Incident this am 24/09 Southampton Row / Theobalds Rd

womble88

thanks guys, that's reassuring. I never go all out on that stretch (although even going 'balls out' I wouldn't be going that quickly), and I do certainly slow for the zebra crossings, and when approaching any buses / lorries etc...I sometimes think that other cyclists speeding along behind me are as much a danger as they might run into me when I slow, since many on that stretch do seem to go 'balls out' (I like that expression biondino ).

Personally I think always riding like every other car / pedestrian /even cyclist will do something stupid and unexpected is the best policy...

gabriel959

Sad sad day .... AGAIN!!!

Condolences to the family.

Anyway, about the dog subject. I like dogs, I think they are lovely animals but it really annoys me when owners use cycle paths as dog paths. I am an incoming vehicle, if the dog goes in front of me, I won't slow down. It happened to me once that I had an accident because I swerved so I didn't hit a dog. The owner was apologetic but I told him to keep the dog on the lead and suddenly he tells me he doesn't need to and I said to him I don't need to slow down either only to predict which trajectory is your stupid dog going to take, next time I will not swerve or stop ... as far as I know is just like if an animal jumps onto the road in front of a car. Nasty but necessary.

homercles

biondino wrote:

I always expect cars to turn left

Going back to the leaflet idea, something like that is what I would have it say - always anticipate that the manoeuvre a car will make is the one which will hit you!

jonginge

gabriel959 wrote:

It happened to me once that I had an accident because I swerved so I didn't hit a dog. The owner was apologetic but I told him to keep the dog on the lead and suddenly he tells me he doesn't need to...

This is covered in the highway code...

56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.


Not a mandatory rule, though

dondare

damianmc wrote:

ITV London news report

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSW7W-dMEw

That is a big lorry, when it started to turn the cyclist would have had nowhere to go. Vehicles this size have no place in London which is one of the most crowded places on this planet.

biondino

And it consumes 7 million people's worth of stuff. How would you have it delivered?

moconnor01

I just saw/heard the short news coverage of the tragedy this morning - I was a little confused - was it a traffic update or a story about the terrible incident which left a fellow human being dead .....?

linsen

you make a good point, Biondino.

My Dad was a lorry driver for years and so I have some sympathy with them. They sometimes do some silly things - when I was a teenager I got caught in the sidewind of a lorry and ended up in a ditch. He didn't even notice! On the whole though they have to manoeuvre large beasts through small spaces - makes sense to keep well out of the way.

I agree that beginners need help - I bark instructions constantly when I take the children (age 7 and 9) on the roads and if adults haven't had instruction on a bike who's to assume they have a clue how to cycle defensively? It's the same problem across society though - the people who really need the help won't take up the offer. Cycling courses will be full of conscientious cyclists while the nutters take out pedestrians on footpaths and jump red lights.

Maybe warning signs on roundabouts to give lorries space?

dondare

biondino wrote:

And it consumes 7 million people's worth of stuff. How would you have it delivered?

By something smaller. London's streets were laid down centuries ago and are mostly too narrow and the turnings too tight for artics to navigate safely. It's not only cyclists who get killed; even pedestrians on the pavement get crushed when these things change direction.

Littigator

dondare wrote:

biondino wrote:

And it consumes 7 million people's worth of stuff. How would you have it delivered?

By something smaller. London's streets were laid down centuries ago and are mostly too narrow and the turnings too tight for artics to navigate safely. It's not only cyclists who get killed; even pedestrians on the pavement get crushed when these things change direction.

Are you on drugs? Are you seriously suggesting that all large lorries should be replaced by 4 white vans each with white van men driving them? And that'd be safer????

HelllllllooOOOOoooooo!

And what about the environmental impact, not to mention the increase in traffic volume

sc999cs

*DISCLAIMER* My comment below is not related to the sad incident today, and my thoughts and condolences go to the cyclist's family.

If you've ever seen articulated lorries reversing or being turned in tight spaces you'll realise how skilled the drivers have to be. I have seen artics turning in a space I'd feel reluctant to turn a car in.

linsen wrote:

It's the same problem across society though - the people who really need the help won't take up the offer. Cycling courses will be full of conscientious cyclists while the nutters take out pedestrians on footpaths and jump red lights.

Maybe warning signs on roundabouts to give lorries space?

You have to be a completely clueless to think it is safe to cycle up the left hand side of a vehicle or jump red lights, and shouldn't be on the road. As for the nutters who do have a clue, they obviously don't seem to care about the risks so let it be on their heads. It is sad but as the proverb goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

linsen

That is true but I think people really don't think about the space a lorry takes up. How many drivers do you see pulling out on the right of a lorry onto a roundabout and nearly getting squeezed?

The only real solution is a lot more patience and consideration from all parties.

biondino

sc999cs wrote:

You have to be a completely clueless to think it is safe to cycle up the left hand side of a vehicle or jump red lights, and shouldn't be on the road. As for the nutters who do have a clue, they obviously don't seem to care about the risks so let it be on their heads. It is sad but as the proverb goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Red light jumping is obvious - it's illegal so even the people who blithely do it realise that. Going up the inside of a lorry - yes it's not much of a leap to realise it's a dumb thing to do but inexperienced riders, as well as idiots, may not be aware of the dangers. Perhaps all lorries should have mandatory DO NOT UNDERTAKE, CYCLISTS stickers on the left rear.

snooks

biondino wrote:

Perhaps all lorries should have mandatory DO NOT UNDERTAKE, CYCLISTS stickers on the left rear.

And right rear for when they are on the continent

bigmat

Always Tyred wrote:

Coriander wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Without wanting to be wilfully controversial, any classes to genuinely promote cycling safely in London would have to encourage red light jumping where appropriate and therefore aren't likely to be proposed by the government in a hurry. I feel far more exposed when I wait patiently in line behind buses / HGV's, than when I (safely) make my way to the front of the queue, and set off when it is safe to proceed (and not when the traffic lights tell me) which often allows me to beat the traffic and negotiate junctions in relative peace. Likewise mounting pavements, whilst not something I would ever do if it got in the way of pedestrians, is a valuable means of getting out of the way of larger road users.

I do think a lot of the comments on these forums are a bit on the sanctimonious side when it comes to strict compliance with the road traffic laws - they don't really support safe cycling in my opinion, and any attempt to indoctrinate cyclists with a set of rules designed for cars is a bad idea. Roadcraft specifically for cyclists should be encouraged, but I honestly think a bit of bending of the law is essential in London traffic.

You are just wrong.

But no one has set out exactly why. So many cyclists adopt this rationale, it can't be THAT obvious.

So, Mat, here's the point: You are completely correct that in many instances being stuck in the actual traffic as it pinches you on the opposite side of a junction. So you have a few options.

(1) get into the primary position and then move over once you are the other side of the junction. Drivers may not like this but if you are a positive cyclist going at a reasonable pace, it will be over before they see an annoying space build up in front of you. No driver will drive through you.
(2) you explain how you normally get to the front of a queue. If there's no advance stop, I don't think there's many cyclists who would criticise being a bike length in front of traffic (and therefore the stop line) anyway. In that event, what is stopping you from again adopting the primary position? You are in an advantageous position to observe lights changing in other directions and to be quicker off the mark than motorists. Again, no motorist will drive right through you and even across large juntions, the entire event should be over in a matter of seconds, you can move to the normal road position and traffic will then be able to pass you.

(3) jumping a red light is the only behaviour that will possibly result in traffic a having a run on you. It is therefore most likely, out of any of the options, to result in a dangerous speed differential at a dangerous pinch point. It is also likely to make motorists less sympathetic of you when they do pass. Even discounting the chance of you getting it wrong and encountering opposing traffic, there is no benefit to running the red light.

Although I think we do have to bend the rules (such as getting ahead of the stop line) I disagree with the extent to which you want to do it (such as running the red light).

I'm actually less critical of the pavement antics. I entuirely sympathise with fear of HGV's. Providing common sense is applied when there are people about, its probably best that you are safe rather than paniced into a gutter. But it does enrage motorists and pedestrians. Cycling on the pavement in a confident manner as though you are really heading somewhere, with a plan to use the pavement the whole way, is a bad idea. At least make the effort to look as though you are about to stop and walk across a junction, or post a letter or something. Bunny hopping on and off like you had it all planned even annoys me as a cyclist. To my mind, you should only have to use a pavement for a short distance anyway, so its a small compromise.

Just to qualify my earlier comments, my number 1 priority is always to ensure that I'm not interfering with other road users or pedestrians when I occasionally jump a light. Therefore, its something I would usually only do on familiar roads or where its very obviously no risk to anyone (pedestrian crossings with no pedestrians etc.). Re the mounting the pavement, I would do that to avoid being driven into. Is that wrong? Sorry if it is.

Re the comments that "no driver will drive through you", well isn't the whole point of this thread kind of suggesting that isn't the case? I've had cars go straight into the back of me at roundabouts where I've been stationary, in the beloved primary position, waiting for a suitable gap. They just don't see you sometimes, as in they see you, but they don't really see you. So if I'm at a junction, the way is clear, I'm in front of a bus and the lights are red, provided there are no pedestrians and I'm confident about the sequence of the lights, I will proceed safely.

Which leaves the argument that I'm giving cyclists a bad name by frustrating drivers (how exactly? By getting out of their way before the lights change, rather than setting off slowly in front of them when they eventually do?)

Anyway, in spite of the above I am just plain wrong, as many people have pointed out. All that remains is to express my sympathies for the victim of today's accident and hope that we all stay safe on the roads, however we choose to do so.

Warran

I will put a little perspective on this, I currently live in Shanghai and have to put up with the following rules for cyclists.

- If you hit someone or something its is automatically your fault if you are bigger even if they ran out in to the road with out looking (all the population does this). Thus Civie < bike <trike<motor bike<rice rocket<fork lift<car<bus< HGV<Tank. Guilt travels up no matter how inbred whoever you hit is.
- If you acknowledge another road users presence through eye contact it is automatically your fault if you hit them.
- Do ride your bike/electric bike/motor bike/take away stall the wrong way at night down a cycle lane with no lights.
- Beep your horn at everything and anything especially if you just bought a new Audi from the proceeds of tainted baby milk or poorly built schools. Horns are no longer useful if everyone cries wolf every ten seconds.
- License plates are illegal especially for trucks carrying illegal refuse falling over the sides.
- Red lights are to be ignored at all times if you are one of the 16 million bike owners (every one owns a bike) or as a bus driver and your a little late.
- Helmets and lights are frowned upon.
- The average mob on the street is judge jury and executor for all road accidents.
- Licenses are issued by an easily bribed officer once you have passed a test in a mock city which includes no other road users.
- If you see another road user who has been hit by a car do not help them as you will be liable for their medical bills instead stand back and gawp.
- Do not give way.

Thank god for the cycle lanes.

Hong Kong, the acception to the above rules, I wonder why that is.

Blighty with its sane and polite drivers issued with well regulated licenses, reliable coppers and well maintained roads is my idea of heaven.

beseku

See, when I saw the road users in Beijing, it struck me as organised chaos. Yes, no one gives way and the driving style includes leaning on the horn the whole way, but as everyone expected the worst of everyone else, it all kind of flowed easily.

I suppose with no rules to follow, its harder to get pissed off at people who follow them and its easier to expect the worst to occur.

toontra

This accident is going to be featured on the 6pm ITV London news, together with a piece about cycling accidents in general. Let's see how balanced they are.

snooks

Just sorted this out...any suggestions?

Before I send it off to everyone and every cycling related company I can think of to pass it on to be printed out

Just a small idea that might actually go somewhere

It can be downloaded from here:
http://www.filedropper.com/cyclistsa4

Littigator

KER-RIST that's certainly eye catching

Great work snooks!

On the drivers one if we are going to do it, the background picture could be a cycle helmet with a sledghammer through it I thought.

I've got an old helmet that can be sacrificed, it could be fun getting some pics

snooks

Littigator wrote:

KER-RIST that's certainly eye catching

Tee heee

bigmat

Good poster! Maybe some small print at the bottom, saying to never pass a bus / HGV on the left (I was going to add "if it leaves you with nowhere to go / there's a junction approaching", but probably best just say NEVER do it, as its almost always a very bad idea...)

_Brun_

Well that'll certainly get people's attention! I do however reckon it could do with a specific warning about the danger of filtering up the inside of big stuff.

My thoughts had been along the lines of a road sign - back of a truck with a flashing left indicator, plus bike on the left all inside a big red circle with a line through it. Unfortunately I'm going straight from work to play football, and then the pub, but may have chance to knock summat up tomorrow evening.

gabriel959

It should say "2 cyclists" instead of "2 cyclist".

Sorry :oops:

linsen

Brilliant. It should go on the backs of all lorries!

toontra

toontra wrote:

This accident is going to be featured on the 6pm ITV London news, together with a piece about cycling accidents in general. Let's see how balanced they are.

Well, they made it their lead story, and interviewed a bloke from the LCC and Emily Thornberry (my MP). Generally good, taking mainly about HGV's blind spots and what should be done about these deaths.

On the BBC1 6.30 London news, on the other hand, they didn't mention this accident at all, but chose instead to feature a celeb-lead (Jenny Seagrove) protest about cyclists having killed two dogs in a park somewhere, sometime.

I've just come off the phone having lodged a complaint with the BBC about their news priorities!

lost_in_thought

linsen wrote:

Brilliant. It should go on the backs of all lorries!

now THAT is a good idea... one for the RHA perhaps...

always_tyred

No driver will drive through you.

Seriously - if you place yourself in line of sight, in front of a driver in the primary position where you cannot be passed, unless they have freshly injected something really very stimulating, they will not attempt to murder you by driving through you. At least, its a great deal less likely than being caught be a driver trying to squeeze past.

always_tyred

snooks wrote:

Just sorted this out...any suggestions?

Before I send it off to everyone and every cycling related company I can think of to pass it on to be printed out

Just a small idea that might actually go somewhere

It can be downloaded from here:
http://www.filedropper.com/cyclistsa4

Comrades! Your party needs YOU!

(Good effort - I'd lob in a few quid to support a Scottish version)

cjcp

Always Tyred wrote:

snooks wrote:

Just sorted this out...any suggestions?

Before I send it off to everyone and every cycling related company I can think of to pass it on to be printed out

Just a small idea that might actually go somewhere

It can be downloaded from here:
http://www.filedropper.com/cyclistsa4

Comrades! Your party needs YOU!

(Good effort - I'd lob in a few quid to support a Scottish version)

Very good effort, Snooks.