5th cyclist dies in 9 days
Comments
-
cars vs cyclists is not that much of a problem in cities from most perspectives. all this overtaking filtering stuff is peripheral IME. even more so as car behaviour has changed over the years and in general is more tolerant/aware of cyclists. there is no car vs cycle problem
children on bikes are however highly vulnerable to car impacts due to their lower head height. even slow speed impacts can kill a child.
the serious problem for adult cyclists in the main is the oversized stuff trucks etc..."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
The Stats
Cycling Accidents
Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas
Around half of cyclist fatalities occur on rural roads
75% happen at, or near, a road junction
80% occur in daylight
80% of cyclist casualties are male
Almost one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children
Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries.
Loads more facts here
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... references
There seems to be some arguments regarding under/overtaking slow or stationary traffic these stats indicate that doing this will greatly increases the chances of an accident, if that accident is with a large vehicle your chances of survival are greatly reduced. Personally being seen is the key factor here wear the right clothing, use lights and don't weave in or out of slow or stationary traffic, no one expects to be overtaken on the left so nobody will look for a cyclist before moving off or check their mirrors before turning left. Do not put yourself in that position personally I sit directly behind the car in front of me you can be seen by all parties and I move left as soon as traffic starts to move so the vehicle behind you can see where you are and doesn't get frustrated because your holding them up. I don't know this for a fact but I bet that in every accident involving a vehicle and a cyclist the vehicle driver will say 100% of the time "I didn't see them" put yourself in the position where they can't not see you.0 -
How can 75% of fatal or serious accidents occur on urban roads yet half of fatalities occur on rural roads?petepete1969 wrote:The Stats
Cycling Accidents
Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas
Around half of cyclist fatalities occur on rural roads
75% happen at, or near, a road junction
80% occur in daylight
80% of cyclist casualties are male
Almost one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children
Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries.
Loads more facts here
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... references
There seems to be some arguments regarding under/overtaking slow or stationary traffic these stats indicate that doing this will greatly increases the chances of an accident, if that accident is with a large vehicle your chances of survival are greatly reduced. Personally being seen is the key factor here wear the right clothing, use lights and don't weave in or out of slow or stationary traffic, no one expects to be overtaken on the left so nobody will look for a cyclist before moving off or check their mirrors before turning left. Do not put yourself in that position personally I sit directly behind the car in front of me you can be seen by all parties and I move left as soon as traffic starts to move so the vehicle behind you can see where you are and doesn't get frustrated because your holding them up. I don't know this for a fact but I bet that in every accident involving a vehicle and a cyclist the vehicle driver will say 100% of the time "I didn't see them" put yourself in the position where they can't not see you.
I'm the same as you. I never dart through traffic at junctions or lights. The best thing to do is position where you know people are going to see you. Hell I stay a good couple of car lengths back from anything bigger than a van!
But I cycly mainly on rural roads . junctions and lights are less common and there's less traffic. You can afford to wait in a line and then move off at the left.0 -
What I've written below is in the context that my understanding of filtering is moving the bike between cars and lanes at junctions and lights, etc.Buckie2k5 wrote:Top_Bhoy wrote:You actually are saying there is something wrong with cyclists overtaking a car in slow moving traffic.
My whole point is i can see the problem from both sides and why both sides can get annoyed. A cyclist doesnt like to get overtook and then slowed down by the same car and vice versa for drivers.
Iam going to throw this 1 at you, If filtering was illegal would most of these deaths occured?
For all the shouting about red light jumpers on bikes, I doubt there are many deaths among that fraternity. Illegal road activity by cyclists doesn't necessarily equate to death so making filtering illegal I believe would make little difference.
With cyclists deaths on the increase, the safety organisations, all levels of govt and the judicial system, are failing. With all the research available and collated nowadays, it should be known by now what junction types are more dangerous than others, driver and cyclist behavioural patterns, etc and have a campaign which makes specific recommendations for reducing the death rate. This includes more severe punishment of car drivers for their driving which, while not necessarily intentional, exposes other road users to greater risk then what can be expected from normal driving.0 -
rickeverett wrote:How can 75% of fatal or serious accidents occur on urban roads yet half of fatalities occur on rural roads?
Because serious rural accidents are more likely to be fatal than urban ones.0 -
All my near misses on my bike have been due to very poor driving. That is not to say some people ride badly, they do.
If you do the IAM test the one thing you are toaught is check your mirrors every ten seconds (not long hard look) all of them in fact and always keep you head in motion as changing the point of focus continiously actully helps you see more as most of what you see is periperal and there for estuff gets missed. Before a car moves off the left mirror must be checked and if in traffic you should be checking that left mirror very often. Not to do all of this is bad driving. Trying to move the left in a traffic queue on a bike is bad riding but bad riding does not excuse the bad driving. It the motor veichle that does the damage to the cyclist so it the motorist that has a big responisbility here.
Bad driving can and does kill and some motorist use the excuse that as some cyclsit ride badly it somehow exuses there bad driving. Often they do not even know they are driving badly.
Big trucks however can only see what there mirrors allow so the senerio here is different but if a truck driver passes a cyclist and then shortly after turns left that to me is negliant. If a cyclist moves up the left of a slow moving truck that is also negliant.
The only solution is a long term education campagin like whay has been done with drink driving. The number deaths per km riden is quite low in the U.K cycling is not that dangerous but it could be made safer.
Cycle lanes to me are sticking plaster solutions but they do not address the core porblem bad driving and bad riding. That is what should be addressed.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
RIP to those poor people killed needlessly.0
-
This was how I was taught to drive when getting my HGV license, also if you pass something (Practically anything pedestrians, cyclists, stationary cars, road junctions, driveways etc.)to your left follow it in your mirror to ensure you've passed safely. And moving your head is a big part of checking your mirrors. I see too many people driving who only worry about what's in front of them, not what's beside and behind them. And as for checking over their shoulders......thecycleclinic wrote:If you do the IAM test the one thing you are toaught is check your mirrors every ten seconds (not long hard look) all of them in fact and always keep you head in motion as changing the point of focus continiously actully helps you see more as most of what you see is periperal and there for estuff gets missed. Before a car moves off the left mirror must be checked and if in traffic you should be checking that left mirror very often.0 -
petepete1969 wrote:The Stats
Cycling Accidents
Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas
Around half of cyclist fatalities occur on rural roads
75% happen at, or near, a road junction
80% occur in daylight
80% of cyclist casualties are male
Almost one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children
Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries.
Loads more facts here
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... references
There seems to be some arguments regarding under/overtaking slow or stationary traffic these stats indicate that doing this will greatly increases the chances of an accident, if that accident is with a large vehicle your chances of survival are greatly reduced. Personally being seen is the key factor here wear the right clothing, use lights and don't weave in or out of slow or stationary traffic, no one expects to be overtaken on the left so nobody will look for a cyclist before moving off or check their mirrors before turning left. Do not put yourself in that position personally I sit directly behind the car in front of me you can be seen by all parties and I move left as soon as traffic starts to move so the vehicle behind you can see where you are and doesn't get frustrated because your holding them up. I don't know this for a fact but I bet that in every accident involving a vehicle and a cyclist the vehicle driver will say 100% of the time "I didn't see them" put yourself in the position where they can't not see you.
100% of the time drivers say 'they didn't see you' after hitting you is because it's a tried, tested and proven excuse that gets you off literally any charge.
In 100% of the cases they didn't look.
End of story.
I have little trouble seeing even the idiots in black with no lights on London roads - pees me off no end but I can see them because I look.
There's been times when cars have pulled into my path despite my 450lumens light, white helmet and reflectives ~ they just don't look and/or are in too much of a rush to care.
I didn't see them is a classic victim blaming excuse that excuses negligent driving and I'm sick of reading people repeat this crap on here. Yes make yourself be seen but don't pretend it's makes too much difference if some idiot pulls out without looking.0 -
petepete1969 wrote:Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas
Around half of cyclist fatalities occur on rural roads
75% happen at, or near, a road junction
80% occur in daylight
80% of cyclist casualties are male
Almost one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children
Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries.
That head injuries are heavily are involved in fatalities isn't surprising, but not sure what to conclude from the rest of those stats without knowing the context, i.e.:
What proportion of all cycling is in urban areas? / on rural roads? / in daylight?
What proportion of all cyclists are male / children ?
What does 'near' a junction mean? - in urban areas you might easily be within a couple of hundred meters of a junction 75% of the time.0 -
I really wish I knew the answer to this problem, and can sympathise with the OP when he says something must be done. The trouble is, nothing can be 'done'. The problem is really human nature, people, in and on all types of vehicle rushing around, in their own little worlds. Comments like 'car drivers don't look' are pointless, people don't look - take the vid of the woman nearly wipes out by the train recently - road markings, flashing red lights, a siren and a barrier painted red and white right across her route, notice all this? Never. What is the expression, WTF? My first thought, when I saw it was what the hell would she be like in a car? Would you want her driving next to you, does she have a licence? Posters have made comments like 'cyclists should assume that all drivers are out to get them', this I find surprising, as I thought everyone who drives/cycles thought like this anyway. I have had SMIDSYs happen to me on bikes, motor bikes and bl00dy great vans, I'm sorry, but, it is not personal, people are just like that, frightening, but, you really have got to live with it..0
-
CookeeeMonster wrote:
100% of the time drivers say 'they didn't see you' after hitting you is because it's a tried, tested and proven excuse that gets you off literally any charge.
In 100% of the cases they didn't look.
End of story.
Really? Am I the only person who has driven passed a cyclist and known they are there but then struggled to see them when checking my shoulder and mirrors to move back over? In particular at night when there is a forest of lights and even more so if it's been raining. Imagine that same scenario where the driver is moving in slow traffic and needs to change lanes with a cyclist filtering on the side of them. All vehicles, even cars, have blind spots and I believe modern car designs are making them worse, there is barely a gap to see through between the B pillar and headrest on my car.
At junctions I would sort of agree with you though, even if your view is obstructed you should be inching forward until you can see clearly. I say 'sort of' as I think drivers look but it is a cursory glance for something car sized or bigger.0 -
Most cyclists and car drivers are reasonable enough. You will always get poor examples of both either through genuine mistakes or recklessness. There is no simple solution unfortunately but in city centres which at rush hour are potentially very dangerous you would expect the numerous camera's to pick a lot of this up.0
-
Sadly, I don't think it is - I fear you are simplifying an extremely complex process. I can think of four personal examples when I've been convinced that someone has looked at me, but hasn't 'seen' me, and my personal hunch is that their brains are deleting me as 'interference' as their brains are lazily/quickly scanning for something bigger. Two of the instances I ended up on the deck (one of these being when a pedestrian ran out into the road), and once I was actually leaning against the driver's window when he realised I was there. (Fortunately he was only doing about 5mph as he cut across a T-junction). However cross I was with each of them I genuinely felt that I didn't register as important information to their brains in a dynamic unconscious decision-making process. Our brains are very good at suppressing what they think is unimportant 'interference' in each of the senses. They don't tell us they are doing it, or what criteria they are using.CookeeeMonster wrote:100% of the time drivers say 'they didn't see you' after hitting you is because it's a tried, tested and proven excuse that gets you off literally any charge.
In 100% of the cases they didn't look.
End of story.
BUT ... (on a positive note), I think if you can change/slow down the decision-making process by a change in attitudes (by simply removing the "I didn't see you" get-out, and assuming culpability on the driver's part, in absence of proof to the contrary), then this frequency of the 'deletion' of the cyclist's image in the drivers brain (which is sometimes genuine, I think) can be lessened. The other positive note is that it IS possible to change the driving attitudes of a country, but that it takes considerable time. So, in the meantime, I'll just continue to assume that some drivers won't see me. I just wish I knew which.0 -
Someone else wrote the above in another forum I occasionally frequent. I've quoted it here because for me, I think its an excellent summation and highlights the issues which society needs to confront.Society has done a great job of convincing people that driving a car is as simple and safe as tying your shoelaces, when it clearly ISN'T. That has to change for anyone, cyclist or otherwise, to be genuinely safe on the road.0 -
Indeed. Humans are good at dealing with habitually complex scenarios by dealing with most of the normal actions unconsciously, and it's hard/impossible to keep everything at the forefront of your mind.Top_Bhoy wrote:
Someone else wrote the above in another forum I occasionally frequent. I've quoted it here because for me, I think its an excellent summation and highlights the issues which society needs to confront.Society has done a great job of convincing people that driving a car is as simple and safe as tying your shoelaces, when it clearly ISN'T. That has to change for anyone, cyclist or otherwise, to be genuinely safe on the road.
Interestingly for me, one of my pupils, with whom I have wide-ranging discussions, immediately noted, when I mentioned about the recent deaths in London, that his driving theory test, whilst stressing the vulnerability of pedestrians, really didn't deal with cyclists in anything like as much detail, despite their having to share the roadspace with cars much more than pedestrians. It struck him as odd.0 -
This has me thinking that parking sensor technology could be adapted to 'see' a bicycle that may be in a driver's blind spot - would it be that much of a stretch? Btw, I'm not sugesting that we should remove driver responsibility by havnig 'tech' do everything but, in the interests of safety, it would be a beneficial assistance.Pross wrote:Am I the only person who has driven passed a cyclist and known they are there but then struggled to see them when checking my shoulder and mirrors to move back over..?0 -
This is interesting: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilo ... -cyclists/
Clearly it does not cover all the scenarios under which people have accidents, but it is useful reading for all cyclists. When I am on the bike, and in the position of having right of way over another vehicle at a junction, I always assume they have not seen me.
Pete0 -
tootsie323 wrote:
This has me thinking that parking sensor technology could be adapted to 'see' a bicycle that may be in a driver's blind spot - would it be that much of a stretch? Btw, I'm not sugesting that we should remove driver responsibility by havnig 'tech' do everything but, in the interests of safety, it would be a beneficial assistance.Pross wrote:Am I the only person who has driven passed a cyclist and known they are there but then struggled to see them when checking my shoulder and mirrors to move back over..?
Blind spot detection is starting to become quite a common feature. As you suggest it does potentially open up the issue of drivers relying on it too much and not checking for themselves. A colleague of mine reversed into a bollard the other day as his sensors didn't warn him, he had a strop when I said he should have been looking properly!0 -
It was updated/changed after I posted it...adr82 wrote:
Sentence 4 of a 4-sentence article:michael_roadie wrote:A 6th cyclist has been killed in London today: http://news.radiojackie.com/2013/11/cyc ... mpton.htmlIt was thought the victim was a cyclist, however, Met police have confirmed she was not on a bike.0 -
and another one.......http://www.nowbath.co.uk/news/police-ap ... ath-53347/0
-
I think there's a danger that, however distressing each death is, that we forget how low the number actually is, and remarkably how consistent the number killed is each year. We know that, on average, about two riders will die each week (compared with forty motorists), and though, of course, we all hope this number will fall, it's actually a pretty low number.
That's not an excuse for complacency, and every death should be investigated, and wrongdoing punished properly (which I fear it is not always, at the moment), but there WILL be weeks where (thankfully) no cyclists are killed, and we won't all be writing on here balancing this unfortunate cluster of sad cases.0 -
I commute from a rural area in to a city on my bike. The thing that has saved me from several accidents is my motorbike training. I did an intensive, week long course when I was told over and over that not all drivers will see you so be prepared for them to do stupid things and when filtering through traffic make yourself as visible as possible and make eye contact with drivers in their mirrors.
Drivers make mistakes which can kill you so to stay alive you have to compensate for their mistakes and expect the worst.
I do also see a lot of dangerous cyclists, particularly from the skinny jeans wearing, fixie riding students who are also usually dressed in black with no helmet or lights even at night.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
Driving home from the track on Wednesday night, passed a young guy on a MTB; he was dressed in dark clothing and had no lights on his bike, no helmet either. A minute or so after I passed him, we found ourselves next to each other at traffic lights (at least he stopped!), I let my window down and told him, very politely, that he wasn't easy to see. He looked up from his phone (he was texting) and told me to, not quite so politely, FOXTROT OSCAR.0
-
Not surprising, sadly. I did an informal survey a couple of weeks ago on an evening ride around Glasgow. Was well after dark, windy and wet. I saw 20 other cyclists, and 6 of them had no lights at all. Several others had lights but they weren't good ones. It is amazing to me that cyclists aren't dying every single day through their own stupidity.Loretta Damage wrote:Driving home from the track on Wednesday night, passed a young guy on a MTB; he was dressed in dark clothing and had no lights on his bike, no helmet either. A minute or so after I passed him, we found ourselves next to each other at traffic lights (at least he stopped!), I let my window down and told him, very politely, that he wasn't easy to see. He looked up from his phone (he was texting) and told me to, not quite so politely, FOXTROT OSCAR.0 -
Sadly another death in London today. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985
It is a particularly bad run at the moment.0 -
Apparently deaths such as the latest today that have involved trucks, have involved the vehicle turning Left.
Are people that daft as to travel up the inside of a bus or truck - esp if its turning? :shock:
Dont think its always the drivers to blame....
"More than 100 cyclists were stopped at Vauxhall Bridge Road over "concerns about their behaviour" such as cutting corners or wearing headphones while riding.
Cyclists are also being encouraged to wear a helmet and a high-visibility jacket." BBC0 -
rickeverett wrote:Apparently deaths such as the latest today that have involved trucks, have involved the vehicle turning Left.
Are people that daft as to travel up the inside of a bus or truck - esp if its turning? :shock:C
Ive not seen or read anything yet to suggest any of the people, and they were people first and foremost, who died were doing anything "daft" or wrong.
I would never choose to ride up the inside of a bus or truck, but I cant stop those same buses or trucks driving and plonking themselves alongside or right up behind me if they chose to do so and putting me in those positions that are "daft" and bad for cyclists to get stuck in. And if reasonably experienced cyclists are getting stuck in those positions, then you need to look for other root causes of this.
for instance have you considered with a truck pulled up right behind of group of cyclists at an ASL, who may have observed cyclists before they were lost in the blind spot, might not actually account for how many cyclists are in the group, so has no way of knowing if all the group have moved off, not excluding the fact the size of the group may change anyway during a traffic light stop/go.0 -
if the penalties for traffic incidents/accidents were inforced to the limit and an at fault law introduced for motorists involved in collisions with cyclists/pedestrians then the numbers of deaths would drop instantly.
Folk dont drink drive like they used too because the slightest infringment means a 12 mth ban - when D%C police axed their traffic division, road deaths rose and DD increased, they ve now bought them back.
If all you think you ll get is 3pts (or nothing at all) for knocking of a cyclist then the mindset is who gives a fxxk about them, they are nothing and shouldnt be on the road.
equally, bad riding by cyclists needs to be inforced too.0 -
rickeverett wrote:Apparently deaths such as the latest today that have involved trucks, have involved the vehicle turning Left.
Are people that daft as to travel up the inside of a bus or truck - esp if its turning? :shock:
There is always the assumption in these debates that the lorry was stopped at a red light, then the cyclist came up on the left hand side and then the lorry turned left. It's entirely possible there was a green light and the lorry overtook the cyclist and then immediately turned left - the left hook. Not much a cyclist can do in that case."More than 100 cyclists were stopped at Vauxhall Bridge Road over "concerns about their behaviour" such as cutting corners or wearing headphones while riding.
Cyclists are also being encouraged to wear a helmet and a high-visibility jacket."[/i] BBC
Can't beat a good bit of victim blaming.0
