Dead cyclist Upper Thames Street

sc999cs

I don't know what happened in this case but some motorists are just so impatient . Coming home from work I turn right across a main road using a filter lane in the middle of the road designed for that purpose. A lady very kindly flashed me over today and slowed down. Before I'd had time to react and start crossing the driver in the car behind her was blowing his horn, and accelerated past, overtaking in the filter lane I was waiting in to cross. Luckily there was about a 10 metre gap and I had a chance to get out the way. The impatient driver behind gained maybe two seconds? Pathetic.

My condolences go out to the family of this cyclists and I'm glad I live in the stixs.

woodford2barbican

SmellTheGlove wrote:

Anyone on the Freewheel it might be appropriate to mark the spot on Sunday.

That sounds like a great idea.

bornagainbiker

Sad to hear about this accident.

I personally think that most HGV drivers really hate losing any momentum and will try their damnest not to drop to a crawl or god forbid even stop. I also think they can use intimidation to force oncoming traffic to give way to them.

Kieran_Burns

I don't know how you London cyclists do it... I really don't.

I have to thank this forum for drilling some common sense into me. I DID tend to filter down the inside of buses / cars in Derby city centre just to get to the front.

I don't now. I've read the stories, heard the opinions and listened. I do also take a middle line on roundabouts and am constantly monitoring everywhere I can.

I think this is why I enjoy the bridleway part of my journey so much - I tend to be the fastest thing down that stretch and can relax completely.

My heart and feelings go out to all you people who have to face that kind of stress and grief and worry in the morning. I have only a tiny stretch of busy road to worry about, and as said before: in general the Derby drivers are considerate and aware.

chuckcork

bornagainbiker wrote:

Sad to hear about this accident.

I personally think that most HGV drivers really hate losing any momentum and will try their damnest not to drop to a crawl or god forbid even stop. I also think they can use intimidation to force oncoming traffic to give way to them.

Car drivers do so all the time, particularly to cyclists. Who hasn't experienced that?

always_tyred

downfader wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

UnworthyPapaLazaru wrote:

Im begining to think this forum could start put people off cycling/commuting. Very sad.

It's better that these things are posted. I'd rather that a jittery newbie was put off of cycling and remained alive than boosted the KSI stats.

For those of sterner stuff: this is what can happen!! You gain little from filtering down the side of large vehicles, but you could lose everything. Don't do it! Be patient and wait behind for the vehicle to complete its manouver - it's not a race.

Cycling is not dangerous, but we can make it dangerous for ourselves.

Now that I've got that off my chest...

It's sad to hear of yet another death. Condolences to family and friends etc. ...

Nice condolences at the end there, but haven't you just basically articulated your belief that anyone who dies cycling must have done so as a result of their own error? We had this last week from a few correspondants regarding that very disturbing report from Blackfriar's.

To me its no different from suggesting that anyone who dies of cancer shouldn't have smoked. That has some merit if they did indeed smoke, but you really do have to find out first if it was smoking related. See what I'm getting at?

Just as you did before I think you're reading too much into what someone has written.. admittedly they mentioned filtering when we dont know the circumstances, but it could have just been a warning rather than simply supposition of said cyclist's death. :?

Possibly, possibly not. I still cannot see any other way to interpret that post.

I'm trying to point out that associating a perfectly valid piece of safety advice A with a report of an incident B naturally leads one to believe, or at the very least to believe that the author is of the default opinion, that B was a result of not following A.

I'm simply suggesting in both instances to excersise some tact until there is a little more information available. I believe that I am reasonable to pass comment.

Kieran_Burns

I think the interpretation rests on the use of the word CAN as in "this is what CAN happen"

If the poster has said "this is what happens" then I would agree that they are hinting that the accident was the cause of such an action.

As it is - I think that it is posted to serve a warning, nothing more.

always_tyred

Nonsense. "Oh well, you see this is what can happen" does not refer to some other thing that can happen, it refers to the matter in question.

Jesus, someone dies and I take a bit of umbridge with someone leaping to conclusions and coming out with a "well there was no need for that to happen" statement and everyone leaps to that person's defence. Had you noticed that the additional information that was forthcoming suggests that the guy got killed because he wobbled when crossing some roadworks? I mean, how close WERE those HGV's? I mean, when you mash a pot hole or encounter a glass bottle, do you plough straight on through, or do you involuntarily flinch? I flinch. Thus, it might have happened to me. There but for the grace of god, you know, not "should have gone to Specsavers". Christ almighty.

moonio

Maybe we London cyclists can organise vigils/demos at the site of the 2 accidents?

Bassjunkieuk

Watching the BBC local news this morning it was good to see they mentioned cycling........apparently a Cycle England study has shown that women are put off cycling to work because of concern's about safety and arriving at work sweaty.

Nice to see the BBC can report the important stories....

moonio wrote:

Maybe we London cyclists can organise vigils/demos at the site of the 2 accidents?

It was suggested on the Freewheel thread that out of respect that any riders taking part dismount and walk past the site. Just a thought and with all the attendance there it might have an effect.

moonio

It was suggested on the Freewheel thread that out of respect that any riders taking part dismount and walk past the site. Just a thought and with all the attendance there it might have an effect.

Yeah i just registered there, but seeing as this is a government thing?? I am quite inclined to bring a huge banner saying 'NO MORE CYCLING DEATHS ON OUR ROADS' to drape over Boris..

:shock:

slc666

Hi All

My first post here.

I work nearby the site of this accident, and passed it yesterday a few hours after the accident. The sight of the bicycle by the side of the road was truely horrible. I offer my condolensces to the family of the cyclist who died.

Having spoken to a few locals and having a closer look at the road layout today, I'd like to make a few suggestions in the hope that they could prevent this type of thing happening. Lobbying government and the Mayor may help in the long run, but hopefully there are things that we can do as individuals to try increase our survival chances.

Firstly, I am both a cyclist and motorcyclist and I alternate modes of transport regularly. I would suggest to all London cyclists to have a go at the motorcycle theory test. Even if you do not take the test, buy the book and buy a "hazard perception" practice test and give it a thorough review. Many of the items covered are as relevant to cyclists as they are to motorcyclists (namely the "lifesaver" over shoulder look). I used the official DSA book: ISBN 13: 9780115529306 and DVD: ISBN 13: 9780115528651.

Secondly. Your choice of bike can make a difference in certain situations. Due to the state of many of our capital's road hazards such as pot holes, manhole covers and road rubbish, think about getting a mountain bike (at least with front suspension). They have a much better ability to simply ride over most small obstacles and could help prevent any accidents caused by swerving a manhole cover. They may be a bit heavier than road racers or hybrids, but looking at the wheels/tires on such bikes it does not surprise me that a manhole cover is an obstacle that cannot just be ridden straight over.

Finally. I did my car driving test in South Africa, where they had a driving system called K53 at the time. The system promoted you to always know what other vehicles where in your proximity. The system was invaluable and I use it all the time on any vehicle. It may have you looking around a lot more, but all it takes is a quick glance around every so often and you'll know whats around you.

Ride safe

S

number9

Had you noticed that the additional information that was forthcoming suggests that the guy got killed because he wobbled when crossing some roadworks? I mean, how close WERE those HGV's?

Exactly.

A cyclist has a right enshrined in law to wobble, if a collision occurs it's because the following vehicle was too close.

il_principe

slc666 wrote:

Hi All

My first post here.

I work nearby the site of this accident, and passed it yesterday a few hours after the accident. The sight of the bicycle by the side of the road was truely horrible. I offer my condolensces to the family of the cyclist who died.

Having spoken to a few locals and having a closer look at the road layout today, I'd like to make a few suggestions in the hope that they could prevent this type of thing happening. Lobbying government and the Mayor may help in the long run, but hopefully there are things that we can do as individuals to try increase our survival chances.

Firstly, I am both a cyclist and motorcyclist and I alternate modes of transport regularly. I would suggest to all London cyclists to have a go at the motorcycle theory test. Even if you do not take the test, buy the book and buy a "hazard perception" practice test and give it a thorough review. Many of the items covered are as relevant to cyclists as they are to motorcyclists (namely the "lifesaver" over shoulder look). I used the official DSA book: ISBN 13: 9780115529306 and DVD: ISBN 13: 9780115528651.

Secondly. Your choice of bike can make a difference in certain situations. Due to the state of many of our capital's road hazards such as pot holes, manhole covers and road rubbish, think about getting a mountain bike (at least with front suspension). They have a much better ability to simply ride over most small obstacles and could help prevent any accidents caused by swerving a manhole cover. They may be a bit heavier than road racers or hybrids, but looking at the wheels/tires on such bikes it does not surprise me that a manhole cover is an obstacle that cannot just be ridden straight over.

Finally. I did my car driving test in South Africa, where they had a driving system called K53 at the time. The system promoted you to always know what other vehicles where in your proximity. The system was invaluable and I use it all the time on any vehicle. It may have you looking around a lot more, but all it takes is a quick glance around every so often and you'll know whats around you.

Ride safe

S

Welcome to the forum. You make some good points but I'm really not sure about the MTB one. MTB's lack the agility and turn of speed that I find so useful on my roadbikes. IME the danger of manholes can be tackled by riding in Primary, bunny hopping or just good bike handling. I'd suggest novices read the excellent "Cyclecraft" by John Franklin http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-Skilled-Cycling-Techniques-Adults/dp/0117020516/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221824388&sr=8-2

ansbaradigeidfran

number9 wrote:

A cyclist has a right enshrined in law to wobble, if a collision occurs it's because the following vehicle was too close.

Would that be the Road Traffic (Bicycle Wobbling) Act of 1953? :P

Bassjunkieuk

jashburnham wrote:

Welcome to the forum. You make some good points but I'm really not sure about the MTB one. MTB's lack the agility and turn of speed that I find so useful on my roadbikes. IME the danger of manholes can be tackled by riding in Primary, bunny hopping or just good bike handling. I'd suggest novices read the excellent "Cyclecraft" by John Franklin http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-Skilled-Cycling-Techniques-Adults/dp/0117020516/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221824388&sr=8-2

I'd second that, whilst a more rugged bike is a work around, a road bike, by definition should be the perfect item as I don't need to really go off-road on my commute. Whoever is responsible for the highways should ensure that they are in a safe condition for all road users, it shouldn't be down to us to restrict our bike choices due to poor maintenance of the roads.

I know expecting them to be perfectly smooth is probably un-reasonable but as JA says there are many techniques that can be employed to limit the effect's of poor road conditions. I always ride about 18-24 inches out from the kerb to avoid drain cover and the rubbish that naturally gets pushed into the gutters. Cyclecraft is also an excellent reference book, empathizing safe and assertive riding to minimize the risk's whilst riding.

ride_whenever

The MTB point is a fair one, but as a compromose, fitting larger tyres to a road bike will make it much safer and give you a bit more bump riding ability over 23s. I mean how fast do you need to get to work?

Also as for agility vs roadbike:



Like to see anyone do that on a road bike, MTB generally are much more agile and stable than roadies due to being designed for tight off-road action rather than moving through traffic. The only issue is handlebar width really.

elyobelyob

slc666 wrote:

Hi All

Firstly, I am both a cyclist and motorcyclist and I alternate modes of transport regularly. I would suggest to all London cyclists to have a go at the motorcycle theory test. Even if you do not take the test, buy the book and buy a "hazard perception" practice test and give it a thorough review. Many of the items covered are as relevant to cyclists as they are to motorcyclists (namely the "lifesaver" over shoulder look). I used the official DSA book: ISBN 13: 9780115529306 and DVD: ISBN 13: 9780115528651.

I agree that knowing how to use the road is important, and I have a full motorcycle licence from years ago. I do believe those lessons improved my understanding of the roads and how to look after oneself. However, we already have a cyclists handbook called Roadcraft which gives specific information on cycling techniques.

However, in this case, it seems all a "lifesaver" would have done is allowed him to see what was coming.

Secondly. Your choice of bike can make a difference in certain situations. Due to the state of many of our capital's road hazards such as pot holes, manhole covers and road rubbish, think about getting a mountain bike (at least with front suspension). They have a much better ability to simply ride over most small obstacles and could help prevent any accidents caused by swerving a manhole cover. They may be a bit heavier than road racers or hybrids, but looking at the wheels/tires on such bikes it does not surprise me that a manhole cover is an obstacle that cannot just be ridden straight over.

You can hit a fair amount of the stuff on a general road on a road bike, well, you can lower the weight of the impact when you hit it. I choose heavier road wheels and a single speed hack over a mountain bike, although, I'm more often than not seen on a Brompton. Little wheels aren't so good with these bumps either, but I don't seem to have a problem.

I visited the spot on the way to work this morning, nice to see some flowers already there, will pop down today and leave some myself. Will also make sure I mark the spot on Sunday. I don't think it's right organising anything specific as this is meant to be a day of getting other people into cycling. Advertising a death there in the last week won't do "safe cycling" any good and it is a celebration of cycling. Perhaps I will join the next Critical Mass.

slc666

jashburnham wrote:

slc666 wrote:

Hi All

My first post here.

I work nearby the site of this accident, and passed it yesterday a few hours after the accident. The sight of the bicycle by the side of the road was truely horrible. I offer my condolensces to the family of the cyclist who died.

Having spoken to a few locals and having a closer look at the road layout today, I'd like to make a few suggestions in the hope that they could prevent this type of thing happening. Lobbying government and the Mayor may help in the long run, but hopefully there are things that we can do as individuals to try increase our survival chances.

Firstly, I am both a cyclist and motorcyclist and I alternate modes of transport regularly. I would suggest to all London cyclists to have a go at the motorcycle theory test. Even if you do not take the test, buy the book and buy a "hazard perception" practice test and give it a thorough review. Many of the items covered are as relevant to cyclists as they are to motorcyclists (namely the "lifesaver" over shoulder look). I used the official DSA book: ISBN 13: 9780115529306 and DVD: ISBN 13: 9780115528651.

Secondly. Your choice of bike can make a difference in certain situations. Due to the state of many of our capital's road hazards such as pot holes, manhole covers and road rubbish, think about getting a mountain bike (at least with front suspension). They have a much better ability to simply ride over most small obstacles and could help prevent any accidents caused by swerving a manhole cover. They may be a bit heavier than road racers or hybrids, but looking at the wheels/tires on such bikes it does not surprise me that a manhole cover is an obstacle that cannot just be ridden straight over.

Finally. I did my car driving test in South Africa, where they had a driving system called K53 at the time. The system promoted you to always know what other vehicles where in your proximity. The system was invaluable and I use it all the time on any vehicle. It may have you looking around a lot more, but all it takes is a quick glance around every so often and you'll know whats around you.

Ride safe

S

Welcome to the forum. You make some good points but I'm really not sure about the MTB one. MTB's lack the agility and turn of speed that I find so useful on my roadbikes. IME the danger of manholes can be tackled by riding in Primary, bunny hopping or just good bike handling. I'd suggest novices read the excellent "Cyclecraft" by John Franklin http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-Skilled-Cycling-Techniques-Adults/dp/0117020516/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221824388&sr=8-2

I was unaware of this book. Seems like its just the right thing. From what I gather, not many cyclists would be willing to have an enforced test, with a book like this as the course material.

moonio

If anyone knows the exact location of the accident, it might be worth posting it here

http://www.ghostbikes.org/london

slc666

elyobelyob wrote:

slc666 wrote:

Hi All

Firstly, I am both a cyclist and motorcyclist and I alternate modes of transport regularly. I would suggest to all London cyclists to have a go at the motorcycle theory test. Even if you do not take the test, buy the book and buy a "hazard perception" practice test and give it a thorough review. Many of the items covered are as relevant to cyclists as they are to motorcyclists (namely the "lifesaver" over shoulder look). I used the official DSA book: ISBN 13: 9780115529306 and DVD: ISBN 13: 9780115528651.

I agree that knowing how to use the road is important, and I have a full motorcycle licence from years ago. I do believe those lessons improved my understanding of the roads and how to look after oneself. However, we already have a cyclists handbook called Roadcraft which gives specific information on cycling techniques.

However, in this case, it seems all a "lifesaver" would have done is allowed him to see what was coming.

Secondly. Your choice of bike can make a difference in certain situations. Due to the state of many of our capital's road hazards such as pot holes, manhole covers and road rubbish, think about getting a mountain bike (at least with front suspension). They have a much better ability to simply ride over most small obstacles and could help prevent any accidents caused by swerving a manhole cover. They may be a bit heavier than road racers or hybrids, but looking at the wheels/tires on such bikes it does not surprise me that a manhole cover is an obstacle that cannot just be ridden straight over.

You can hit a fair amount of the stuff on a general road on a road bike, well, you can lower the weight of the impact when you hit it. I choose heavier road wheels and a single speed hack over a mountain bike, although, I'm more often than not seen on a Brompton. Little wheels aren't so good with these bumps either, but I don't seem to have a problem.

I visited the spot on the way to work this morning, nice to see some flowers already there, will pop down today and leave some myself. Will also make sure I mark the spot on Sunday. I don't think it's right organising anything specific as this is meant to be a day of getting other people into cycling. Advertising a death there in the last week won't do "safe cycling" any good and it is a celebration of cycling. Perhaps I will join the next Critical Mass.

The road is clearly too narrow for two lanes and a cycle lane. About a year or so ago, the cycle lane at that point used to be on the sidewalk and not in the road. A bit hard to describe, but the cyle lane ran past the pedestrain crossing still on the road and then via a ramp mounted the sidewalk for the length of this narrow section of road. This was changed and the cycle lane moved onto the road.

From what I have been told about the CCTV footage, the truck was not in the cycle lane and the bicycles wheels never left the cycle lane either. The manhole cover takes up at least 65% of the width of the cycle lane though, so avoiding it whith your wheels will push the handlebars outside the width of the narrow cycle lane. I can't be certain, but I am afraid that this is how this tragedy occured.

The other side of the road is treacherous too. A yellow marked no-go box on the ground allows cars to cross westbound traffic to enter Bell Wharf lane. Cars stop before the box, but bicycles don't and there have been several t-bone style accidents there.

On the other hand, the most fantastic cycle lanes have been completed over Southwark Bridge. They are wide, and separated from traffic flow with high solid concrete barriers. I have a feeling that the city put them in to primarily control traffic flow over the bridge though, and not to make it safer for cyclists.

S

Greg T

slc666 wrote:

The other side of the road is treacherous too

S

West bound from the bottom of Tower Hill all the way to the bottom of the Embankment is a nightmare.

The section 700m east of Soutwark bridge is God awful.

elyobelyob

The road is clearly too narrow for two lanes and a cycle lane. About a year or so ago, the cycle lane at that point used to be on the sidewalk and not in the road. A bit hard to describe, but the cyle lane ran past the pedestrain crossing still on the road and then via a ramp mounted the sidewalk for the length of this narrow section of road. This was changed and the cycle lane moved onto the road.

From what I have been told about the CCTV footage, the truck was not in the cycle lane and the bicycles wheels never left the cycle lane either. The manhole cover takes up at least 65% of the width of the cycle lane though, so avoiding it whith your wheels will push the handlebars outside the width of the narrow cycle lane. I can't be certain, but I am afraid that this is how this tragedy occured.

The other side of the road is treacherous too. A yellow marked no-go box on the ground allows cars to cross westbound traffic to enter Bell Wharf lane. Cars stop before the box, but bicycles don't and there have been several t-bone style accidents there.

On the other hand, the most fantastic cycle lanes have been completed over Southwark Bridge. They are wide, and separated from traffic flow with high solid concrete barriers. I have a feeling that the city put them in to primarily control traffic flow over the bridge though, and not to make it safer for cyclists.

S

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/286 ... 27af_b.jpg

Here's a photo I took this morning.

If you take a look at the two vehicles turning right (red car and truck/trailer in front), they had to wait for the other van coming the other way to be let out due to that cul-de-sac currently being single lane exit & entrance. You'll probably notice the size of the "turn right" feeder lane, and perhaps the size of the trailer let alone the red car. They were sticking out into the RH lane meaning that two lanes of traffic were squeezing through 1.5 lanes width.

Guess where that extra 0.5 lane is going to come from?

The lorry driver has reportedly been arrested for dangerous driving ...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

slc666

elyobelyob wrote:

The road is clearly too narrow for two lanes and a cycle lane. About a year or so ago, the cycle lane at that point used to be on the sidewalk and not in the road. A bit hard to describe, but the cyle lane ran past the pedestrain crossing still on the road and then via a ramp mounted the sidewalk for the length of this narrow section of road. This was changed and the cycle lane moved onto the road.

From what I have been told about the CCTV footage, the truck was not in the cycle lane and the bicycles wheels never left the cycle lane either. The manhole cover takes up at least 65% of the width of the cycle lane though, so avoiding it whith your wheels will push the handlebars outside the width of the narrow cycle lane. I can't be certain, but I am afraid that this is how this tragedy occured.

The other side of the road is treacherous too. A yellow marked no-go box on the ground allows cars to cross westbound traffic to enter Bell Wharf lane. Cars stop before the box, but bicycles don't and there have been several t-bone style accidents there.

On the other hand, the most fantastic cycle lanes have been completed over Southwark Bridge. They are wide, and separated from traffic flow with high solid concrete barriers. I have a feeling that the city put them in to primarily control traffic flow over the bridge though, and not to make it safer for cyclists.

S

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/286 ... 27af_b.jpg

Here's a photo I took this morning.

If you take a look at the two vehicles turning right (red car and truck/trailer in front), they had to wait for the other van coming the other way to be let out due to that cul-de-sac currently being single lane exit & entrance. You'll probably notice the size of the "turn right" feeder lane, and perhaps the size of the trailer let alone the red car. They were sticking out into the RH lane meaning that two lanes of traffic were squeezing through 1.5 lanes width.

Guess where that extra 0.5 lane is going to come from?

The lorry driver has reportedly been arrested for dangerous driving ...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

Exactly!

I wonder why the city moved the cycle lane off the sidewalk and back onto the road in the last year or so.

S

biondino

Oh my god. What on EARTH was she thinking???

Bassjunkieuk

biondino wrote:

Oh my god. What on EARTH was she thinking???

OMFG! Me and the missus got side swiped in our car by a HGV so why on earth a cyclist would try doing something like that is beyond me!

graeme_s-2

While actually riding a bike, there's no way I'd put myself in a lorry's blind spot(s). I always give them a very wide berth, and will only occasionally filter past them on the right if I know the junction/lights sequence for the queue I'm in.

As a pedestrian though, I could have seen myself crossing a queue of stationary traffic in front of a lorry like that. I just don't think it would have entered my mind that a lorry driver would be unable to see me in such a situation

chriskempton

Biondino,

She was walking her bike across a road in front of what was a stationary lorry. It then 'edged' forward and hit her. I think you're under the impression she was riding at 90 degrees to moving traffic.

The picture you've pasted, without that context, could give a misleading impression of what happened.

I don't think "oh my god, what was she thinking?" is a very well judged comment.

Chris

spursn17

slc666 wrote:

elyobelyob wrote:

The road is clearly too narrow for two lanes and a cycle lane. About a year or so ago, the cycle lane at that point used to be on the sidewalk and not in the road. A bit hard to describe, but the cyle lane ran past the pedestrain crossing still on the road and then via a ramp mounted the sidewalk for the length of this narrow section of road. This was changed and the cycle lane moved onto the road.

From what I have been told about the CCTV footage, the truck was not in the cycle lane and the bicycles wheels never left the cycle lane either. The manhole cover takes up at least 65% of the width of the cycle lane though, so avoiding it whith your wheels will push the handlebars outside the width of the narrow cycle lane. I can't be certain, but I am afraid that this is how this tragedy occured.

The other side of the road is treacherous too. A yellow marked no-go box on the ground allows cars to cross westbound traffic to enter Bell Wharf lane. Cars stop before the box, but bicycles don't and there have been several t-bone style accidents there.

On the other hand, the most fantastic cycle lanes have been completed over Southwark Bridge. They are wide, and separated from traffic flow with high solid concrete barriers. I have a feeling that the city put them in to primarily control traffic flow over the bridge though, and not to make it safer for cyclists.

S

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/286 ... 27af_b.jpg

Here's a photo I took this morning.

If you take a look at the two vehicles turning right (red car and truck/trailer in front), they had to wait for the other van coming the other way to be let out due to that cul-de-sac currently being single lane exit & entrance. You'll probably notice the size of the "turn right" feeder lane, and perhaps the size of the trailer let alone the red car. They were sticking out into the RH lane meaning that two lanes of traffic were squeezing through 1.5 lanes width.

Guess where that extra 0.5 lane is going to come from?

The lorry driver has reportedly been arrested for dangerous driving ...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

Exactly!

I wonder why the city moved the cycle lane off the sidewalk and back onto the road in the last year or so.

S

How many cyclists would use a lane on the pavement?

I wouldn't, I'd rather take my chances on the road. I use this road every day and the yellow box on the W/B is a pain, but needs to be taken at a reduced speed to make it fairly safe. On the E/B I usually take the whole nearside lane from just after Southwark bridge until I get into the underpass as there is usually traffic cones and various crap in the cycle lane by the ped crossing. I realise that I am quite an aggressive rider and this wouldn't suit some cyclists.

Perhaps the police should target some of the lunatic drivers before they cause an accident instead of just clearing up after it!

Does anyone know how many cyclists have been killed in the greater London area this year?

elyobelyob

How many cyclists would use a lane on the pavement?

There is a "raised bit" of path on Bishopsgate, coming from Shoreditch High Street South, by the new office blocks.

I use this one habitually. It's not part of the pavement as it starts and looks pretty segregated, then stops not far later. But no other traffic use it, except the occasional pizza boy.

However this part of Upper Thames actually needs to go down to single lane due to the sheer size of the motorised traffic that uses it ...