A death that could have been prevented

Porgy

lost_in_thought wrote:

I think it's pretty simple...

I've had one near miss with a left-turning lorry, I was in the ASL, it stopped alongside me then turned left on green with no indication. It crushed my bike against those oh-so-helpful railings, and I still don't know how but I scrambled over the railings to safety. I don't intend to put myself in that position again.

I think stopping is your best option. If a large vehicle, ie one I don't want to be on the inside of, is overtaking me or trying to, I'll slow down so it's well away from me ASAP, thereby avoiding the situation altogether.

Also, if I see a left indicator come on on a vehicle I am alongside, I'll hit the brakes until I'm behind it. I'd rather not rely on the driver's judgement.

yeah well that is what i do - but still - slight error of judgement - or a bit slow to react one day - and that could be it - as you nearly found out ourself. Luckily I've not had as as close a call as you have - closest for me was a lorry turning left on a wide clear junction for some reason tried to race ahead of me to turn left - wasn't indicating - and i managed to stop in time - and luckily he stopped too when he realised that he was not going to clear me. otherwise....who knows?

But afterwards the guy just shrugged his shoulders and said "I was nowhere near you - what's your problem?"

so that's why we both came screeching to a halt then eh?

some people

The Chingford Skinhead

I understand that LGVs/HGVs have blind spots. I'm not quite so clear why they are therefore deemed road worthy BUT...

I also know that mirrors, CCTV and the technology behind parking sensors have been around for a long time and could get rid of the most dangerous blind spots.

However, the freight trade claim it is all to expensive to fit at their expense and that the answer is to educate their victims at taxpayers' expense. Seems like an odd response to me. Why should I be paying (yet again) for something which the truck owners ought to be doing as a requirement to use their vehicles.

If I wanted to transport toxic fluids in an open top container how many of you would accept the argument that it was too dear for me to make the container water tight so the responsibility should be on you to make sure you weren't in the way when it splashed whenever i hit the brakes?

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's a great shame.

However, I have to agree with whyamihere - that's why you steer well clear of lorries. It's not worth putting yourself in danger by filtering. If one's passed me and they're likely to do so again, I'll wait behind them at lights. I've had HGV drivers thank me for doing so.

I really do not like HGVs in town full stop, but +1. (Although not had HGV drivers thank me. Not knowingly, anyway.)

deptfordmarmoset

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

I understand that LGVs/HGVs have blind spots. I'm not quite so clear why they are therefore deemed road worthy BUT...

I also know that mirrors, CCTV and the technology behind parking sensors have been around for a long time and could get rid of the most dangerous blind spots.

However, the freight trade claim it is all to expensive to fit at their expense and that the answer is to educate their victims at taxpayers' expense. Seems like an odd response to me. Why should I be paying (yet again) for something which the truck owners ought to be doing as a requirement to use their vehicles.

If I wanted to transport toxic fluids in an open top container how many of you would accept the argument that it was too dear for me to make the container water tight so the responsibility should be on you to make sure you weren't in the way when it splashed whenever i hit the brakes?

I think I agree with all of this and good analogy too. Imagine a world where the game of darts didn't exist and you suddenly tried to introduce it into pubs. ''You must be mad, throwing arrows around in a public space!'' the H&S people would say. The same goes for LGVs: ''What, 20 tons of blind spot whenever it turns?'' But by historical precedent we have both. And because they're already there, we accept them. And, because ''we'' accept them as they are, there is less reason for manufacturers and fleet owners to reduce their accidental killing potential. It's almost 2010 - we have the technological tools to drastically reduce the risk. We no longer have the excuse.

Mike Healey

MadammeMarie wrote:

NO, NO, NO, NO!!! :x
I can't believe the comments I see here, in a CYCLING BOARD!!!! What the hell? It's like reading the Daily f***iing Mail!!!!
It was the lorry driver who did the wrong thing here. HE stopped in the box. HE put her and all cyclists lives in danger. HE should have at least been fined, have his f***ing license removed and made to re-take the driving test and learn the f***ing Higway Code. Yes, that code that the "anti-cycling brigade" keeps throwing at us at any opportunity!
The fact that this driver was not punished, is typical "car mentality", which was discussed in this board not long ago.
If she had been able to stop at the front of the lorry, she would still be alive. Being inexperienced or wrong guessing is not ILLEGAL!! :x :evil:

And the evidence that he could have stopped before the ASL? We don't know if he could have done; was amber gambling and realised too late that he should stop or was simply caught by the timing of the red and wasn't able to stop in time.

The evidence quoted shows that she was unwise to undertake when he was signalling left. If that is what happened, then railing at the driver is pointless.

deptfordmarmoset

Mike Healey wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

NO, NO, NO, NO!!! :x
I can't believe the comments I see here, in a CYCLING BOARD!!!! What the hell? It's like reading the Daily f***iing Mail!!!!
It was the lorry driver who did the wrong thing here. HE stopped in the box. HE put her and all cyclists lives in danger. HE should have at least been fined, have his f***ing license removed and made to re-take the driving test and learn the f***ing Higway Code. Yes, that code that the "anti-cycling brigade" keeps throwing at us at any opportunity!
The fact that this driver was not punished, is typical "car mentality", which was discussed in this board not long ago.
If she had been able to stop at the front of the lorry, she would still be alive. Being inexperienced or wrong guessing is not ILLEGAL!! :x :evil:

And the evidence that he could have stopped before the ASL? We don't know if he could have done; was amber gambling and realised too late that he should stop or was simply caught by the timing of the red and wasn't able to stop in time.

The evidence quoted shows that she was unwise to undertake when he was signalling left. If that is what happened, then railing at the driver is pointless.

I know of no reason why an ASL could not have the same status as a box junction: if you can't pass it, don't enter it. If box junctions can have that simple requirement for the purposes of circulation, then ASLs could have the same status for the purposes of survival.

Maybe there are reasons. Tell me what they are.

tailwindhome

Porgy wrote:

They are after all the single biggest killer of cyclists.

Are they?

I'm pretty sure 'Eau Rouge' posted stats on one of the other 'HGV' which trashed this claim?

I may be wrong. I'm tired and the turkey still needs prepped for tomorrow.

Wildboar

As someone who enjpoys cycling and ahs done from an early age I can see what the problem is from a cyclist point of view but as someone with an HGV licence I can see the other side. The lights change you can stop in a very short distance on your bike but a fully laden HGV can't stop in the same way and even empty Artics will skid their trialer wheels if applied. I have seen car drivers who mostly only drive cars attempt to drive up the left hand side of an HGV turning left and indicating so because they see a gap....

I am not excusing HGV drivers as some will be not so good but the Blind spot is there as it is with cars and you must assume they haven't seen you as I do when I ride on 2 wheels for my own safety Motorised or not I have been taken out on a roundabout by a car driver who simply didn't notice me before she entered the roundabout whilst on a motorbike I saw it coming but could do nothing about it as I had very little power being on a 125 (not a learner was picking the bike up) I would rather err on the side of caution that be hurt again especially on a bicycle since whether you are right or wrong it will hurt me more...

I have been out only a couple of times in the car over the last week and yet have seen so much bad driving that it winds me up. I know it's no excuse but there will always be bad drivers unfortunately regardless of what they drive so surely it's better to live and then perhaps see them prosecuted than be dead or see the incident coming and avoid it......

sarajoy

1) Yes it was terrible, yes ASLs should be better enforced or associated with better rules which lead to less vehicles sitting in the ASL (which usually leads me to mutter something like 'funny-looking bike, that' under my breath).

2) Yes, people mess up and make the occasional mistake - cyclists and motorists. It would be nice if we could all make mistakes and survive (as many of us do, with near-misses etc.), but occasionally a mistake is a fatal one.

3) What are the stats? Are cyclist deaths on the increase or decrease? Every one is a tragedy yes, but it'd be good to see where we are heading.

roger_merriman

sarajoy wrote:

1) Yes it was terrible, yes ASLs should be better enforced or associated with better rules which lead to less vehicles sitting in the ASL (which usually leads me to mutter something like 'funny-looking bike, that' under my breath).

2) Yes, people mess up and make the occasional mistake - cyclists and motorists. It would be nice if we could all make mistakes and survive (as many of us do, with near-misses etc.), but occasionally a mistake is a fatal one.

3) What are the stats? Are cyclist deaths on the increase or decrease? Every one is a tragedy yes, but it'd be good to see where we are heading.

don't have the stats to hand but deaths are low 100's so they wobble up and down but from memory are broadly stable.

As it's so low making much sense out of the death stats is not easy. Deaths from HGV in london is single figures so even less useful though seems to be a trend for women, though with low figures could just be a blip.

like a lot of things the perception of risk and the risk are two different beasts.

Wildboar

I read an article recently about that where Women made up a higher percentage of accidents compared to the stats for those cycling, they reckoned it was down to lack of confidence and aggresive cycling such as making the traffic notice you and so on...

Can't comment being male and having a countryside commute which rarely passes traffic..

sarajoy

Well, that's encouraging if the numbers are too low to tell, that implies a few of those "phew, close one" kinds of mistakes which sadly are too close.

Recently I've read Bad Science which solidified lots of vague thoughts I already had but also gave me a better idea of really how wobbly stats are - you do need rather a lot of filtering of possible randomness or mitigating factors before you can start to actually find them useful.

People dying is indeed rubbish, but I wish for every reported death/murder/missing child in the news we could also see a sort of qualifier of how many others also happened this week. It seems that if things are rare enough to get reported singly, that's sort of good news. Lots of stuff never makes the headlines because it's happening all the time - and yet still most of us never have anything awful happen to us personally.

Whoops, sorry, drifted off there...

sarajoy

Wildboar wrote:

I read an article recently about that where Women made up a higher percentage of accidents compared to the stats for those cycling, they reckoned it was down to lack of confidence and aggresive cycling such as making the traffic notice you and so on...

Can't comment being male and having a countryside commute which rarely passes traffic..

Very low numbers, there - and as we've just said, the higher percentage of women could easily have been so randomly. In order to really tell, we need more data - although to get said data we need more deaths, so it's not the nicest thing to call for.... And the assertive/confidence thing is merely speculation based on not-yet-useful amounts of data...

Wildboar

I'm sure the information gathered included that gained from those cycling rather than by someone at the side of the road counting the numbers but I don't want to see daths to give stats any more crdence tbh. would rather see people being more aware and avoiding it regardless of who's in the wrong..

sarajoy

Well, that's vaguely my point - people do make mistakes and very occasionally they're fatal - the more careful we are (whatever vehicle we use, including feet), the less mistakes will lead to death.

But I'm not sure there are enough numbers to figure out whose fault it tends to be in order to point fingers at one group or another - clearly if we haven't enough data to do so, then that's a good thing?

The main thing is not to turn into or cause a statistic.

Rich158

It seems there is a lot of focus on the ASL. Now I'm yet to be convinced that putting vulnerable slow moving cyclists at the head of a queue of traffic waiting to pull accross a junction is neccesarily a good idea, in the same way I think most cycle lanes are inherently dangerous as they give a false sense of security. I'm not sure what the answer is to the ASL but I'm yet to be convinced they are the right solution to the problem.

On the subject of blind spots, yes lorry design should be improved, but don't forget that every timea driver is checking his blind spot mirror he has to take his eyes off the road, and perhaps in busy traffic it wouldn't get done as much as it should. Personally I would like to ban HGV's rfom just about every city and town center.

I would also like to see more education of cyclists. I'm always amazed at how many sneek up the side of large vehicles when I ride in central London.

collawson

Do you know why bin lorries have blind spots? - the owners are TOO CHEAP to spend the

money on state of the art camera systems - mirrors are crap. Until someone sues an owner

for the short comings of his HGV there'll be no improvement. Money talks and if owners are

worried about being sued they'll spend 500 quid per lorry and fix the problems.

PedalPedant

Rich158 wrote:

It seems there is a lot of focus on the ASL. Now I'm yet to be convinced that putting vulnerable slow moving cyclists at the head of a queue of traffic waiting to pull accross a junction is neccesarily a good idea, in the same way I think most cycle lanes are inherently dangerous as they give a false sense of security.

I've never really understood the benefit either. ASLs that have a marked cycle lane running up to them on the left seem to positively encourage just the sort of behaviour that leads to these accidents.

Any measures to make things safer for cyclists that involve simply painting lines on the road are waste of time in my opinion.

PP

Mr_Cellophane

Not necessarily the drivers fault, more due to badly written laws

178

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)]

Some of the cyclist who posted comments there are pretty stupid as well.

I'm am both a cyclist and a car driver, so I'm not just car-driver bashing. Whilst cycling, and this applies to 99% of drivers particularly Buses; lorries, and other large vehicles, they leave no room at the side of the road when at a stand still. There have been times when I@ve had to dismount my bike, pull it onto the pavement, make my way to the front of the traffic lights on the pavement, then return to the road waiting for the the lights to turn green. I dare not try and squeeze past the vehicles in case the lights change and I'm stuck between vehicle and pavement. With regards to the above incedent, this poor chap witnessed his partner's fate; I just hope he's manageing to cope.

- Dominique Marion, london

How about waiting behind the cars ? Another cyclist heading for an early grave I fear.

OldSkoolKona

Support LiT's and Rich's comments - the statement LiT makes about better being safe and alive than right and dead is something everyone should bear in mind (and no, it doesn't absolve responsibility of motorists).

Too many inexperienced cyclists think that they always should filter to the front of the queue. I've seen this several times on cyclists I've buddied and its only when I point out to them the alternative of sitting in the traffic that the realisation dawns on them. They had never thought of doing that before

Wallace1492

It is a very tricky subject. There are a lot of bad drivers out there, but there are also a lot of bad/inexperienced/risk taking cyclists.

HGV's and busses are a huge risk, their size dictates this.

Yes, there may be technology to put on more mirrors, video camera's, sensors, but does that mean the driver will have more time to take all these on board while also driving the truck and watching the road in front? Probably not.

For myself, I only filter if there is a clear, safe route out and no left turn. I never trust vehicle indicators, whether on or not.

I do not filter past vehicles to lights if it is obvious I will be quickly overtaken by them - what is the point? It give me more danger. I do see a lot of cyclists doing it, and they hold up traffic very soon after the lights. Why? Madness.

I do treat all vehicles as having potential to harm me, if I can do something to keep safe I will do - taking primary behind a large vehicle near any junction suits me fine, I want to get home, safe.

My first objective on the commute is to get there and back alive. Saving a few seconds matters not, neither does racing, doing a good time, etc.

Cyclists are more vunerable, no driver wants to harm a cyclist (apart from a rare few psyco's) but many are bad drivers, misjudge, get distracted etc. We need to anticipate that and keep ourselves safe. This does not mean we should not castigate bad driving, we should weild a stick, but as has been said, a small error by a driver can result in a cyclists death.

colintrav

I would agree with that ^^