***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 26 *****
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 4 Jul 15 at 17:58
|
This is all stuff I found easily on a subject that I am not fantatical about. I'd suggest those passing opinions as certainty and making definitive statements might wish to do the same;
Firstly, from the House of Commons Library, Young females amount to 2% of cycling deaths. Presumably young, female and foreign would be a further subset of that. It is fair to say that the last stats I quickly found were 2012 - perhaps its suddenly changed.
But there's more;
About 50% of the time the cyclist seems to be at fault to one extent or another in the initial on site report. Or 50% of the time they are not, if you prefer.
Cyclists either believing that they have rights to both path and road or fialing to check as they quickly switch from one to the other, including using crossings, is a significant contribution to KSI.
Half the time the cyclist is killed he is on the inside of an HGV turning left. A significant amount of the time a cyclist is KSId the HGV is too close or cuts in.
etc. etc.
So after my extensive research over the last 15 minutes I come to a couple of thoughts;
1) Cyclists could do a LOT to help themselves
2) Allowing cyclists and HGVs on the same faster moving bits of road is bad
3) The issue seems to be the construction and size of HGVs more than the driving
Leading me to a conclusion that says;
Everybody should take responsibility for their own actions, should acknowledge and manage the risks implicit in their vehicle and dangers from other road users and for the fact that they are sharing the roads. Anyone not prepared to do those things should hand in their licence.
Blaming it on the law and / or junction construction or road markings etc. etc. and relying on changing those to solve things is ridiculous. Whilst those could and should all be improved, they are a secondary aspect of safety..
And blind defence of the actions of any one class of user, be that a cyclist defending cycles or a truck driver defending trucks, is counter productive and silly.
(oh, and I might revisit my helmet decision).
RoSPA 2013 UK
109 Killed
3143 Seriously injured
80% Male
75% at or near a junction
75% head injuries
16% no other vehicle
With other vehicle
vehicle didn't see 57%
cyclist didn't see 43%
20% caused by cyclist leaving pavement, including at crossings and junctions
20% of cyclist fatalities involve HGV
(of this 20%, 25% passing too close)
DoT 2013
Cyclists 6% of total accidents reported, no comment on miles travelled
TRL 2011 (no comment on fault)
16 deaths in London
9/16 HGV
7/9 Construction
(There's a report Bromp, PPR640, you would find it useful. Genuinely, you would)
House of Commons Library (2011)
Cycling deaths down every year since 1950
107 in 2011 lowest for 62 years
80% Male
20% 36 - 45
2% young and female (no comment on foreign)
London has highest KSI rate, South West the lowest.
City of London & Westminster KSI 41
+ two more at random for comparison
Islington & Finsbury 34
Cambridge 25
BMC 2010
Half of cyclist KSi when HGV turning left
Fullfact (fullfact.org/about/ )
Initial at scene assessment implicated cyclist in 52% of cases
www.healysrecover.com/our-services/cycling-accident-compensation/london-cycling-accident-solicitors.html
fullfact.org/factchecks/road_accidents_cyclists_blame_killed_seriously_injured_motorists-27340
tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/pedal-cyclist-collisions-and-casualities-in-greater-london-sep-2011.pdf#page=22
www.worthingrevolutions.org.uk/sites/worthingrevolutions.org.uk/files/PPR445.pdf
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 24 Jun 15 at 16:04
|
|
p.s. Bromp, you should also try to read SN/SG/06224 from the House of Commons Library.
|
Interesting stuff Mark which I'll take time to read. Even I've green thumbed it. My response of later was due to being at work rather than an inability to back up my numbers.
On the deaths you're falling into the trap of comparing Apples with Pears. While 2% is a national statistic for female deaths we're talking specifically about London and tip/skips. The numbers there are very different as evidenced by Storbeck's chart.
I'm not trying to argue that all are the truck's fault, clearly that's not the case. There's a need for cyclist education leading to a question of who you target it at. I'd mix some general press and public safety TV ads with stuff pitched specifically at each years intake of students, grad trainees, interns etc.
Infrastructure needs looking at too. ON (and you) are quick to suggest I'm blaming the road engineer and in a sense perhaps I am. If the Navy was suffering repeated accidents in circs where repeated identical misreads of charts/bouys were significantly contributory then I'm sure buoys and charts would be sorted out.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 Jun 15 at 17:42
|
>>On the deaths you're falling into the trap of comparing Apples with Pears
I'm not you know, but go and read this stuff.
I'll ping some more around when I can, and then lets have a discussion about it without the knee jerk bias.
|
>> Infrastructure needs looking at too. ON (and you) are quick to suggest I'm blaming the
>> road engineer and in a sense perhaps I am.
I agree.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a road system whereby the most vulnerable road users and the slowest to pull away, should be afforded a box at traffic lights where they can all queue up in front of motorised transport...is an utter moron.
I suspect the main problem with all of this is cyclists filtering up the inside of large vehicles and then stopping where the large vehicle can't see them... combined with the cowboy element of the road haulage industry.
|
|
I admit that I also agree about the road design, it is crazy to invite a cyclist alongside or in front of a lorry. I was being sarcastic about your "Blame anyone except the cyclist" policy.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 24 Jun 15 at 19:46
|
Its difficult to see how one can take a bunch of people often largely motivated by their ability to navigate traffic jams and tell them not to.
I would like to see a massive decrease in weight limits in London. If someone wants to bring an HGV into London, then they should need a case by case licence and an escort, and even then there should be days/hours restrictions.
They can do their work by night when the roads are quiet[er] or they can do it with multiple small[er] vehicles. And if the drivers need overtime and the costs are higher, then the builders, contractors etc just need to bite on it.
They absolutely should not be moving in rush hour, whatever those hours acutally turn out to be.
If they want to run the tube at night, then I see no reason why they shouldn't work out how to run "freight tubes" in between passenger tubes. There are unused stations that could be used. And if its impractical I would like to at least know it has been investigated and declined for good reason.
And cyclists need to suffer for bad riding. An increasing bike licence fee, TP insurance fee, or significant road fines. And any fees should conversely go down if they pass some kind of aptitude test. Fines should be avoidable by attending rider education classes.
And all road users need to accept that the roads are there to be used by them all.
|
>>I would like to see a massive decrease in weight limits in London.
London wouldn't be London, certainly wouldn't be the growing vital city is is now and continues to be if you stifle it with blanket ill thought out restrictions.
>> If they want to run the tube at night, then I see no reason why
>> they shouldn't work out how to run "freight tubes" in between passenger tubes.
It needs little if any investigation it is completely impractical for a gazzilion and one reasons.
There isn't really a problem. ok so 12 cyclists a year die on the streets. Given the quantity of cyclists, pedestrians, and traffic of all kinds, the fatality rate is statistically very small.
|
>>London wouldn't be London, certainly wouldn't be the growing vital city is is now
So you see daytime movement of HGVs vital to London being a growing and vital city?
I should think it would be more without the trucks banging around all day. Perhaps we just like different styles of places.
8< removed at the OPs request
>>There isn't really a problem. ok so 12 cyclists a year die on the streets
That is certainly an option. We can just accept the issue. Certainly there is level where that is the best approach. However, currently the KSI numbers are really high, although obviously we need to refine the "SI" part to make it "almost dead".
At that point, where should we put the attention/action threshold? 50, 100, 1000?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 24 Jun 15 at 23:35
|
>> At that point, where should we put the attention/action threshold? 50, 100, 1000?
>>
As à lways it will be what is politically acceptable. Until the politicians risk losing votes nothing will be done.
|
>> Firstly, from the House of Commons Library,
One or two of these refer to KSI, a description I find statistically baffling to point of offensive
I get get K. K = killed; dead forever.
SI on the other hand is 'seriously injured'. That covers everything from kept in overnight for observation or a broken wrist to life changing stuff like amputation of limbs or injury to the brain's frontal lobe.
My own 'serious injury' in July 2012 was a week in hospital and titanium bolts in my hip that set airport alarms off. I can do anything now I could have done on 25/06/12.
My experience has same statistical value as the lass who lost a leg after a day at Alton Towers or 'John' whom I met when working for the Court of Protection who's brain injury, blindness and wheelchair use followed an industrial accident in Liverpool Docks.
|
Yes, KSI is bad. Although there is a "Killed and injured a little bit" category, but I don't know the difference. I think its something to do with hospital.
On the charitable side;
- Absolute Killed quantities are low and difficult to prove statistical relevance
- Changes in quantity killed are even more difficult
-The difference between killed and almost killed are a matter of luck and not particularly relevant to understanding an accident
On the uncharitable side;
- They are easier to mislead with
- They can be misrepresented
Its the definition of "Seriously injured" which is most at fault.
KSI would be quite valid if .SI meant damn near dead, significantly life changingly injured perhaps.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 24 Jun 15 at 21:44
|
>> KSI would be quite valid if .SI meant damn near dead, significantly life changingly injured
>> perhaps.
That's my point. The category should be 'Killed or Life Changing Injury' with sub categories below for (a) broken bones in major limbs etc or (b) kept in for scans or suchlike but discharged with nothing significant recorded.
|
I've had a couple of accidents over 55 years.
The worst was what I suppose was an si, a drunk guy who walked into my car on a rainy night.
I had a credible passenger witness, and the fuzz came quickly and smelt the booze on the poor victim's breath. Soon he awakened and demanded his shoes, from which the impact with my car had projected him... Later a lawyer representing him demanded money citing a hairline skull fracture but I ignored the letter.
Always felt a bit crap about it though. I wasn't hurt and poor Mr Bush was.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 24 Jun 15 at 23:42
|
I read an article the other day in the commercial vehicle press stating that in the same year 15 or 16 cyclists were killed in London there were 176 pedestrians killed.
Yet no-one seems concerned about that, and we don't propose any safety measures to stop or reduce it.
Neither do we see 'Pedestrians in London' lobbying groups being formed.
So, have we got this out of proportion?
Pat
|
>> I read an article the other day in the commercial vehicle press stating that in the same year 15 or 16 cyclists were killed in London there were 176 pedestrians killed.
>> So, have we got this out of proportion?
Plainly, something's not right...
|
>> I read an article the other day in the commercial vehicle press stating that in
>> the same year 15 or 16 cyclists were killed in London there were 176 pedestrians
>> killed.
The campaign issue from a cycling perspective is the proportion of those dozen or so deaths that involve construction lorries.
Is there a similar common theme in pedestrian deaths?
I'm pretty sure pressure groups do form when there are clusters of pedestrian deaths at particular sites.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 25 Jun 15 at 08:11
|
>>The campaign issue from a cycling perspective is the proportion of those dozen or so deaths that involve construction lorries.
<<
As construction is essential in London to maintain prosperity and growth would their campaign be better targeted at cyclist to AVOID these types of vehicles at all costs?
Every time a new piece of C&U regs come in it affects every vehicle of that type operating anywhere and everywhere in the UK, at huge costs to the haulage industry.
Sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Pat
|
>> As construction is essential in London to maintain prosperity and growth would their campaign be
>> better targeted at cyclist to AVOID these types of vehicles at all costs?
We've argued this to death before. See previous volumes.
|
We haven't argued at all.....you have refused to see perfect economic sense.
Pat
|
>>
>> >> As construction is essential in London to maintain prosperity and growth would their campaign
>> be
>> >> better targeted at cyclist to AVOID these types of vehicles at all costs?
>>
>> We've argued this to death before. See previous volumes.
>>
So we are back to blame everything except the cyclist, it must ba against their human rights to be educated or restricted in any way. Lorries are essential to the running of London and the rest of the country. Until cyclists are prepared to be responsible for their own safety they have nothing to complain about.
|
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/selfish-cyclist-hit-woman-after-9520551
Failing to stop after an accident?
Failing to obey a traffic sign?
Being an absolute moron?
Guilty on all counts M'Lud.
Pat
|
>> Guilty on all counts M'Lud.
>>
Agreed.
|
I have to say I think the "young and female and foreign" thing is making up a category where it doesn't exist. The data is simply not big enough.
In the previous thread you say that "Of 8 deaths so far this year 6 are female. Three of them, Ying Tao (Chinese) Federica Baldassa (Italian) and Claire Hitier-Abadie (French) were foreign. With exception of Moira Gemmel, 55, all the women were 32 or younger. "
(As a matter of fact the Mail says Claire was 36)
So while they were undoubtedly female, what age defines young and what defines foreign? The three you mention as foreign were all resident in the UK, albeit some for months only. (Oh, and Moira Gemmill was a Scot, how come she's not in the foreign list?)
Is there a survey which shows how many people complete any kind of training before riding a bike in London, even just some kind of online risk awareness course? Or better still, what level of training the victims have, as maybe that training simply isn't teaching them adequately.
btw I don't deny there is probably some blame on the driver's side but having been a pedestrian in London over the years I've seen many near-misses of all kinds which I would blame entirely on the cyclist on more than one occasion.
|
The one time in central London I've nearly had an accident as a pedestrian was when I made the mistake that a red light to traffic, and a green man (for cross now) on a pedestrian crossing meant it was now my turn to cross. A cyclist came hurtling through and very nearly hit me.
If I'd had a walking stick, he'd have had an 'accident'.
|
>Sledgehammer to crack a nut?
If you just look at the killed, then it certainly seems to be very low level and perhaps at a level which should be ignored.
What you can't tell is how serious the SI (Seriously Injured) are. It may well be that they're a bit of gravel rash and home the next day. Or they could be near fatal.
If KSI was taken at the level its shown now, then there is a significant issue. If KSI is redefined to show properly just killed or close to killed, and thus a little/loads less then there may or may not be an issue worth dealing with.
If the redefined KSI is high enough, then we need to further understand the causes - about which there is currently spoken a lot of unsubstantiated garbage, mostly lead by the Daily Mail and its friends. Because my reading of the available figures tends to suggest that a substantial amount of the time, its actually the cyclist at fault.
Still a problem, and still needs to be dealt with, but not quite the same problem that the media would have you believe.
What is clear though, is that there is a media and cyclist storm about it. Which even in here has been going on for ages. As is so often the case, the newspapers [sic] emphasise what they feel their readers want to see, not necessarily what the issues and facts actually are. Young, foreigner and female seems to be one example of that.
That all aside. I think London, and all cities, should have less vehicles in them; less private cars, less of the larger HGVs, etc. etc. It makes them nicer places.
|
Cycle accident deaths in Britain last year - 113
Cycle accident deaths so far this year - 56
Cycle accident deaths in 1934 - 1,536
Department of Transport figures.
|
>> Cycle accident deaths in 1934 - 1,536
>>
>> Department of Transport figures.
Total killed on roads in 1934 was 7343 so cyclists around 20% of casualties. Last year looks like around 6%, assuming total is in 1800 ballpark. Many more bikes on road in 1934 I'd have thought.
On the deaths in London I'd sort of agree that current numbers were 'to be expected' if they were proportionately distributed across the Boroughs and vehicle types. The campaign issue is the number in Central London involving construction vehicles.
The TRRL report Mark highlights above is illustrative in two particular respects. One is how poor the sightlines are from these things and the other the disparate approach to accidents on the construction site and anything on road travelling to/from the site. The former is investigated exhaustively by H&S managers. The latter is off their radar.
The rural hazard is the dim witted overtake on a blind bend. An hour ago I had to perform an emergency stop and take to the verge while driving through the nearby village of Canons Ashby. Cause? a red Peugeot 207 coming the other way overtaking a cyclist, who was riding quite well, on a blind bend. Another 200metres and he'd have had (a) a straight and (b) been clear of the maneuvering traffic around Canons Ashby House - a national Trust site popular as a Sunday outing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 28 Jun 15 at 14:42
|
>> The rural hazard is the dim witted overtake on a blind bend.
Yes.
|
>> That all aside. I think London, and all cities, should have less vehicles in them;
>> less private cars, less of the larger HGVs, etc. etc. It makes them nicer places.
True, but you don't make a city without them.
I get to walk around London a fair bit, and have done since the very early 70s when I walked round it a lot on a daily basis. It is now a vastly superior place for cycling and walking than it ever used to be.
|
My usually dependable Harley let me down tonight, about 50 yards past Pont Abraham services; thankfully heading towards home so not on the motorway itself.
Quick poke about bike revealed electronic ignition failure, quick poke about pockets revealed mobile phone left at home on charge. I'd like to pay tribute to a passing cyclist who not only stopped to ask if I was OK but also kindly let me use his own mobile to call Mrs. HM so that she could come out in the van and pick me up. Bike now sulking in garage till next weekend when I've got time to fix it, HM sitting here with more faith in human nature.
Could have been worse; last weekend I did 920 miles round trip to Breda without a hitch, can live with a breakdown virtually on me doorstep.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 00:53
|
I drive around central London quite a bit. I also Boris bike quite a bit too. Too many cyclists just don't help themselves. The two groups that stand out the most are:
Girls moving at nearly no miles an hour, wobbling in the gutter and then wobbling over a couple of lanes.
Men in the 20-35 group who think that they are driving tanks and they don't care if they hit a car.
You're a very long time dead; I don't understand it. Farringdon Road is currently closed southbound. I went up it northbound (on a bus) which was overtaking a cyclist (it's a very wide single lane). At the same time, it was suddenly confronted by a male in the above age group who was cycling, in lycra, in the wrong direction, at a rate. He's just asking to be turned into strawberry jam.
And WHY would you choose to cycle round a roundabout? They can be scary enough in a car; why do it to yourself? The Aldwych. Elephant & Castle. Silicon Roundabout. The huge roundabout at Vauxhall. All places where cyclists die regularly.
The problem is that some cyclists have a sense that they are owed something; a feeling of being better than normal human beings, greener. Bicycles attached to railings cause damage to the paintwork, and sometimes physical damage to the railings. That constitutes criminal damage. Yet they persist in doing it, no matter how many signs are put up. And if asked nicely to desist they will threaten to thump you as it's their 'right' to park there. No it's not; it's trespass causing criminal damage.
|
|
"The problem is that some cyclists have a sense that they are owed something; a feeling of being better than normal human beings, greener." You sure about that? Thought that attitude was more associated with Audi drivers. Apart from the "greener" aspect of course.
|
>> "The problem is that some cyclists have a sense that they are owed something; a
>> feeling of being better than normal human beings, greener." You sure about that? Thought that
>> attitude was more associated with Audi drivers. Apart from the "greener" aspect of course.
>>
Oi! Less of the stereotypes about Audi drivers, please.
Some of us are very warm and wonderful human beings. ;-)
|
...some cyclists have a sense that they are owed something...
Some consideration, perhaps? As vulnerable road users, who've been using the roads, as of right, since decades before there were cars and lorries to menace them.
As with all conflicts, the harder each party stands by its rights and its historic grievances, the worse it will get. Militant cyclists help no-one, least of all their own cause; likewise lazy, bullying drivers as typified by some here. But I have more sympathy with the cyclists, who have more to lose if it goes wrong.
|
"Lazy, bullying driver" .
I'm trying to work out who you're chucking that brick at. Care to share a clue, because it's not obvious. To me, anyway.
|
>> "Lazy, bullying driver" .
>>
>> I'm trying to work out who you're chucking that brick at. Care to share a
>> clue, because it's not obvious. To me, anyway.
Mote; beam?
|
>Mote; beam?
Waaay over my head. Not a clue.
|
>> >Mote; beam?
>>
>> Waaay over my head. Not a clue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam
Mainly number three. You decided late in May that cyclists, implicitly all of u, had an attitude problem
But when a similar accusation is thrown about 'some' on this site being impatient motorists you're off on the defensive.
|
I wasn't being defensive.
I didn't know who WdB was referring to, although it didn't occur to me that he might mean me.
And yet again i didn't understand some of your "clever" communcation. I'm certainly not going to be wasting any time looking it up.
|
>> I wasn't being defensive.
>>
>> I didn't know who WdB was referring to, although it didn't occur to me that
>> he might mean me.
Fair enough
>> And yet again i didn't understand some of your "clever" communcation. I'm certainly not going
>> to be wasting any time looking it up.
It's a pretty common reference for dual standards, I'm genuinely surprised you didn't get it.
|
>> It's a pretty common reference for dual standards, I'm genuinely surprised you didn't get it.
>>
>>
I know your comment was directed at mark, but it's the first time I'd ever heard it. I wouldn't say it was common at all more like very obscure. I suppose it depends what circles you move in.
|
>> I know your comment was directed at mark, but it's the first time I'd ever
>> heard it. I wouldn't say it was common at all more like very obscure. I
>> suppose it depends what circles you move in.
Fair enough. I used to get irritated with Oxbridge educated colleagues' literary allusions. If I've tumbled into same trap I apologise.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 1 Jul 15 at 21:39
|
|
Mote and beam? Fairly well known, and apt, parable. FM2R is being faux ignorant I suspect.
|
I didnt know the phrase or what it meant. I stil don't really except for Bromp's hint about double standards.
Why would i pretend?
And "Faux ignorance"? What kind of pretentious POS is that?
|
|
Why would you not understand? Faux ignorance is also a quite common expression, so don't feel any special effort is being made.
|
>> Why would you not understand?
Erm.. because he'd never heard of the expression?.... as I hadn't.
|
I can't think that I have ever heard it but it's pretty obvious what it means - acting dumb.
Saying you don't know what faux ignorance is sounds like faux ignorance to me.
|
|
I think you are faux remembering. It was Bromp's comment I didn't understand. I thought NortonES2's comment was simply pretentious.
|
|
Forks inyoraunce... tchah!
|
>> I wouldn't say it was common at all more like very obscure. I
>> suppose it depends what circles you move in.
Proverb from New Testament, Sermon on the Mount:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Ie. don't criticise someone else's small mistake when you've done something a lot worse.
I would have thought it was common knowledge (albeit perhaps not it in common use) too, and I'm not aware of having moved in any circles. Not sure where I would have got it from though - perhaps from a piece of literature? RE lesson?
Last edited by: Focusless on Wed 1 Jul 15 at 22:32
|
Never heard it. Sorry.
And I went to Sunday School and did RE at school. And married a catholic.
|
>> And I went to Sunday School a
I suspect there's a generation of us who did. We learned this stuff and had it recalled by literary/media/professional use over succeeding thirty to fifty years.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 1 Jul 15 at 22:40
|
I hated Sunday School with a vengeance. Mind you, I hated school just as much.
I guess I have never moved in the type of circles where "clever clever" phrases and words are bandied about.
Not Latin quotes, although I did Latin, nor religious parables, other than the obvious, and I detest any form of affected language, especially since I feel it is usually used to look down upon someone, and seemingly to make them feel small;
As you said about your "Oxbridge educated colleagues". Someone well educated and confident in their communication skills would never use something unlikely to be understood by their audience. The genuinely skillful can adapt to their audience.
So if someone does not, then they are either not very skillful, are particularly unaware, or are doing it on purpose from some pretentious wish to sneer or to put themselves of a pedestal.
|
|
And I class putting "faux" in front of stuff alongside putting "-gate" on the end.
|
|
Each to his own. Not that I care what FM2R thinks. Wallow in piggish ignorance.
|
>>Not that I care what FM2R thinks
Why keep commenting then? Are you protesting a little too much, perhaps?
|
|
Not as much as you, if you keep count of your posts, on this mini-kerfuffle. There, a Scottish origin word to irritate a self-appointed arbiter of text. No smilie.
|
>> I would have thought it was common knowledge (albeit perhaps not it in common use)
>> too, and I'm not aware of having moved in any circles. Not sure where I
>> would have got it from though - perhaps from a piece of literature? RE lesson?
Pretty much where I came from. I'm not given to quoting biblical stuff but some of it, including this, is common discourse.
|
|
Actually, probably got it from Dot Branning in EastEnders, it's the sort of thing she comes out with. See what you're missing Mark.
|
Branning? What happened to "Cotton"?
And sadly I am an Emmerdale Farm [now without the "Farm"] man myself. Although I think its moved along a bit since I last saw it. The gay bloke in the wheelchair was just leaving the last time I watched....
Bring back Amos Brierley and Seth Armstrong.
|
> I would have thought it was common knowledge (albeit perhaps not it in common use)
>> too, and I'm not aware of having moved in any circles. Not sure where I
>> would have got it from though - perhaps from a piece of literature? RE lesson?
>>
Nope never heard it in my life. Went to church as kid and had RE lessons at school, honestly didn't have the foggiest. I bet i could 50 people that i know and none would have a clue.
Moving in circles, i meant knowing people that talk a certain way. See Bromps post about professional use.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 1 Jul 15 at 22:50
|
Why on earth did Bromp get a frownie for saying...
"Fair enough"
and....
"It's a pretty common reference for dual standards, I'm genuinely surprised you didn't get it "?
That facility needs to go away.
|
Not obvious in this thread perhaps, but there are those here whose attitude to cyclists is, put crudely, that they get in the way. The attitude seems to be 'I don't want to do it, so why should we allow anyone else?'
Of course, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude to take - but only regarding caravans.
};---)
|
For me, the stuff which gets up my nose applies equally to any road user, not specifically cyclists - things like incompetence, dangerousness, oblivious and/or inconsiderate to other road users, self important, arrogant/aggressive and general bad attitude.
Why cyclists think they should be immune from criticism also puzzles me - after all we seem to have become a nation of moaners and nit pickers. :-)
Don't start my missus on whether horses should be allowed to share our roads, and why they're allowed to dump all over roads and pavements and not carry a scoop!! :-)
|
It is very simple smokie.Cyclist when they are hit by a big lump of metal usually finish in a gravebox.
|
>> Girls moving at nearly no miles an hour, wobbling in the gutter and then wobbling
As I've already said I see a link between this sort of riding and the tip/skip scenario. IMHO it's much safer IN the traffic than alongside it. But that needs the right bike and the confidence to 'get in the way of the cars'. Easy on a sports bike or even a Brompton.
Last few times I've ridden in London have been on a Boris Bike. Just a bit lacking in maneuverability and acceleration/braking capacity needed to do this properly
>> Men in the 20-35 group who think that they are driving tanks and they don't
>> care if they hit a car.
Normal for the age group then. Exactly same behaviour as pedestrians or motorists.
>> And WHY would you choose to cycle round a roundabout? They can be scary enough
>> in a car; why do it to yourself? The Aldwych. Elephant & Castle. Silicon Roundabout.
>> The huge roundabout at Vauxhall. All places where cyclists die regularly.
Because it's really not that difficult, but see above about bikes that can manoeuvre, accelerate and brake. Aldwych is a piece of cake if going Kingsway to Fleet St. Kingsway to Waterloo or westbound Strand is more of a challenge but do-able if you use the Stop Box, ride out and keep where drivers can see you. I'd do it occasionally but probably too risky for daily commute - easier to go through Covent Garden and then Bow St>Wellington St (or Exeter St for w/b Strand).
Secret on roundabouts is to be bold and watch for eye contact.
>>
>> Bicycles attached to railings cause damage
>> to the paintwork, and sometimes physical damage to the railings. That constitutes criminal damage.
So the railings might get scuffed? Now let's just amend to circumstances* and look at cars parked on pavements. That constitutes criminal damage. Yet they persist in doing it, no matter how many signs are put up. And if asked nicely to desist they will threaten to thump you as it's their 'right' to park there. No it's not; it's trespass causing criminal damage.
*Was tempted to use phrase Mutatis Mutandis here just to pi** Mark off but decided against.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 2 Jul 15 at 19:42
|
>>Was tempted to use phrase Mutatis Mutandis here just to pi** Mark off but decided against.
Thank you for that.
Out of interest, do you use this stuff when you're talking about something down the pub? Or is it just writing in forums which brings it out in you?
|
>> Out of interest, do you use this stuff when you're talking about something down the
>> pub? Or is it just writing in forums which brings it out in you?
>
Would depend who I was at the pub with.
|
Really?
Each to their own, but I just can't imagine saying it. I shall try one and see how it goes. Could you recommend a starter phrase for the novice?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jul 15 at 19:55
|
Anyone here ever ridden an old American bike?
Heavy, ornate, slow, fat tyres, only a fierce rear-wheel brake applied by back-pedalling... utterly horrendous things designed for newspaper-delivering boys.
Give me a Dursley-Pedersen any day.
|
Secret on roundabouts is to be bold and watch for eye contact.
I agree that is normally the best policy, but the one time I was knocked off my bike, less than 1/4 mile from my house was on a roundabout. I'm convinced the driver who knocked me off saw me - and decided, 'bike, can't be moving that fast' and promptly pulled out in front of me, hit my front wheel and over I went.
Yes the other traffic did thankfully stop, but no-one offered any assistance and the only folk worried about me were those at work who saw me limping around! I did eventually go to the emergency treatment centre only to be told I'd done all the right things anyway. (No NSAIDs for two days as they mask problems).
|
From the London Evening Standard:
tinyurl.com/o5sxg4h
|
Bromps is Jeremy Vine and I claim my free Lycra shorts. He says
"As soon as I say a cyclist has died, you can almost fill in the blanks. It’s going to be a smart professional woman in her mid-twenties killed by a tipper truck turning left, every single time."
|
|
Judging by the blue check pattern on his hiviz he is another wannabe traffic cop.
|
>> Bromps is Jeremy Vine and I claim my free Lycra shorts. He says
>>
>> "As soon as I say a cyclist has died, you can almost fill in the
>> blanks. It’s going to be a smart professional woman in her mid-twenties killed by a
>> tipper truck turning left, every single time."
I knew I wasn't alone in thinking that. In a way it's echoed in what MM says about young women riding slowly and close to the kerb. Although it doesn't seem to be borne out by the stats 'across the piece' there have been several clusters of such accidents.
|
Bromp, I have downloaded a PDF from TFL that makes very interesting reading but despite trying to post a link to it on here I've failed miserably!
Have you seen this?
Surface Planning
Casualties in Greater London during 2014
June 2015
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 1 Jul 15 at 09:19
|
>> tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/casualties-in-greater-london-2014.pdf
Pat/GGN,
Thanks. On the face of it that's interesting. I'm working today so cannot look at the detail until I get home tonight.
|
I am a cyclist and am always just one step away from suffering if I happen to come across a driver like that.
But I really don't know if I agree with the 5 year prison sentence. Ok, killed someone recklessly with a 2 ton vehicle. But they never set out to do that on their journey, it was an accident albeit one that was easily avoided.
However I am sure I have read plenty of verdicts where folk have went out with knives and stabbed someone and got nowhere near that sentence.
Which was premeditated? Which one is the bigger danger on our streets?
|
"Which one is the bigger danger on our streets?"
A lifetime's driving ban would stop her driving recklessly.
|
>> A lifetime's driving ban would stop her driving recklessly.
>>
More likely create a lifetime illegal driver with no insurance.
|
(@ Haywain) Oh really, get a grip, it isn't THAT reckless. In this instance it may well have contributed to a road death. But just on my own evidence there are hundreds of people doing it all the time and the roads have not become a bloodbath as a result.
Same as speeding really, we all tut about it but at the end of the day in itself it isn't dangerous, it's the how and where, and making sure you maintain your concentration and awareness.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 1 Jul 15 at 16:55
|
"Same as speeding really, we all tut about it but at the end of the day in itself it isn't dangerous, it's the how and where, and making sure you maintain your concentration and awareness."
Blimey!
She killed somebody because she's too stupid to be out on the road - she certainly wasn't capable of maintaining her concentration and awareness.
Why should I pay to keep the idiot in prison? She isn't dangerous, afaIk, when she isn't behind the wheel of a car.
|
>> But I really don't know if I agree with the 5 year prison sentence. Ok,
>> killed someone recklessly with a 2 ton vehicle. But they never set out to do
>> that on their journey, it was an accident albeit one that was easily avoided.
But "She was also convicted of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by deleting a record of a call on her mobile" - that wasn't an accident, and perhaps added a few years to the sentence?
|
I always struggle with this;
Two people using a mobile phone in the same place at the same time; one gets a £60 fine and the other goes to jail for 5 years.
I get that the consequences of the illegal act were different, but was the level of guilt different?
It also seems the wrong type of penalty to me. 5 years of helping people, of training people, of actually doing some good, well I could see that. But prison?
|
She deleted records of the call she was on when she hit the cyclist, then lied to the Police, then continued to protest her innocence through the trial before being found guilty.
Hence the throwing of the book.
|
>> She deleted records of the call she was on when she hit the cyclist, then
>> lied to the Police, then continued to protest her innocence through the trial before being
>> found guilty.
>>
>> Hence the throwing of the book.
"Solicitor advocate Gordon Martin said Watson, who has two previous convictions for speeding, was "genuinely remorseful over what happened.
Solicitor advocate Gordon Martin said Watson, who has two previous convictions for speeding, was "genuinely remorseful over what happened".
Pleading not guilty rather undermines the remorse.
On the severity of the sentence, for what was essentially a fixed penalty offence - consequences have always mattered, that isn't new.
I do agree that 5 years prison is unlikely to have any useful effect beyond 'encourager les autres' either not to use a handheld mobile, or to do it very very carefully.
|
>>Pleading not guilty rather undermines the remorse
Ah, I missed the "Not Guilty" plea. A certain amount of book throwing is called for then.
Although I'd still rather have seen a sentance which was of use to other people.
|
I expect I'm the odd one out again but I reckon I'd probably wriggle a little bit if I was accused or charged with something. I doubt she realised or thought that deleting stuff off her phone wasn't enough. Maybe she did it in sheer panic - she's not a hardened criminal liar after all.
I do remember years ago being stopped by the BiB and asked if I knew how fast I was going. I did, but at that split second I thought it would be better to say I didn't know rather than "the speedo was reading 120 but as it over-reads by about 10% then somewhere around 110". Once I'd said it, it was said. Luckily the copper had measured me and was able to advise. 108. I realise that today that answer would probably get me a driving with undue attention or whatever it is.
|
>> I do remember years ago being stopped by the BiB and asked if I knew
>> how fast I was going.
>> I realise that today that answer would probably get me a driving with undue attention
>> or whatever it is.
If you tell a copper you didn't know how fast you were going you a pull for driving without due care. There are NO right answers to the carefuly chosen questions thrown at you by the old bill. They pull people several times an hour day in day out, the like of you and i get a tug a few times in a lifetime.
My last tug was for an indicated 50 mph in a 30. It was 4:45 am. "Do you know the speed limit here sir" was the first question.
Answer was "The speed limit here is 30mph, and I was doing about 45, its not even 5:00 am and I made an assessment it was safe"
"oh she says"
Takes my license and checks my details, taking 10 minutes over it trying to up the tension, and comes back with some crap about my name and car being noted in case I did it again.
I think the Olympic Volunteer got me out of that one. Mrs Z has got away with some outrageous stuff because she was wearing her Nurses Uniform.
|
"Mrs Z has got away with some outrageous stuff because she was wearing her Nurses Uniform."
I suppose she would - especially if it was bought from Ann Summers.
|
>> It also seems the wrong type of penalty to me. 5 years of helping people,
>> of training people, of actually doing some good, well I could see that. But prison?
It's difficult to be sure from a media report but I suspect what was in English terms 'attempting to pervert the course of justice' was what justified the sentence.
The long driving ban, extended test requirement and a 'short sharp shock' in the slammer would cover the road offence.
|
It is interesting. But the cyclists are invisible in the mirror because the cab is pointing to the left where it is about to turn (also see front wheel angle). And it has moved to the right in preparation for that, meaning the cyclists are even further away from the area covered by the mirror.
Surely no sensible cyclist would move up alongside a lorry in such a position? Although that does assume the lorry was there first - if the lorry came up alongside the cyclists then it should have seen them and wait for them to move off before starting its turn.
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 2 Jul 15 at 20:22
|
|
Sorry - I guess that's the purpose of the video, to act as a warning to cyclists?
|
|
I saw a tipper lorry today here in Wokingham. It had a sign on the back (only in English) warning cyclists not to go up the inside - I forget the exact wording. Made me think of this thread.
|
>> I saw a tipper lorry today here in Wokingham. It had a sign on the
>> back (only in English) warning cyclists not to go up the inside - I forget
>> the exact wording. Made me think of this thread.
Have you heard the ones that blare out "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT" from speakers along the left side operated by the l/h turn signal.
|
>> >> I saw a tipper lorry today here in Wokingham. It had a sign on the
>> >> back (only in English) warning cyclists not to go up the inside - I forget
>> >> the exact wording. Made me think of this thread.
>>
>> Have you heard the ones that blare out "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT" from
>> speakers along the left side operated by the l/h turn signal.
>>
That's the deaf and blind cyclists sorted, what about the "If something kills me it won't be my fault" ones out there.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 3 Jul 15 at 16:38
|
Accidents - No FM2R
