to my nearside. The 'T' junction has a Stop sign and I had the
>> right of way.
>>
>> A plethora of cyclists (it is quite usual here on saturdays) i'd guess at a
>> club outing or organised training session or similar
88
>> 300-400 yards up the hill, I
>> wished to merge left into a side road,
So you're coming into a village, 30 limit, you have priority. Two roads on your nearside. the first has a stream of cyclists emerging. They're clearly on an organised ride and would like to keep together. At the second junction 300-400yds on you need to turn left. Why, in the name of Merlin's saggy left buttock, do you not let the cyclists out and then trickle behind them for 300yds?
But of course it was the bike riders being selfish.....
|
>> But of course it was the bike riders being selfish.....
>>
>>
No, it is cyclists sticking two fingers up at the Highway code, rules of the road, and other road users.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 18:20
|
>> So you're coming into a village, 30 limit, you have priority. Two roads on your
>> nearside. the first has a stream of cyclists emerging. They're clearly on an organised ride
>> and would like to keep together. At the second junction 300-400yds on you need to
>> turn left. Why, in the name of Merlin's saggy left buttock, do you not let the cyclists out and then trickle behind them for 300yds?
>>
>>
>> But of course it was the bike riders being selfish.....
>>
>>
No, it's the cyclists ignoring the highway code.
Replace the plethora of cyclists with 3 or 4 car's traveling together.
Would it be ok for them to pull out disregarding the roadsign and other road users, just so they could stay in convoy?
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 18:32
|
>> So you're coming into a village, 30 limit, you have priority. Two roads on your
>> nearside. the first has a stream of cyclists emerging. They're clearly on an organised ride
>> and would like to keep together. At the second junction 300-400yds on you need to
>> turn left. Why, in the name of Merlin's saggy left buttock, do you not let
>> the cyclists out and then trickle behind them for 300yds?
>>
Good God, are you for real?
There I am, employed to do deliveries in a timely fashion. I also now run my own business, so would like to get home as soon as poss as i'm finding it difficult to juggle my time. Furthermore, being a Saturday i'd like to see my kids and lastly my wife relies on me being home to do stuff for herself.
So there I am as described...when as far as I can see 100% of that particular portion of my fellow road users are utterly ignoring a Stop sign, then when I get there as a right of way, continue to ignore the Stop sign and pull out right in front of me in a careless fashion...
...and you think I'm selfish for not stopping???...despite the fact I do not know how long their procession is, do not think they should ignore the Stop sign and would quite like to utilise my right of way???? Then you'd have me crawl up the hill in 1st gear, just biding my time of course...
...because they'd like to stick together??????
Thank you, for nailing your true colours to the mast. In my view sharing the roads is actually SHARING.
|
>> Good God, are you for real?
>> ...and you think I'm selfish for not stopping???...despite the fact I do not know how
>> long their procession is, do not think they should ignore the Stop sign and would
>> quite like to utilise my right of way???? Then you'd have me crawl up the
>> hill in 1st gear, just biding my time of course...
>>
>> ...because they'd like to stick together??????
>>
>> Thank you, for nailing your true colours to the mast. In my view sharing the
>> roads is actually SHARING.
My initial impression was of you going out for the papers or whatever. But does being on a commercial delivery change the facts?
While there might be 30 cyclists in a group like that it's clearly not the 30,000 on the London to Brighton. Would just biding your time in first over 300 yds mean somebody's flowers were too late?
Agree to differ. We have different understandings of SHARING.
I'm quite happy that my colours are on the mast.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 20:43
|
>> While there might be 30 cyclists in a group like that it's clearly not the 30,000 on the London to Brighton. Would just biding your time in first over 300yds mean somebody's flowers were too late?
>>
>> Agree to differ. We have different understandings of SHARING.
>>
>> I'm quite happy that my colours are on the mast.
>>
I ask again.... Replace the plethora of cyclists with 3 or 4 car's traveling together.
Would it be ok for them to pull out disregarding the roadsign and other road users, just so they could stay in convoy?
|
>> I ask again.... Replace the plethora of cyclists with 3 or 4 car's traveling together.
>> Would it be ok for them to pull out disregarding the roadsign and other road
>> users, just so they could stay in convoy?
Three or for cars just one following the other then no. Three or four or more cars of notable type/age on a club run (or a funeral cortège ) then yes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 21:02
|
''Three or four or more cars of notable type/age on a club run ''
Brompton you can't seriously expect the world to come to a stop because a few anoraked geezers wish to drive their jalopies in convoy like the unelected prime minister and his flunkies.
Likely result is a blinking great lorry the driver of which hadn't realised the rules of the road had been altered without an act of parliament cleans them all up.
Me, i only want to live for a reasonable three score and ten and get some of me hard earned back before the EU/IMF/whoever decides to declare another year zero.
So when i'm on shanks's or two wheels or in something flimsy i'll make sure not to put meself in serious harms way under the wheels of something up to 4000 times heavier if i can help it.
Too much Darwinism in action on the roads as it is.
|
>> ''Three or four or more cars of notable type/age on a club run ''
>>
>> Brompton you can't seriously expect the world to come to a stop because a few
>> anoraked geezers wish to drive their jalopies in convoy
Of course not, and I'm not suggesting a reversal of priority.
But OTOH in a country lane/village street scenario it might be a courtesy to let them out.
|
|
Why don't these "Club" lycra louts do what they do in Italy. Get permission for a circular road route, have cars with two tone horns and flags well ahead of, immediately in front of, and behind the pack of cyclists, club stewards at road junctions so that everyone knows what is going on and keeps well clear. The club has rapid progress, everyone gets out of the way, and there is a couple of minutes disruption to the (usually) Saturday traffic in any location. Or is that too difficult for UK clubs to organise?
|
>> Three or for cars just one following the other then no. Three or four or more cars of notable type/age on a club run (or a funeral cortège ) then yes.
>>
And there (IMHO) is the crux of the problem.
Those who give way to a funeral cortège do so out of respect, to the deceased and their family.
Most people who would give way to the 'notable type/age cars' would do so out of interest (wishing to get a good look - perhaps even having a small kind of respect for the vehicles/drivers)?
So, cyclists are demanding respect, and or expecting the general public to want to sit back and watch them?
Respect is earned, not given lightly - and not often given to law breakers....
|
>> Those who give way to a funeral cortège do so out of respect, to the
>> deceased and their family.
>> Most people who would give way to the 'notable type/age cars' would do so out
>> of interest (wishing to get a good look - perhaps even having a small kind
>> of respect for the vehicles/drivers)?
>>
>> So, cyclists are demanding respect, and or expecting the general public to want to sit
>> back and watch them?
>>
>> Respect is earned, not given lightly - and not often given to law breakers....
>>
Furthermore, the funeral cortege might well expect a degree of compliance and most, if not all, people would agree, the classic cars might hope for a degree of compliance and many might/might not agree, but the cyclists think they are automatically entitled to the compliance, but many don't think the same way.
It seems to me to be exceptionally arrogant to indulge in your past time and automatically expect others to have the same thought processes as yourself.
|
>> My initial impression was of you going out for the papers or whatever. But does
>> being on a commercial delivery change the facts?
>>
>> While there might be 30 cyclists in a group like that it's clearly not the
>> 30,000 on the London to Brighton. Would just biding your time in first over 300
>> yds mean somebody's flowers were too late?
>>
>> Agree to differ. We have different understandings of SHARING.
>>
>> I'm quite happy that my colours are on the mast.
>>
You are wholly missing the point. It's not the arrival of someone's flowers, which let's face it doesn't really matter a toss.
It's whether or not I get my choice to travel down a main road with a right of way and drive at a pace that I wish to....when other road users should obey the laws and the Highway Code and concede that right of way ....rather than continue as they are because they wish to....and further to that, why wouldn't those other road users try to facilitate the progress of others if they can, rather than selfishly only concentrate on their own purpose.
It's as if the cyclists in that scenario think 'we are more important than anyone else'...well guess what, they aren't. Or maybe their common goal that day (cycling) is so important that everyone else will understand...well we don't. Unsurprisingly I have my own separate priorities...as does everyone else...so the law and Highway Code to ensures there isn't a free for all.
If I was at that Stop sign and someone else was on the main road..I'd wait. It's what i'm supposed to do and what I expect others to do. Simple as that.
You seem to have a very blinkered view...as if everyone else will see it from your perspective. Life isn't like that.
|
|
How many cyclists did this stream/plethora actually comprise?
|
>> How many cyclists did this stream/plethora actually comprise?
>>
No idea, I never saw the end of the queue.
I'd hazard a rough guess that 50 or 60 came out before I got there, maybe 10-15 were coming out or trying to come out whilst I was there and I was vaguely aware of others behind them and did not notice an end to them.
Let's say a minimum of 80.
Doesn't matter of course, because if it had only been 10....I'd have expected them to comply with the law, comply with the Highway Code and comply with common courtesy...and if i'm beetling down the main road, give way to me.
I was not minded to stop and let them all out...and that is my choice. I did not fancy crawling slowly up the hill behind them all...and that is my choice. I had other priorities on my mind...and that is my choice.
|
>> No idea, I never saw the end of the queue.
>>
>> I'd hazard a rough guess that 50 or 60 came out before I got there,
Now if 50+ are already ahead of you then you're going to need to 'crawl' up the hill behind them whatever*.
While not defending ignoring a Stop sign I'm left wondering why you have to assert your right of way in this circumstance. After all, you're on a village high St not the A30. . Unless of course because it's yours and you can (irrespective of inconvenience to others). Which sounds like just the alleged behaviour by cyclists that you're so quick to condemn. 0.
* Unless of course you start to overtake and then expect them to part like the Red Sea a few seconds later when you get to your left turn. I've had that one pulled on me on an Origami Phoenix ride and it ain't easy to manage the riders behind/around you so as to facilitate.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 24 Mar 13 at 15:01
|
>> While not defending ignoring a Stop sign I'm left wondering why you have to assert
>> your right of way in this circumstance. After all, you're on a village high St
>> not the A30. . Unless of course because it's yours and you can (irrespective of
>> inconvenience to others). Which sounds like just the alleged behaviour by cyclists that you're so
>> quick to condemn. 0.
It is/was inconvenient to me to have to wait for a huge snaking line of cyclists. I simply didn't wish to.....and i'm entitled to have that viewpoint.
>>
>> * Unless of course you start to overtake and then expect them to part like
>> the Red Sea a few seconds later when you get to your left turn. I've
>> had that one pulled on me on an Origami Phoenix ride and it ain't easy
>> to manage the riders behind/around you so as to facilitate.
So you automatically expect me to wait for the whole damned lot? Sit on the mainish road and wait?
Would you expect the same if I was travelling down a dual carriageway? I wouldn't fancy doing that. I wouldn't fancy sitting where I was if it was poor weather (it wasn't, it was bright).
Why couldn't a pack of cyclists create the odd gap and try to help other road users as an when they'd need to?
|
>>It is/was inconvenient to me to have to wait for a huge snaking line of cyclists. I simply didn't wish to.....and i'm entitled to have that viewpoint.
If I may, the conflict here is that Westpig is completely accurate in his view. He is entitled to that view point, he did have right of way, and it is his right to go first.
Whereas on the other side it could be seen as more pleasant/ considerate/ desirable/ whatever that he had forgone his rights, and allowed the cyclists to go first.
And I might like to think I would have let them go first.
However, I have encountered so much arrogance from a large group of cyclists when they are going along together, that whilst I might start out trying to be tolerant, the first sign of arrogance from one of them and I'll be right in their faces enforcing my rights.
I am more than happy to make way for one or two cyclists just trying to make reasonable progression, and feel no need to stand on my rights.
As a rule if it is a large group I am likely to be the complete opposite because in my experience they are largely made up of gits who believe that cooperation and compromise are things they receive, not give.
And the particular large group of cyclists [arrogant, selfish, gits] that I have encountered more than once are around the Bicester / Wendlebury / Chesterton area.
|
>> and then expect them to part like
>> the Red Sea
I find it interesting why you'd use this phraseology. The fact is, you are expecting other road users to do just that whenever a group of cyclists are out and about in the circs I've described.
We are to expect them to fail to stop at Stop signs, we are to expect them to do their own thing regardless of anyone else on the road, we shouldn't expect them to be polite and to try to help..because 'they'd like to ride together'.
Do most people who cycle in those circs think the same way? If so it explains nicely why there's conflict on our roads, because I know plenty of folk who do not think like that and wouldn't expect to have to wait for 100+ cyclists to come out of a side turning and pedal up a hill. It simply wouldn't occur to them to do so...and neither would I.
|
>> I find it interesting why you'd use this phraseology. The fact is, you are expecting
>> other road users to do just that whenever a group of cyclists are out and
>> about in the circs I've described.
>>
>> We are to expect them to fail to stop at Stop signs,
No I don't expect them to fail to stop. I simply mildly question why, in a quiet rural scenario as you describe and with a lot of them already in front you cannot let them out.
I'd also a large ride to split into bite sized if they're on a mainish road for more than a short distance between junctions with quiet lanes. Eighty plus, whether fast boys in lycra or a charity run, is a very big ride and really should be marshalled and signed.
There's a guy called Simon Legg who organises a monthly 'Friday Night Ride to the Coast' of that sot of size, usually starting from Marble Arch at midnight. Next time I see him I'll ask how he manages out this sort of conflict.
OTOH, to start to overtake knowing you'll have to force your way back in 300yds on is verging on dangerous driving. You wouldn't, on a dual carriageway, attempt a short overtake of a truck convoy and then force your way through them to a nearside turn would you?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 24 Mar 13 at 16:55
|
>> >> I find it interesting why you'd use this phraseology. The fact is, you are
>> expecting
>> >> other road users to do just that whenever a group of cyclists are out
>> and
>> >> about in the circs I've described.
>> >>
>> >> We are to expect them to fail to stop at Stop signs,
>>
>>
>> No I don't expect them to fail to stop. I simply mildly question why, in
>> a quiet rural scenario as you describe and with a lot of them already in
>> front you cannot let them out.
I DIDN'T WANT TO.....my choice. I wanted to keep going, shave a bit of time off my working day, get the job done quicker, enjoy my leisure time.
>> OTOH, to start to overtake knowing you'll have to force your way back in 300yds
>> on is verging on dangerous driving.
Rubbish. You merge. Does your theory extend to say half a mile..or further? Sometimes you don't know how long the pack is, especially on rural roads, you don't know what is around the next corner..one on their own or fifty in a long line.
You wouldn't, on a dual carriageway, attempt a short
>> overtake of a truck convoy and then force your way through them to a nearside
>> turn would you?
No. No need to. They are all doing 50mph plus. If I came to a brow in the hill on a dual carriageway with cyclists as far as I could see over the brow..and knew I was turning off in half a mile. Do you expect me to wait at the back of the pack in case my exit has cyclists at it, blocking it...or do I carry on until my junction, then try to merge as safely as I can make it...expecting the much slower riders to try to help me if they can?
|
>> >> Why though? Those that post that they think cyclists could do more to look after
>> >> their own safety..presumably think that. If you and others think differently, explain your case.
>>
>> We have done.
>> Repeatedly.
>>
>> Dialogue of the deaf.
>>
Pot
Kettle
Black.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 22:27
|
>> Pot
>> Kettle
>> Black.
My comment was intended as a mock neutral's comment about folks committed to opposing perspectives.
No criticism of Westy intended.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 22:33
|
>>Those that post that they think cyclists could do more to look after their own safety...
I do hope that was a slight typo WP. I do hope you meant to say "some" cyclists...?
There are those of us who have managed for many years and continue to manage to use our bicycles in public without causing ourselves or others any danger or undue consternation. Not to deny as previously stated, that there are also those who could significantly improve their road manners and attitude to safety.
Some of the latter are indeed cyclists, though not unilaterally or exclusively.
:-)
|
>without causing ourselves or others any danger or undue consternation.
Bruises all healed now Humph?
;-0
I must say that re-designing trucks appears to be an expensive solution to a relatively trivial problem though.
If the objective is to make cyclists more visible why don't we insist that all bicycles used in urban areas are fitted with a flashing Xenon beacon mounted no less than 2 metres above ground level?
Who could object to that?
And, any cyclist who goes ToverA could be prosecuted for due care, too fast for conditions?
|
I do hope you are teasing for comedy effect Kevin? Something of a comparing apples with oranges situation I'd suggest. I was several miles from a public road when I came off my bike on an extreme section of a dedicated mountain bike trail well aware of and accepting of the risks.
I was not riding a bike down Euston Road in the rush hour which is something else I do regularly and when I do I take care to do so in a way which protects me and indeed all other concurrent users of the road.I do not think of myself as a "cyclist" when I'm on my bike. I'm just a bloke who at that moment is on a bike. It's not complicated.
|
>I do hope you are teasing for comedy effect Kevin?
A bit of gentle ribbing Humph.
And an attempt to point out how utterly ridiculous this re-design proposal is.
|
>> Don't get drawn in Bromp. I'm not going to. Just let them chunter on. They
>> almost certainly will anyway no matter how well constructed any counter argument is put.
>>
>> :-)
I relish the challenge Humph!
|
>> The assertion that a cyclist can get out of the way of an overtaking lorry
>> is utter nonsense even on a straight road.
Bromp I am not trying to be argumentative, cycles have brakes if a lorry is overtaking you at a sensible separation, okay not always the case, use the brakes to check your speed a little and let him overtake, you remain in one piece and he can get on with wherever he is going
>> Stick to teaching kids to ride round cones in the playground and leave urban cycling
>> to those of us who've done it safely for a few decades.
>>
If you have to revert to insults because I dont 100% agree with you......
School cycling courses have been road based for years you need to check your facts a bit.
I, too, have been cycling safely, including boris bikes in London in recent years, for about 50 years and I am entitled to my opinion. I do not cycle in traffic every day but I haven't fallen off one because the surface was a bit slippy since I was about 12 :-)
Lighten up a bit.
|
>> Bromp I am not trying to be argumentative, cycles have brakes if a lorry is
>> overtaking you at a sensible separation, okay not always the case, use the brakes to
>> check your speed a little and let him overtake, you remain in one piece and
>> he can get on with wherever he is going
But that's not what's happening when people die. You're moving along and a lorry starts to overtake. As soon as his cab's passed he's either moving into your lane or turning left over you. The London fatal accidents disproportionately involve women, more likely to be pootling kerbside. It's actually a situation assertive male riders are more likely to avoid.
>> If you have to revert to insults because I dont 100% agree with you......
>> School cycling courses have been road based for years you need to check your facts
>> a bit.
I didn't set out to insult but I was irritated. I also know the cycling instructor who taught my kids. Lovely lady but.....
>>
>> I, too, have been cycling safely, including boris bikes in London in recent years,
>> for about 50 years and I am entitled to my opinion. I do not cycle
>> in traffic every day but I haven't fallen off one because the surface was a
>> bit slippy since I was about 12 :-)
I'm not sure the BoBi is representative of normal commuter mounts - you can't ride it fast, stately as a Galleon is more the style
There are those who've fallen off on a slippy surface and those still to do so:-P
Having been dumped that way a couple of times I suspect the Brompton is just a bit prone to instability on low friction surfaces and rotating over that the low hub means you fall hard.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Thu 4 Apr 13 at 08:57
|
>> I didn't set out to insult but I was irritated. I also know the cycling
>> instructor who taught my kids. Lovely lady but.....
...but what? Doesn't see things through your eyes?
|
>> >> I didn't set out to insult but I was irritated. I also know the
>> cycling
>> >> instructor who taught my kids. Lovely lady but.....
>>
>> ...but what? Doesn't see things through your eyes?
Too much scary emphasis on the protective properties of dayglo and helmets. Too little on getting her pupils ready for next stage of training.
|
>> Too much scary emphasis on the protective properties of dayglo and helmets. Too little on
>> getting her pupils ready for next stage of training.
>>
Understandable to insist for 10 year olds on safety gear when the courses are backed by councils & schools. If that was the main thing she did that wasn't how Bucks CC or Windsor & Berks laid it out for us to do it
We covered stopping starting safely, signalling properly, and if we did focus on one thing above all the others it was on the "lifesaver" look over the shoulder regularly and certainly before every manoeuvre.
Wouldn't claim it would train anyone for central London but if the safety "rules" we taught were followed as a basis, buit on with experience, any of the kids I taught would be safe in central London or anywhere else.
|
|
To be fair to her CD our lady firmly instilled the lifesaver message. My two are now 18 & 20 but that message is still with them. It helped when they started driving too.
|
>> I agree that cycling up the nearside of a lorry is dangerous ..............
In our neck of the woods, cyclists are usually on the pavement so there's a lot of room between them and the lorry.
|
Wouldn't blind spot cameras be a much cheaper way of doing it, maybe with built in collision warning systems too.
|
>> Wouldn't blind spot cameras be a much cheaper way of doing it, maybe with built
>> in collision warning systems too.
>>
If cyclists can't or won't take responsibility for their own safety it should not be transferred to other road users.
|
>> If cyclists can't or won't take responsibility for their own safety it should not be transferred to other road users.
Yes. The same applies to pedestrians.
I know two apparently rational people, both men, one a car owner although he hates cars, who clearly hold the view that any accident between a car and a pedestrian or cyclist is entirely the car driver's fault. They get emotional about it too.
What could explain this perverse attitude? I can't understand it.
|
>> What could explain this perverse attitude? I can't understand it.
>>
Steam gives way to sail.
|
>> Steam gives way to sail.
>>
If you believe that it could get you very dead at sea.
|
Good job I don't go on the sea then. Nasty place, not designed for human habitation.
I was just trying to offer an explanation to AC's conundrum, I have no idea if it's a true principle of the seas, but it's a plausible explanation for AC's friends' approach.
|
>> it's a plausible explanation for AC's friends' approach.
It would be if they were completely half-witted, but they aren't. They are both fully capable of understanding that a careless/invisible pedestrian or cyclist can walk into the path of a vehicle going too fast to stop in time, even when driving below the speed limit.
Somehow though they set this knowledge to one side. They feel that the moral point trumps everything. Seems pretty mad to me. If you're dead or maimed the view that steam ought to have given way to you won't help much.
|
>>If you believe that it could get you very dead at sea.
Well it is supposed to, but I have to say it didn't work out that way between the Isle of Wight ferry and my windsurf board.
|
|
If the IoW ferry has a choice of putting itself on the mud, or rocks, or nudging a windsurfer.................:-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 16:18
|
|
Agreed, but there is a bit of a difference between a "nudge" and a "splat".
|
>> Agreed, but there is a bit of a difference between a "nudge" and a "splat".
>>
A vessel in a channel or under constraints has priority, no matter how many sails you have, it is a bit like the cyclist, use some common sense and don't get in the way of something big and will hurt you, and can't avoid you for whatever reason.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 17:07
|
There's fault on both sides, some cyclists (and some pedestrians and some car drivers) lack the common sense for self preservation, take no notice of traffic movement if there's a gap they just get in it, oh look there's an artic with no side guards and three huge trailer axles so i'll just plonk meself alongside the nearside as he moves off shall i...wonder what that amber blinking light just beside me means?, splat.
Then some lorry drivers lack the care and attention needed for good urban driving.
We've had this all before, most modern lorries are adequately provided with mirrors from new, its maintaining those mirrors setting them correctly keeping them and the windows clean and last but not least using them adequately which is missing in a sizeable minority.
That new design looks wonderful doesn't it, when its 2 years old and all those windows are covered in gunge both sides, the mirrors have been battered umpteen times and are now seized in place but angled all wrong then the new vehicle will in reality be no better in the uncaring drivers hands than the old one.
I expect the problem to get worse in the future not better, the lorry job is being dumbed down for many reasons hence unnatural drivers are in increasing numbers now driving lorries, it used to be hard skilled physical graft and at one time only lorry drivers could drive lorries if you follow my drift.
A cheaper alternative would be a wide angle camera fitted to the NSF top corner, angled to show the front of the vehicle and side from the front corner to the absolute rear of the vehicle, night vision equipped for the unlit at night suicidal twerp on two legs or two wheels....still need a responsible person at the wheel of the lorry though.
As said above, there are certain places and certain types of vehicles and other dangerous objects the sensible person keeps out of the way of.
Pick an argument with an artic or tipper there's only one winner however aggressive or assertive the smaller object wants to be.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 17:22
|
OK I can't hold my tongue ( or more accurately keyboard ) any longer. The voice of reason from GB at least !
Just to be clear, I don't deny that "some" cyclists behave badly on the road. Whether that is arrogance or stupidity or a combination of both is debatable. However, not all cyclists do ride badly any more than do all truck drivers drive badly or all pedestrians "pedest" badly or all motorcyclists motorcycle badly or all car drivers drive badly.
I really couldn't care less whether there are those who believe trucks have to be altered to make them safer. I'm happy with them as they are now or indeed otherwise. I can ride, drive and walk using and sharing the same roads as everyone else without feeling endangered or deliberately endangering others. Many of us can and do.
What I do object to is blatant and prejudiced blanket categorisation of all cyclists as the enemy. Some can be twonks I quite agree but twonkhood is not the exclusive preserve of cyclists. They can be found in all manner of guises including "some" truck drivers "some" pedestrians, "some" motorcyclists and indeed "some" car drivers.
"Some" cyclists are also pedestrians, motorcyclists, car drivers and maybe there are even "some" truck drivers who occasionally ride a bike when they are not eating fry ups or hogging lane 2 ! ( did you spot the unneccessary and insensitive stereotyping there ? )
Roads are a shared space. "Some" need to get their heads round that whether they are wearing lycra, leathers, overalls a police officers uniform, jeans or a business suit.
Sometimes it feels like trying to explain to my late mother that I had some german friends who were actually quite good guys !
:-)
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 19:52
|
>> Sometimes it feels like trying to explain to my late mother that I had some
>> german friends who were actually quite good guys !
Died in the war did she?
|
Nearly actually. Drove an ambulance under enemy fire many times and indeed was hit and injured by enemy fire once but survived. No, she made it through until two years ago. I can understand why she wasn't keen on germans though !
:-)
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 20:05
|
|
Not sure why my uncle hated the Japs, he always wanted a job on the railway.
|
|
Ah. You must be that famous Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" that I have heard about.
|
>> twonkhood is not the exclusive preserve of cyclists.
You can say that again Humph. I've just suffered four days of the specific London variant, or set of variants, of the general twonkery phenomenon.
It was almost a pleasure to be back among the main road mimsers. In fact it was a pleasure, swollen gland apart. Sometimes they approached and even, cough, exceeded the posted limit.
Twonkery takes many forms though. On the way into town on Sunday after waiting twice for a long time with the engine idling, I drove off and heard an untoward noise. The coolant was boiling! A bit of steam appeared! I drove down some empty long sideroads and the boiling stopped. Headed for a garage and stopped there. Put the car through the carwash to let it cool down and show its true colour, then topped up the header tank thingy with quite a lot of coolant. OK ever since. But I worry that the fan may have clapped out again.
At no point did the dashboard coolant temperature gauge move above normal. Well I don't think so. I had just failed to check the coolant level because the damn header tank is so damn opaque, damn. So it's still losing a bit then...
|
>> So it's still losing a bit then...
Take it on a long hard thrap through Europe...just to see if it makes it..;-)
|
Quote from Cycle Chat in a roads v cycle tracks debate:
We just need to alter the collective mindset which prioritizes the needs of the fastest, most aggressive, and dangerous road users. Instead we need to protect the most vulnerable.
All it requires is for our law enforcement system to adopt a robust approach to discouraging poor road behaviours.
Good summary.
|
>> We just need to alter the collective mindset which prioritizes the needs of the fastest,
>> most aggressive, and dangerous road users. Instead we need to protect the most vulnerable.
>> All it requires is for our law enforcement system to adopt a robust approach to
>> discouraging poor road behaviours.
I agree.
ALL road users should keep their speed at a level that is safe.
Cycle brakes for instance are much more inefficient than a car or motorcycles, so their speed should kept lower, so they can stop in a safe distance.
Aggression is always bad. in all walks of life, not just on the roads,
I find aggression is often (but not always) caused by the aggressor being wound up by other peoples poor behaviour.
Dangerous road users, by that I presume you mean those that don't abide by the laws/rules of the road - ie ignoring traffic signals, inappropriate speed etc? (as above...)
Discouraging poor road behaviours... again as above. (pretty repetitive posting really....)
|
Why do we expect perfection from other road users and then want to be able to punish them if we don't get it?
I am not a perfect driver, nor a perfect cyclist, or even a perfect motorcyclist or pedestrian. And I do all four within any given week.
And I don;t really care about honking horns and outrage, but neither do I care too much about someone cocking up in front of me.
Why is it that when a cyclist is annoying a driver or vice versa, we revert to a strict interpretation of our rights, and therefore a vilification of the offender.
Does it really matter that much?
Within a given week I cannot think of a class of road user that does not offend in front of me, or a class that I do not offend in front of.
Surely part of living in a society is welcoming the intrusion of others?
Just this evening I was driving home on the school run and a cyclist put his hand on my front wing to keep his balance while we all waited at a red light. I am sure he would have been beaten up for this in the UK, but here it just doesn't matter very much.
|
|
Isn't the inescapable problem that cycles are very narrow, encouraging the idea that there is space in an ordinary traffic lane for a cycle and a motor vehicle, whereas a lorry is very wide and needs the full width of the lane, and sometimes a bit more?
|
>> Isn't the inescapable problem that cycles are very narrow, encouraging the idea that there is
>> space in an ordinary traffic lane for a cycle and a motor vehicle, whereas a
>> lorry is very wide and needs the full width of the lane, and sometimes a
>> bit more?
That's exactly the situation in which the cyclist needs to be assertive about his position in the traffic lane.
Hugging the kerb gives motor vehicle drivers the perception that they can squeeze through. Aside from immediate danger of vehicle in close proximity it also leaves no escape for the cyclist in event of wobble, jaywalking ped or debris in the gutter.
|
Yesterday afternoon I was here:
goo.gl/maps/LYL0R
I'm the Isuzu Trooper (shudder), and there's a car in front of me where the blue van is. A Peugeot 206 is waiting to turn across our lane, in to the road to the left of the blue van. The 206 is indicating right, and is stopped, in the arrowed marked reservation. The traffic in my lane is moving slowly, approx 10 mph.
The car in front of me flashes the 206 across in front of him. Just as the 206 starts moving, a cyclist comes bombing up my left hand side, undertaking me, and proceeds to undertake the blue van. I see him look across and clock the 206 - he must have seen it was moving. What does the cyclist do? What happens next?
a) Cyclist slows/stops and waits for the Peugeot to complete its manoeuvre.
b) 206 stops, and waits for cyclist to pass before completing its manoeuvre.
c) 206 driver does not spot cyclist undertaking two vehicles, both cyclist and 206 carry on, cyclist's front wheel hits passenger door of Peugeot (lightly, no damage), and proceeds to have a complete verbal meltdown at the 206 driver, screaming and waving like a banshee.
No prizes for guessing the correct answer. However, if anyone can tell me who's in the right/wrong here, I'd be grateful.
|
AV that hardly fair, you haven't introduced a murderous incompetent preferably drunk leering tattooed older lorry driver into the equation, there is no one to blame till you find the nearest one to the scene even if he was half a mile up the road unloading behind Tescos.
;-)
|
Av
Cyclist went ape? To be fair his adrenaline would be through roof.
I'd say 206 driver to blame but with cyclist's conduct/stupidity contributory. Comparable situation is driver who flashes someone going right from a side road into path of overtaking vehicle.
Car in front would be well advised not to flash people out though as it invites this sort of 'gotcha'.
As a general cyling point 'undertaking' on nearside at more than walking pace has too many risks. Not just the one highlighted here but peds stepping off kerb, n/s passengers bailing without looking, cars turning left without looking, blind spots, slippy thermoplastic paint and surface peturbations. And that list is non-exhaustive.
Much safer to behave like a motor vehicle and overtake cars on their offside.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 22 Mar 13 at 13:06
|
>> Cyclist went ape? To be fair his adrenaline would be through roof.
Yep.
>> As a general cyling point 'undertaking' on nearside at more than walking pace has too
>> many risks.
And you still reckon 206 at fault? OK. I'd give this one at least 51/49 personally, 51 to the bike. Especially as he was knowingly playing chicken with the car, and still hit it. He was looking for an excuse to go ballistic. The car driver just didn't see him, I reckon, because the cyclist was in an unexpected place, i.e. undertaking traffic.
|
AV, I had a similar situation to this in Chiswick High Road a couple of years ago, with someone turning across in front, and a bike coming up the inside. Except this was a motorbike whizzing up a bus lane (not then allowed). I didn't flash the turner but left a gap, and left it to the turners choice to turn (rather than block a turning to a side road). I was a witness and in evidence said that in my opinion both biker and driver were at fault.
In the case you show, the cyclist must expect cars etc. to turn across in a busy built-up environment like that. Yes the Pug shouldn't turn without checking, but the cyclist should not be bombing up the inside. Cyclist mostly at fault, in my book.
|
>> I didn't flash the turner but left a gap
>>
You have to ask what the motorcylist thought you were leaving a gap for?
If there's a gap in a queue of traffic, it's almost invariably been left for something to pass through it and on a bike you very rapidly learn that putting yourself in situations where you are relying on others to spot you is going to hurt a lot at some point.
|
>> The car driver just didn't see him, I reckon, because the cyclist was in an unexpected place, i.e. undertaking traffic.
All too common that one. Often occurs when the vehicle that has stopped to permit the right turn is a truck. It's actually physically impossible to see the undertaking bike / scooter in that situation until it emerges from behind the cab.
I came perilously close to ironing a scooter with a 3-ton truck in Chiswick doing exactly that when an artic stopped to let me turn and a scooter came steaming down the inside of it. If I'd been driving one of the Merc 508s (fairly ineffective hydraulic brakes) we had, rather than the Bedford TL (air brakes), she'd probably have been killed.
|
|
Got to be 90% against the cyclist for pretty much intentionally allowing it to happen, and 10% against the car for not checking if there was an idiot around.
|
>> And you still reckon 206 at fault? OK. I'd give this one at least 51/49
>> personally, 51 to the bike. Especially as he was knowingly playing chicken with the car,
>> and still hit it. He was looking for an excuse to go ballistic. The car
>> driver just didn't see him, I reckon, because the cyclist was in an unexpected place,
>> i.e. undertaking traffic.
I didn't see it and you did but if 206 crossed path of traffic proceeding under a green then he's largely to blame. Undertaking/overtaking cycles or motor cyles are a foreseeable risk and driver should have been looking.
If the cyclist was really playing chicken then that's why he's 20% or so to blame (failed to steer/brake to avoid etc). OTOH if he only saw it late and it moved off confidently then his liability may be less.
I'm wary of vehicles creeping into my path and make use of my bell and eye contact to alert them. Once I know they've seen me I might well ease/stop and let them out. I'm not going to play close quarters games though. Neither will I do shoutiness except for extreme stuff - usually left hooks.
Same with peds in the road.
|
>> I didn't see it and you did but if 206 crossed path of traffic proceeding
>> under a green then he's largely to blame.
There are no traffic lights there.
|
>> There are no traffic lights there.
OK. I couldn't get the streetview pic up (crappy connection today) and assumed one from description. But same issue, cyclist was on the road with priority.
He was almost certainly lacking in observation and may have asserted his priority when discretion would have been better part of etc. But that does not make him majority blame any more than a car t-boning the 206 would have been.
|
|
Does the fact he was undertaking not cancel out his priority?
|
Illustrates the heat in this topic wonderfully,
Both driver and cyclist at fault, about equally whatever proportion you want to apply
An accident which should never have happened
Careless to turn right in front of traffic not looking for some idiot undertaking
Idiotic to undertake at too high a speed to stop, or if he was able to stop idiotic for not stopping till he was sure.
They need someone to bang their heads together
I wonder if both those involved had met, at a doorway for example, as pedestrians whether they would both have tried to go through at the same time, personally I doubt it.
|
Hurtling down the bus lane, the often misleading bicycle lane or simply the gutter, making excellent time compared to all the couch potatoes lounging in their jalopies and getting high blood pressure, is obviously very tempting. I've seen a good few cyclists come to grief that way. Trouble is they get used to it and start to abandon caution even when it is clearly indicated.
Saw an urban cyclist hammering down the gutter in Goswell Road once, just opposite the Grauniad building (as was perhaps?). There's a dogleg off to the left there, round a sort of flatiron building with a pub at its prow. A car that hadn't checked its nearside mirror started to turn into the dogleg at exactly the wrong moment deflecting the cyclist onto the quite high pavement. By a miracle he didn't go through the plateglass window into the pub but just missed it down the Goswell Road pavement and crashed into the pub's tables and chairs there. He was bruised, shaken and slightly abraded but not seriously injured. Sat down there and pulled out his mobile to say the bike was a bit foxed (front wheel bent all over the place). 70% the car's fault I thought. Perhaps 60% because the cyclist's first responsibility is to himself and his steed.
I love drinking outside Metropolitan main road pubs. Never a dull moment.
|
>> hammering down the gutter in Goswell Road once, just opposite the Grauniad building (as was perhaps?). There's a dogleg off to the left there, round a sort of flatiron building with a pub at its prow.
Guhguhgaga... it was Farringdon Road. You forget the smoke when you are vegetating in the sticks... sorry chaps.
|
>> Does the fact he was undertaking not cancel out his priority?
I dont think that's necessarily so. If your lane is clear it's permissible to undertake a queue of vehicles waiting for (say) a right turn.
Having now seen the streetview I'm guessing the cyclist used the space in the bay outside Barnardos. Motorist was unlucky but I still think he shoulders bulk of the blame.
|
|
Be that as it may, I still think the cyclist rode in a willfully dangerous manner, whilst the car driver was either unobservant, or assumed that the bike would slow/stop. That's why I think the weight of blame sits with the cyclist here.
|
>> Be that as it may, I still think the cyclist rode in a willfully dangerous
>> manner, whilst the car driver was either unobservant, or assumed that the bike would slow/stop.
>> That's why I think the weight of blame sits with the cyclist here.
If the driver was unobservant or thought the cyclist would (be forced to?) stop then I'm still tagging him as laible.
But for reasons outlined above I'd not have got caught out that way in first place.
We have to agree to differ I think.
|
Alanovic, you stated that the traffic was doing around 10mph.
you also said the cyclist 'bombed' past you.
what speed would you esimate the cyclist was actually doing? 20? 30?
|
What is all this with London Cycling? Last time I was driving in London some cyclist seem to go hell for leather like in a race.
I still cycle sometimes ,I was born in a country where cycling is the norm.Maybe they are spoiled with all the cycle paths and as much separation as possible from fast traffic.
But to me it is obvious not to go on the inside of a HVG vehicle or go by the dead corner.If the HGV turns you as a cyclist are dead.
Common sense to me.
|
>> What is all this with London Cycling? Last time I was driving in London some
>> cyclist seem to go hell for leather like in a race.
>>
Exactly Dutchie, London has what must be the most comprehensive public transport system in the country. Cyclists that get into conflicts with other road users are either ignorant of the risks, stupid, or just plain arrogant. Like many other road users.
|
>> Exactly Dutchie, London has what must be the most comprehensive public transport system in the
>> country. Cyclists that get into conflicts with other road users are either ignorant of the
>> risks, stupid, or just plain arrogant. Like many other road users.
London transport is certainly comprehensive but it's also expensive and in many places badly overcrowded. Jumping on a bike for journeys up to four miles is almost invariably faster by time you factor in walk/wait/change times for bus or tube. Journey time is also consistent. My office in Lincoln's Inn to HQ at St James Park is 15mins by bike but 25-35 on the tube.
|
Must have missed this post somehow.
What sense is spoken.
>> What I do object to is blatant and prejudiced blanket categorisation of all cyclists as
>> the enemy. Some can be twonks I quite agree but twonkhood is not the exclusive
>> preserve of cyclists. They can be found in all manner of guises including "some" truck
>> drivers "some" pedestrians, "some" motorcyclists and indeed "some" car drivers.
How about the irritance for some though, when a given subject has those with an affiliation automatically stick up for people...even those who ought to be considered twonks.
|
>> Wouldn't blind spot cameras be a much cheaper way of doing it, maybe with built
>> in collision warning systems too.
>>
>>
>>
Rats, on my current lorry I have six mirrors and a reversing camera. I still have blind spots, and ironically most of them are caused by the sheer number of mirrors, and the size of them!
The lorry also has a proximity sensor fitted to the front bumper; it's actually there to help me when manouvering in a farm lane, never been close enough to a cyclist to test its efficiency but I daresay it'd help. Goes without saying that I also have to look where I'm going as well as at where I've been, and I also have to check my dashboard instruments and warning lights.
Unfortunately, in common with the rest of the human race, I only have one pair of eyes; and you do not need me to tell you that the more things I have to check, the less attention I can give to any specific one.
Personally I would very much doubt if a greater percentage of cyclists get hit nowadays than back in the 1950's and 1960's when lorry mirrors were little bigger than the size of a beer mat, and cyclists wore mackintoshes rather than dayglo vests. The difference is that nowadays everyone is in a greater hurry and has the wherewithal to go faster, with the inevitable tragic results.
|
The voice of reason...well said HM.
Pat
|
The dustbin lorries around here look exactly like the photo of the 'new' design.
I think they are Mercedes, but maybe it is patented or registered, or maybe it is only suitable around towns and not on motorways.
Last edited by: sooty tailpipes on Sat 23 Mar 13 at 07:49
|
maybe it
>> is only suitable around towns and not on motorways.
>>
Nail pretty much hit on head. Ideal for an urban environment where there's a lot of stop-start work; bus-type entry door so the crew can get on and off without climbing down, also solves ventilation problem on hot days. Note also that the cab on dustcarts is positioned well forwards, again taken from bus design. This gives excellent manouverability but at the expense of ride comfort at speed and also causes problems with diminishing payload as would be the case on an urban multi-drop lorry; effectively you end up with too much weight on the front axle. Dustcarts are full of machinery inside the body which alleviates this.
These dustcarts are of course designed to optimise the driver's view not only of his immediate environs, but most importantly of his colleagues working behind him.
There have been many purpose-built urban delivery vehicles designed over the years, some more successful than others. You should not underestimate the amount of money which both chassis and body designers put into this either. Unfortunately nobody has as yet come up with a one size fits all solution, although I could easily suggest one.
Redesign the towns to accomodate the lorries. ;-)
|
The only real short term way to deal with any of this is to accept the inevitability of the failings and stupidity of others and try to conduct oneself in such a way as to ensure that when they do lash up that it's not you they are affecting.
It's safe to assume that on any journey no matter what form of propulsion you are currently choosing to use, that there will be others who will deliberately or otherwise do something stupid or dangerous. That is just a given so it behoves all of us with more than one connected synapse to compensate for that.
|
True Humph it is the way of the world.No good saying after the accident I was in the right.
Better try to prevent it in the first place,easier said than done.
|
Or as the Highway Code puts it -
Rule 147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should
° try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well
° be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake
not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey
° slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them
Rule 204
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.
|
Indeed Crocks. In my view we already have more than enough road rules, regulations and laws to be going on with. It's more about education and the encouragement of common sense in all road users than introducing yet more legislation at any level.
The trouble with over-regulation is that it is almost inevitably unilaterally inspired and implemented on behalf of those who shout the loudest without necessarily reflecting the best compromise.
Usually it's a bit like squeezing a balloon, it doesn't actually cure anything but simply shifts the problem, sometimes more acutely, to a different place.
There is only one useful mantra and that is "be careful, respect others, and don't be surprised when they don't return the favour"
|
In the name of the wee man, are you lot still going on this?
Sheesh !
|
Do you know something Bromp?
Your attempts in this thread to defend the indefensible have clouded my perception of cyclists far more than my experience of them on the road.
|
>> Do you know something Bromp?
>>
>> Your attempts in this thread to defend the indefensible have clouded my perception of cyclists
>> far more than my experience of them on the road.
So you'll carry on ignoring their POV just as before
Nothing new then?
|
>So you'll carry on ignoring their POV just as before
>Nothing new then?
Eh?
Where'd you get that from?
|
>> So you'll carry on ignoring their POV just as before
>>
>> Nothing new then?
>>
Can you not concede that you MIGHT/COULD be wrong?
That you are so wrapped up in something that you can only see it from that perspective and that others who are not wrapped up in it see things differently?
Surely you must see it is incredibly difficult to defend something where the participants habitually ignore the Road Traffic Act and the Highway Code.
How does everyone else view that?.. (those people that are not at all interested in that past time).
If you want co-operation, goodwill and courtesy for anything in life...it generally has to go both ways, although you don't tend to look for it first. I think NoFM2R has put it well, further up the thread, if a group in society are regularly and persistently ignorant, arrogant, rude, pushy (call it what you like)....then other people don't like it and are less inclined to help next time. I suspect that is where I come from, to a degree, although up to now hadn't really thought about it and reserve the right to get a move on when i'm busy anyway.
Thinking about it though, if it had been a family of dad, mum, two young kids wishing to cross the mainish road on bikes...would I have stopped to safely let them across? Yes, probably, even if busy, unless there was something looming behind me.
|
I have to agree with you Kevin.
Pat
|
Another female cyclist died in an accident in London yeterday. Reportedly crushed under a left turning construction lorry at the junction of Palace St with Victoria St.
www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-killed-in-central-london-rush-hour-cycle-horror-8563896.html
EDIT: link to Mail report below:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305894/Victoria-cyclist-death-Crushed-bicycle-stark-reminder-danger-faced-city-centre-cyclists.html
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 Apr 13 at 11:03
|
QUOTE
Mike Cavenett, from the London Cycling Campaign, said tipper lorries have a high driving position and poor visibility for the driver.
He said: 'Reducing the danger that lorries pose has to be the number one priority.'
'We want lorries to be equipped with sensors or cameras to help the drivers, and cyclist awareness training for every lorry driver in London.'
No mention of training for cyclists or why she was alongside a left turning lorry.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 9 Apr 13 at 14:29
|
>> No mention of training for cyclists or why she was alongside a left turning lorry.
We won't get any clues on the bolded bit until an inquest and/or, if Police/CPS so decide, a prosecution of the driver (who was not arrested).
She may have put herself at risk.
OR
The lorry may have overtaken and then turned across her. Happened to a colleague of mine last year. Very LWB VW Crafter or similar van rather than a truck. He gave her space at the front but overlooked the tighter line of the rear wheels. She was able to bang on the side to draw attention and to escape onto the pavement. If there'd been a fence the outcome might have been different - she was badly shaken up.
The LCC advice on keeping safe is pretty clear.
lcc.org.uk/articles/advice-for-cyclists-to-stay-safer-around-lorries
It’s essential cyclists know how to not put themselves at risk unnecessarily and also to know how to stay out of danger when lorry drivers put them in a dangerous position.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 Apr 13 at 15:06
|
>>OR
The lorry may have overtaken and then turned across her. Happened to a colleague of mine last year. Very LWB VW Crafter or similar van rather than a truck. He gave her space at the front but overlooked the tighter line of the rear wheels. She was able to bang on the side to draw attention and to escape onto the pavement. If there'd been a fence the outcome might have been different - she was badly shaken up.
>>
Very unlikely in this case as the report says the lorry driver wasn't arrested at the time.
Pat
|
From the sub-Standard article:
"One witness said they had both stopped at a red light and were turning left after it turned green."
If that's true, I wonder who arrived at the lights first?
|
>> "One witness said they had both stopped at a red light and were turning left
>> after it turned green."
>>
>> If that's true, I wonder who arrived at the lights first?
There's the crux but it could be either.
|
WARNING: SPECULATION APPROACHING
If the cyclist got there first, I'd wager the truck subsequently arriving would most likely spot her. If the truck was there, and the cyclist arrived up the inside subsequently, I'd be unsurprised if the truck didn't spot her.
Either way, horrible outcome.
|
There were comments here and in the 'racing on the road' thread that cyclists were reluctant to criticise wrong behaviour by other riders.
Thread from a cyclst forum on the Victoria St accident.
www.cyclechat.net/threads/commuter-killed-this-morning-victoria-street-london-8th-april-rip.127879/
|
>> There were comments here and in the 'racing on the road' thread that cyclists were
>> reluctant to criticise wrong behaviour by other riders.
>>
>> Thread from a cyclst forum on the Victoria St accident.
Thanks for that link.
Nicely balanced views there - from the almost, 'lynch the drive' to 'maybe the cyclists own fault'.
This one however stands on its own merit
'Sadly some of the cycling community is so militant that if you suggest that many cyclists are their own worst enemy you get shot down! '
|
>> This one however stands on its own merit
>> 'Sadly some of the cycling community is so militant that if you suggest that many
>> cyclists are their own worst enemy you get shot down! '
Those trolls get everywhere don't they :-P
|
>> Those trolls get everywhere don't they :-P
>>
That's my point - comments like that are all too often regarded as trolling.
A comment from later on, with a reply from the same poster...
'Most people reading this will be familiar with safe riding practise near HGV's sadly the message would be more effective if we took turns at junctions during peak hour with a megaphone.'
'Doesn't work. I've had polite words with cyclists going up the inside of a coach.
The look of disgust in their face at the thought of another cyclist giving helpful/life saving advice!!! '
|
>> The look of disgust in their face at the thought of another cyclist giving helpful/life
>> saving advice!!! '
Oh sure. Some are as daft as the worst of the low slung Corsa or customised Scooby brigade. But like those motorists they're a minority.
I hollered today at a guy who shot a red at Russell Square 'because he could'. Rewarded with a finger. Worth it for the lovely understanding smile from the shapely lass on the BoBi waiting just ahead of me.
|
>>lass on the BoBi
I've googled BoBi and am still non the wiser.
|
>> googled BoBi and am still non the wiser.
Er... Boris bike?
|
I'm a yokel, not from the smoke.
Thanks.
|
And if anyone thinks it's always the cyclist's fault:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZCS3FLgYWM
|
>> And if anyone thinks it's always the cyclist's fault:
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZCS3FLgYWM
>>
There were ONLY three pairs of eyes in the truck :-(((
|
>> I hollered today at a guy who shot a red at Russell Square 'because he
>> could'. Rewarded with a finger. Worth it for the lovely understanding smile from the shapely
>> lass on the BoBi waiting just ahead of me.
I read an article a while back which suggested that female riders make up a disproportionate number of fatalities, partly because they are less assertive.
If I remember correctly some of the "assertive" behaviours that kept male riders safer, included taking positions in the centre of the road and moving to the front of queues, and also setting off before the lights had changed.
I suppose that you can be assertive and make yourself visible, and yet still stick to the rules of the road, but (ignoring that sensible middle ground for now) I found it interesting to suggest that jumping red lights might actually be safer than hiding yourself against the kerb and obeying the lights.
|
>> I suppose that you can be assertive and make yourself visible, and yet still stick
>> to the rules of the road, but (ignoring that sensible middle ground for now) I
>> found it interesting to suggest that jumping red lights might actually be safer than hiding
>> yourself against the kerb and obeying the lights.
Generally speaking, you can avoid hiding against the kerb (which is risky) without jumping red lights.
Occasionally the road layout/light timing tempts to the dark side.
It's now been remodelled but my morning commute involves Bloomsbury Way, a four lane eastbound one way route. The nearside lane was a bus/cycle lane. Because some buses needed to turn right another 150yds on the bus lane got green five seconds before the other three lanes so they got space.
Now and then congestion meant I arrived at the first junction in an offside lane.
No compunction in taking the bus green as signal to go even if my lane still had a red.
|
>> No compunction in taking the bus green as signal to go even if my lane still had a red.
In London I see cyclists running red lights all the time, nearly always perfectly safely and sensibly. I do it too, perfectly safely and sensibly. And so do countless others.
If someone 'hollers' at me merely for doing that I too will be tempted to show them the finger. It isn't some damn cyclist's job to control other road users. 'Hollering' is cheek.
|
>> In London I see cyclists running red lights all the time, nearly always perfectly safely
>> and sensibly. I do it too, perfectly safely and sensibly.
Are you saying that you consider that you are exempt from obeying traffic laws?
|
>> Are you saying that you consider that you are exempt from obeying traffic laws?
AC will answer for himself.
The cyclists I think see it in the same light as motorists exceeding the speed limit. Like speeding people know where they can do it at nil/little risk to themselves or others. I see loads do it at the SW corner of Russell Sq but never at Euston Road. OTOH buses and taxis take a late amber/red there on nearly every sequence.
Notwithstanding Crankcase's incident this morning most red light jumping on bikes is non-conflicting; kerbside turn or opportunity from bad light timing/over long pedestrian phases.
And before anybody jumps in I'm not justifying it. It looks bad and thus 'brings the game into disrepute' and should be avoided.
|
>> Are you saying that you consider that you are exempt from obeying traffic laws?
No.
|
>>>I suppose that you can be assertive and make yourself visible, and yet still stick to the rules of the road
Yep and that's the way I ride. Just about 50yrs in the saddle has taught me the safest way to ride is be visible, brisk and assertive but without the arrogance of wanting to claim a car sized invisible buffer zone all round me.
As for camera wearing cycle warriors... well it seems to be a case of be careful what you wish for... they do seem to "enjoy" rather a lot of encounters.
|
Just this morning - travelling down ring road, cyclist shoots through red light on side road to join our traffic stream, causing driver in front of me to brake sharply. Cyclist then rides "assertively" well out from kerb. Car driver in front is clearly annoyed, so overtakes noisily, in a place I wouldn't contemplate it, and indeed, very close to cyclist. Cyclist remonstrates loudly and vociferously.
No point in discussing rights and wrongs of all that, we can see them easily enough on both sides, but it's a situation that will lead to decreased tolerance on either side, and so it continues.
|
>> No point in discussing rights and wrongs of all that, we can see them easily
>> enough on both sides, but it's a situation that will lead to decreased tolerance on
>> either side, and so it continues.
>>
....and one of them is exceptionally vulnerable and the other isn't.
|
>> >>
>> ....and one of them is exceptionally vulnerable
>>
....and as that was the one who belted through a red light into a stream of traffic, that makes him an abject moron of the highest order.
One day he'll do that in front of someone less prepared to leap on the anchors and road safety will be improved by it.
|
New "satnav for lorry drivers warning them of cyclist danger areas"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22193472
|
From that BBC article.
''Her death prompted the mayor, Boris Johnson, to discuss banning heavy goods vehicles (HGV) from the capital unless they were fitted with cycle safety equipment.''
Could be going hungry in the capital if his soundbite was ever more than that.
|
So let me get this right...
When in an area frequented by cyclists where there have been accidents before, the lorry driver is expected to look at his Sat Nav to see the danger zone.
...plus all those extra mirrors.
Time for someone to invent a human being with multiple eyes, I think.
Pat
|
well unless your name is blind pew, you do have more than one eye.
But then us men cant multitask, perhaps they should ban men lorry drivers?
Actually the easy answer is to ban cyclists.
|
>> Time for someone to invent a human being with multiple eyes, I think.
Most women I know already have eyes in the back of their head, or does that not count?
|
>> So let me get this right...
>>
>> When in an area frequented by cyclists where there have been accidents before, the lorry
>> driver is expected to look at his Sat Nav to see the danger zone.
Pat,
The stimulus overload problem is well understood, at least by this cyclist. Exactly why I'm sceptical of CCTV as a solution to the proximity issue in London traffic.
However the arrticle goes on to state 'In addition the machine can be set to sound an audible tone when the vehicle enters the highlighted space. Presumably the tone could also be a voice alert. Don't lorry satnavs already have that facility to warn of weight limits or low bridges.?
|
I had Victor Meldrew on mine to warn me of speed cameras.
He would be most appropriate for this:)
Pro Nav are not very popular with lorry drivers anyway, we did some testing for them for the HGV version and ran them alongside other makes. They wasn't too keen on the verdict!
Pat
|
>> All cyclist/lorry problems solved at a stroke!
>>
>> www.pocketgpsworld.com/Navevo-announce-SatNav-with-HGV-Cyclist-Alert-feature-1899.php
>>
>> Ah well ...
You're not living up to your name H,
We've discussed this already - see above!!
|
|
I know I'm a bit late into this, but is there an engineering reason why all trucks can't have low cabs, like for example modern refuse trucks? I presume modern refuse trucks are designed the way they are to improve visibility. If so why not bring it in for all trucks, or do their bigger engines get in the way? Genuine question.
|
Porscheman
Is this a humerous response to AC's complaint in the Brass Float Gauge Thread (wherein he complains of being ignored?)
See www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=13819&m=313169&v=e
In case not this one started with a proposal from the London Cycling Campaign for a construction truck based on just such underpinnings. BBC report summarises.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21875593
We've been all round the houses and got back to start again!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 Apr 13 at 16:20
|
>> I know I'm a bit late into this, but is there an engineering reason why
>> all trucks can't have low cabs, like for example modern refuse trucks?
Our council's recently-purchased refuse trucks are "forward control" aka "cab over engine" . Is that what you mean?
|
>> Our council's recently-purchased refuse trucks are "forward control" aka "cab over engine" . Is that
>> what you mean?
Yes, that's what's envisaged. Refuse trucks have low cabs with large glass area and, to ensure safety of crew, excellent all round visibility. Adoption of similar design for skip/tip construction lorries and cement mixers would reduce the risks these particular vehicles pose to cyclists. They are the types most commonly involved in the turn and crush accidents which kill.
|
>> >> Our council's recently-purchased refuse trucks are "forward control" aka "cab over engine" . Is
>> that
>> >> what you mean?
>>
>> Yes, that's what's envisaged. Refuse trucks have low cabs with large glass area and, to
>> ensure safety of crew, excellent all round visibility. Adoption of similar design for skip/tip construction
>> lorries and cement mixers would reduce the risks these particular vehicles pose to cyclists. They
>> are the types most commonly involved in the turn and crush accidents which kill.
>>
To me, the front of our council's forward control refuse trucks is the same as the front of any forward control truck. Nothing out of the ordinary.
|
>> To me, the front of our council's forward control refuse trucks is the same as
>> the front of any forward control truck. Nothing out of the ordinary.
>>
tinyurl.com/cenx57z
|
>> tinyurl.com/cenx57z
Indeed, it looks like an ordinary refuse truck. Note the lower cab and extra glass compared with a rigid body skip/tip vehicle or a cement mixer. The LCC design in the OP takes the standard 'bin cart' (or bus chassis) design and applies it to those roles.
Not envisaged that it be developed as a tractor unit for haulage of LGV type trailers. These have been involved in turn/crush accidents in London but not in the numbers that construction vehicles are.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 Apr 13 at 12:01
|
I have another idea.
Let us put to bikes side by side with a gap of say 4 ft.
Then weld them with some steel rods.
Now they are 4-wheels so improved balance (thus safety).
There will be twin lamps so increased night vision.
Moreover, they won't be able sneak into 5 mm gaps.
Joking aside, research reports say that most bike accidents happen because drivers don't expect bikes to be there! The accident rates reduced when bikes were fitted with headlights spaced far apart as in cars.
|
>> Joking aside, research reports say that most bike accidents happen because drivers don't expect bikes
>> to be there!
This is why, as someone who spends most of his time on the road driving a car, when I'm on a bicycle, I never position myself somewhere that a vehicle driver wouldn't expect me to be. It staggers me that this skill is lost on a huge number of cyclists. I imagine that these are individuals who rarely see the roads from behind a car's steering wheel. At least, that's what the generous version of me wants to think.
|
>> This is why, as someone who spends most of his time on the road driving
>> a car, when I'm on a bicycle, I never position myself somewhere that a vehicle
>> driver wouldn't expect me to be. It staggers me that this skill is lost on
>> a huge number of cyclists. I imagine that these are individuals who rarely see the
>> roads from behind a car's steering wheel. At least, that's what the generous version of
>> me wants to think.
>
Putting yourself where they might expect you to be is a starting point A.
But given the regularity of 'SMIDSY' accidents (known in other areas as 'looked but did not see') some drivers seem never to expect to see a cyclist. The next step is putting yourself where drivers can see you and using eye contact to confirm observation - the latter particularly with vehicles emerging from side roads.
That works well in high density London. London cyclists however often report riding in other places to be more daunting than the capital due higher traffic speeds.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 Apr 13 at 15:49
|
>> Joking aside, research reports say that most bike accidents happen because drivers don't expect bikes
>> to be there! The accident rates reduced when bikes were fitted with headlights spaced far
>> apart as in cars.
Genuine question ML, is there a source for the stuff about headlamps? It would make in interesting discussion point over on cyclechat.
OTOH the full width of my Brompton's handlebar is well under three feet so no sure where car spaced headlights would go. Twin lamps closer together risk being 'read' as a distant car BANG - Sorry mate I thought..............
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 Apr 13 at 15:53
|
As soon as work eases off a bit, and the hanging baskets all get planted I'm off out to do a bit of research.
I'm going with Ian on a Central London multidrop in an artic and I'm driving. It will involve the morning rush hour and usually starts in either Battersea or behind Kings Cross station so all he's allowed to do is navigate as he knows all the shortcuts!
I'll report my findings as and when it happens but I promise to approach it with an open mind Bromp.
Pat
|
"or behind Kings Cross"
I always drive very, very, very slowly around there (about 9 pm).
|
>> As soon as work eases off a bit, and the hanging baskets all get planted
>> I'm off out to do a bit of research.
>> I'm going with Ian on a Central London multidrop in an artic and I'm driving.
>> It will involve the morning rush hour and usually starts in either Battersea or behind
>> Kings Cross station so all he's allowed to do is navigate as he knows all
>> the shortcuts!
>>
>> I'll report my findings as and when it happens but I promise to approach it
>> with an open mind Bromp.
>>
>> Pat
Where are the likley drop points Pat?
|
3663 Silverthorne Road Battersea
Mamma Roma Blundell Street
Eurostar St Pancras station
Salvo on Caledonian Road
New Covent Garden
Smithfield Market
C&C in Tooley Street
Carnevale in Tile Yard Road
London Underground below Earls Court
Borough Market Southwark Street
Then it will head out in either an East, South, North or West direction to Wimbledon/Merton, Hackney and Leyton or Barking and Thurrock so it will really be like being slung in the deep end again!
Bring it on, I can't wait:)
Pat
|
|
It would be quicker to get a cycle courier to do the intricate bits: lorry as a depot:)
|
It would be easier to have a traffic planner who knows London to book the delivery times in too!
Cycle courier may well have trouble with a 1 tonne pallet of catering packs of Tuna.....
Pat
|
|
Thought there might be a slight snag...
|
>> 3663 Silverthorne Road Battersea
>> Mamma Roma Blundell Street
>> Eurostar St Pancras station
>> Salvo on Caledonian Road
>> New Covent Garden
>> Smithfield Market
>> C&C in Tooley Street
>> Carnevale in Tile Yard Road
>> London Underground below Earls Court
>> Borough Market Southwark Street
Pat
Smithfield is round the corner from work, St P, Caledonian Rd and Tooley St are but a Brommy ride away. Would be interested to meet if it suits you/times. I'm contactable by PM through mods or the C4P facebook page as Simon B******.
Simon
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 Apr 13 at 22:25
|
That would be nice Simon, but it's always going to be difficult finding 56' of kerb without yellow lines.
Smithfield is usually done very early and would be before you left home, I think.
The longest time I shall be in one place will be here
goo.gl/maps/x8mmm
You have to pull across the road, try and get straight with the cars parked opposite and reverse through the green gates on the left and up the yard. There is a knack to it and as it's been a few years now I bet I've forgotten what it is.
The audience at the T Bar just inside the gate don't help either!
It won't be for a few weeks yet, as I acquired some more work yesterday which will keep me even busier over the next six weeks, but it's for my old firm and a bit of a challenge so I couldn't say no!
Pat
|
Lorry redesign for cycling safety - Old Navy
