Rider Down - New Kings Road / Wandsworth Bridge Road

DonDaddyD

I think cyclists should be held accountable for their actions even if they come off worse in a collision.

I also think motorists should be held accountable for their actions, same as above.

If a person runs a red light and is then hit by a vehicle crossing the junction the onus shouldn't be on the driver to do anything but simply point out that the cyclist shouldn't have ran the red light. This would be the same for a car. The law has to be fair and a precedent maintained and upheld. At the same time the law has to protect vulnerable people. I would argue that the law, rules and guidelines in some circumstance does not do enough to proctect cyclists.

Policing ASLs (having more of them) would be a start as would more ASLs. Phased lighting - so cyclists can go first at busy, complex junctions would help. Letting cyclists turn left on red lights, might help.

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. Sometimes it is due to the cyclist positioning themselves in 'no mans land'. Other times the vehicle has come from behind the cyclist and turned left beside them. I've been in situations wheres the vehicle has not indicated and both have set off at the same time with the vehicle suddenly turning left.

There are too many scenarios to discuss. Me? I try to choose the safest option given the situation and knowledge of the road. If that means waiting behind a vehicle and taking primary, I will do it even if it adds minutes onto my journey or the vehicle behind gets annoyed/beeps horn. If I am at the front of the queue and get the feeling the car behind is going to zoom off, I wait by the curb until that care has passed, set off slower and signal my intention. All of the time I just hope I've made the right decision.

One absolute rule I follow. When I stop at the lights I try to stop in a position where I am able to make eye contact with the motorist behind me so that they are aware of me. If I cannot see the motorist behind me - I.e. Lorry driver - then that means I'm in the wrong position and I try to find another position. Secondly, I try to make sure the driver in the vehicle in front - usually through their wing mirror. This is to assess what their intention is. I think this helps.

But the situation that lead to this discussion, I cannot comment on what I would do as I do not know what happened.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. .

It's not the place for the discussion, but had there been a segregated cycle lane it probably wouldn't have happened.

Ultimately, if you have bicycles and lorries sharing the same road space, some cyclists are going to end up underneath them.

Everything else you do is just mitigating that. Put the bike on a different bit of road to a lorry and it's much much harder to end up underneath it.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. .

It's not the place for the discussion, but had there been a segregated cycle lane it probably wouldn't have happened.

Ultimately, if you have bicycles and lorries sharing the same road space, some cyclists are going to end up underneath them.

Everything else you do is just mitigating that. Put the bike on a different bit of road to a lorry and it's much much harder to end up underneath it.

Just get bikes off the road entirely - problem solved :roll:

From the pictures, that road doesn't look wide enough for there to be an effective segregated cycle lane. That is the issue on most roads in London (and in the UK as a whole). What would be a good idea would be to stop encouraging cyclists to ride down the left by putting cycle lanes there in the first place. Also, my nearest misses in those kind of situations have been when the lights have just turned red and there has been plenty of space down the left / a left lane even, so I have headed to the front of the junction, only to be blocked by idiot cyclists who refuse to cross the line to get ahead of the lorry - yes I know its "breaking the law", but come on, when the alternative is blocking several people in a dangerous position then use a bit of common sense! I have even had this where idiot cyclists don't even realise that they are allowed into the ASL box. General rule - when you get to the front at the lights, move across to a) get yourself in front of the traffic / visible to the traffic and b) make room for other cyclists approaching the front of the junction.

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. .

It's not the place for the discussion, but had there been a segregated cycle lane it probably wouldn't have happened.

Ultimately, if you have bicycles and lorries sharing the same road space, some cyclists are going to end up underneath them.

Everything else you do is just mitigating that. Put the bike on a different bit of road to a lorry and it's much much harder to end up underneath it.

You'll have cyclists colliding with each other, better to have a different bit of road for each cyclist.

rick_chasey

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. .

It's not the place for the discussion, but had there been a segregated cycle lane it probably wouldn't have happened.

Ultimately, if you have bicycles and lorries sharing the same road space, some cyclists are going to end up underneath them.

Everything else you do is just mitigating that. Put the bike on a different bit of road to a lorry and it's much much harder to end up underneath it.

You'll have cyclists colliding with each other, better to have a different bit of road for each cyclist.

Less deaths on bike vs bike than bike vs lorry, right?

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. .

It's not the place for the discussion, but I'll make the point anyway....[/quote]

And

From the pictures, that road doesn't look wide enough for there to be an effective segregated cycle lane. That is the issue on most roads in London (and in the UK as a whole). What would be a good idea would be to stop encouraging cyclists to ride down the left by putting cycle lanes there in the first place. Also, my nearest misses in those kind of situations have been when the lights have just turned red and there has been plenty of space down the left / a left lane even, so I have headed to the front of the junction, only to be blocked by idiot cyclists who refuse to cross the line to get ahead of the lorry - yes I know its "breaking the law", but come on, when the alternative is blocking several people in a dangerous position then use a bit of common sense! I have even had this where idiot cyclists don't even realise that they are allowed into the ASL box. General rule - when you get to the front at the lights, move across to a) get yourself in front of the traffic / visible to the traffic and b) make room for other cyclists approaching the front of the junction.

[We don't know that she did ride down the left before or after the lorry was there]. Other than that I agree with all the assertions above.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The issue of left turning vehicles and cyclists getting caught is problem and I'm not sure what can be done. .

It's not the place for the discussion, but had there been a segregated cycle lane it probably wouldn't have happened.

Ultimately, if you have bicycles and lorries sharing the same road space, some cyclists are going to end up underneath them.

Everything else you do is just mitigating that. Put the bike on a different bit of road to a lorry and it's much much harder to end up underneath it.

Just get bikes off the road entirely - problem solved :roll:

From the pictures, that road doesn't look wide enough for there to be an effective segregated cycle lane.

You can have a look at the junction with google streetview. There is a gigantic lorry right at the junction.

It's a narrow road, with a lot of junctions, onto which the planners have painted north and southbound cycle lanes with dotted dividers. At the top of WBR the northbound cycle lane merges into to the left turn only lane at the lights, which itself is not particularly wide.

The really stupid thing is that if you're a cyclist coming off WB and heading north you are better off turning either left or right at the first set of lights as you come off the bridge and skirting round WBR completely. Why anyone would want to encourage cyclists down it baffles me.

il_principe

OT but 'Morning' Greg. I very nearly sonambulated into the path of a speeding smurf on Chancery Lane at about 09:40 this morning. Wasn't quick enough to shout hello.

BigLights

A year or so back I was flagged down by the cops on the Mall (along with all the other cyclists)...they were getting cyclists to actually sit in an HGV cab to 'educated' cyclists. It was very enlightening and shocking to actually sit in the drivers seat and watch as they reversed an entire police car until it disappeared into a huge blind spot in FRONT of the truck (ie, exactly where cyclists congregate at an ASL). Equally on the sides, even with these auxhiliary mirrors, there are huge areas the driver simply can't see. It emphasises that this could have been an accident. The experience certainly changed the way I ride, particularly at traffic lights - I always check I can at least see the driver's eyes, and give trucks a seriously wide berth at all times.

bigmat

BigLights wrote:

A year or so back I was flagged down by the cops on the Mall (along with all the other cyclists)...they were getting cyclists to actually sit in an HGV cab to 'educated' cyclists. It was very enlightening and shocking to actually sit in the drivers seat and watch as they reversed an entire police car until it disappeared into a huge blind spot in FRONT of the truck (ie, exactly where cyclists congregate at an ASL). Equally on the sides, even with these auxhiliary mirrors, there are huge areas the driver simply can't see. It emphasises that this could have been an accident. The experience certainly changed the way I ride, particularly at traffic lights - I always check I can at least see the driver's eyes, and give trucks a seriously wide berth at all times.

If you can't see what you are driving into, you shouldn't be driving there in my opinion. All this stuff about blindspots, its just acknowledging that those vehicles are fundamentally dangerous. Something needs to be done to at least limitthe extent of blindspots as much as possible / limit where and when these vehicles can go.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

The really stupid thing is that if you're a cyclist coming off WB and heading north you are better off turning either left or right at the first set of lights as you come off the bridge and skirting round WBR completely. Why anyone would want to encourage cyclists down it baffles me.

Agreed. I've used it a fair few times heading to a project just west of Fulham Broadway. It's fairly direct, but the road is just barely wide enough for the cycle lanes, and the frequent queues of traffic and multiple side turnings and bus stops make a collision very likely. That's before you even get to the junction with NKR, which has muddled markings and not enough space for general traffic + segregated (even if only by paint) cyclists.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think cyclists should be held accountable for their actions even if they come off worse in a collision.

Maybe you should find out what visiting hours are and go and hold her accountable.

rubertoe

BigMat wrote:

BigLights wrote:

A year or so back I was flagged down by the cops on the Mall (along with all the other cyclists)...they were getting cyclists to actually sit in an HGV cab to 'educated' cyclists. It was very enlightening and shocking to actually sit in the drivers seat and watch as they reversed an entire police car until it disappeared into a huge blind spot in FRONT of the truck (ie, exactly where cyclists congregate at an ASL). Equally on the sides, even with these auxhiliary mirrors, there are huge areas the driver simply can't see. It emphasises that this could have been an accident. The experience certainly changed the way I ride, particularly at traffic lights - I always check I can at least see the driver's eyes, and give trucks a seriously wide berth at all times.

If you can't see what you are driving into, you shouldn't be driving there in my opinion. All this stuff about blindspots, its just acknowledging that those vehicles are fundamentally dangerous. Something needs to be done to at least limitthe extent of blindspots as much as possible / limit where and when these vehicles can go.

CCTV innit.

rjsterry

BigMat wrote:

BigLights wrote:

A year or so back I was flagged down by the cops on the Mall (along with all the other cyclists)...they were getting cyclists to actually sit in an HGV cab to 'educated' cyclists. It was very enlightening and shocking to actually sit in the drivers seat and watch as they reversed an entire police car until it disappeared into a huge blind spot in FRONT of the truck (ie, exactly where cyclists congregate at an ASL). Equally on the sides, even with these auxhiliary mirrors, there are huge areas the driver simply can't see. It emphasises that this could have been an accident. The experience certainly changed the way I ride, particularly at traffic lights - I always check I can at least see the driver's eyes, and give trucks a seriously wide berth at all times.

If you can't see what you are driving into, you shouldn't be driving there in my opinion. All this stuff about blindspots, its just acknowledging that those vehicles are fundamentally dangerous. Something needs to be done to at least limitthe extent of blindspots as much as possible / limit where and when these vehicles can go.

Alternatively, the top bit emphasises why ASL's (and their feeder lanes as you have already pointed out) are not the panacea that road planners seem to think they are. I've still to be convinced that leaving a junction a couple of seconds before all the other traffic actually contributes much to safety, but the impression is given that cyclists MUST always push to the front (I find myself doing it too, and if I do hang back riders behind me start asking me to let them through).

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

OT but 'Morning' Greg. I very nearly sonambulated into the path of a speeding smurf on Chancery Lane at about 09:40 this morning. Wasn't quick enough to shout hello.

Morning! Slow morning this morning. No work experience kid in my room today, so no race to get in. No alarms going off at early o'clock at home... Bliss!

spen666

BigMat wrote:

..... Also, my nearest misses in those kind of situations have been when the lights have just turned red and there has been plenty of space down the left / a left lane even, so I have headed to the front of the junction, only to be blocked by idiot cyclists who refuse to cross the line to get ahead of the lorry - yes I know its "breaking the law", but come on, when the alternative is blocking several people in a dangerous position then use a bit of common sense! I have even had this where idiot cyclists don't even realise that they are allowed into the ASL box. General rule - when you get to the front at the lights, move across to a) get yourself in front of the traffic / visible to the traffic and b) make room for other cyclists approaching the front of the junction.

+1

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think cyclists should be held accountable for their actions even if they come off worse in a collision.

Maybe you should find out what visiting hours are and go and hold her accountable.

That is just petty and pathetic.

I have repeatedly chosen not to comment on the specifics or assume to know what has happened with the collision that spawned this thread.

I was refering to a comment that 'the onus should always be on the driver' to ensure cyclist safety. That in itself and my response was speaking in general terms. In general terms, yes, I believe that each of us are accountable for the actions we take while riding our bikes. We are responsible for our safety and that of those around us.

It is dreadful what happened to the woman in the collision. It may turn out that the incident was completely the drivers fault. It may turn out that it was hers, or a mixture of both. Until then I have refrained from commenting direcly out of respect. It is a shame you cannot do the same.

My comment had nothing to do with rider in the title, to drag it into that is low and vile.

Honestly, you are proving to be a delightfully bitter and venomous person.

okgo

Not quite as annoying as mopeds that know they can't get through a gap, but they block it nontheless so cyclists cannot filter through. Selfish chunts.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

Also, my nearest misses in those kind of situations have been when the lights have just turned red and there has been plenty of space down the left / a left lane even, so I have headed to the front of the junction, only to be blocked by idiot cyclists who refuse to cross the line to get ahead of the lorry - yes I know its "breaking the law", but come on, when the alternative is blocking several people in a dangerous position then use a bit of common sense! I have even had this where idiot cyclists don't even realise that they are allowed into the ASL box. General rule - when you get to the front at the lights, move across to a) get yourself in front of the traffic / visible to the traffic and b) make room for other cyclists approaching the front of the junction.

OK - this isn't intended to sound like Smart Alec o' the Week, but probably will.

If you can see down the tunnel of death that is alongside the left side of the lorry, you must be able to see whether your "escape" at the far end of the tunnel is blocked. If it is, why enter the tunnel at all? Why not just wait behind the lorry and move off when it does?

phy2sll2

To reiterate: we don't know what happened.

I've been caught out more than once by lorries doing appalling overtaking maneuvers, i.e. on a two lane road, lorry pulled across from offside into my lane to take the first exit at the roundabout ahead and very nearly squashed me in the process. Had I been hurt and anyone had subsequently looked at the situation in retrospect, I suspect they would have assumed that I'd undertaken the lorry and been hurt as a result of my own bad judgement, which simply wasn't the case.

I do see people making bad judgements when cycling, but I have to say - fewer than I used to (despite the alleged increasing popularity). Further, I think introducing an assumption that liability lies with those in charge of the larger / more dangerous vehicle would (a) probably be more accurate than the current assumption employed by police et al. that cyclists are scofflaws and deliberately endanger themselves, and (b) provide the sort of step change in behaviour amongst motorists that would enable cycling to become mainstream in the UK.

bigmat

okgo wrote:

Not quite as annoying as mopeds that know they can't get through a gap, but they block it nontheless so cyclists cannot filter through. Selfish chunts.

Aaaarrggghhh! that is so true...

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Also, my nearest misses in those kind of situations have been when the lights have just turned red and there has been plenty of space down the left / a left lane even, so I have headed to the front of the junction, only to be blocked by idiot cyclists who refuse to cross the line to get ahead of the lorry - yes I know its "breaking the law", but come on, when the alternative is blocking several people in a dangerous position then use a bit of common sense! I have even had this where idiot cyclists don't even realise that they are allowed into the ASL box. General rule - when you get to the front at the lights, move across to a) get yourself in front of the traffic / visible to the traffic and b) make room for other cyclists approaching the front of the junction.

OK - this isn't intended to sound like Smart Alec o' the Week, but probably will.

If you can see down the tunnel of death that is alongside the left side of the lorry, you must be able to see whether your "escape" at the far end of the tunnel is blocked. If it is, why enter the tunnel at all? Why not just wait behind the lorry and move off when it does?

sometimes the situation is more fluid, you are cycling in a line of bikes, there is room to the left and the light sequence allows you room to get down the side and in front of the vehicle, only some numpty sees fit to stop in the suicide spot, just to the left of the (no doubt left turning) lorries' front wheels, in the process blocking several other riders' route to a far safer position at the front.

okgo

BigMat wrote:

okgo wrote:

Not quite as annoying as mopeds that know they can't get through a gap, but they block it nontheless so cyclists cannot filter through. Selfish chunts.

Aaaarrggghhh! that is so true...

OR cars in a traffic jam that edge forward so nobody can get in front of them, they do it seemingly to stop mopeds/cyclists.

I shouted at someone yesterday for edging forward to close a 2 ft gap. Pointless behavior.

Big_Paul

I've seen it from both sides of the equation, from cycling and driving lorries for a living, there are a few cyclists who will literally hurl themselves in front of you as you move off, you may have an abundance of mirrors, but you physically cannot look in all of them at the same time, and when you do, in an urban envirionment, the view is cluttered and a cyclist can still be missed.

Lorries are not made for urban areas, they are too wide and most of them have cabs that are too high up, look at a bin lorry, they are built low for that reason, the old Volvo FL's sat a lot lower and made good town trucks, but modern trucks are built high and wide. Trust me, the drivers do not like doing town work, it's stressful in a big way. But if you took the lorries out of town, you would need at least 6 big vans to carry the same as every lorry. 6 more WVM trying to take you out and the added cost to the consumer. Unless legislation is passed, the companies will still send large lorries into urban areas with the inevitable results.

FWIW, in my neck of the woods, the lorry drivers are saints in comparison to bus drivers who just do not care who they drive over.