Another Tragedy

carryfast · 26 February 2015 23:55

GasGas:
I suspect he aborted the turn to save the cyclist’s life!

More like if the cyclist was still there when he turned he’d have got him with the rear wheels which were already running over the kerb so might even have also got a pedestrian as a bonus.Then had to take a reverse shunt right hand down then forward left to miss the keep left sign that he would have taken out,having gone into the turn in the wrong position.

As for the cyclist he was just following BH’s advice if in doubt undertake and outrun being the safest option.

carryfast · 27 February 2015 00:00

BillyHunt:
Well thats two in a row that got away from the tipper, you don’t even see that last cyclist again, you’re going to have to start believing it some time. That’s a stupid move by the cyclist coupled with some pish poor driving skills from the tipper driver, not making the turn, tut tut.

To be fair the tipper driver might have been trying to block cyclists from undertaking then only realised his mistake when it was too late.

Seriously having said that it’s a mystery how the cyclist just seems to have disappeared.While another seems to have appeared from no where on the pavement while the truck was turning.

billyhunt · 27 February 2015 08:43

Carryfast:

BillyHunt:
Well thats two in a row that got away from the tipper, you don’t even see that last cyclist again, you’re going to have to start believing it some time. That’s a stupid move by the cyclist coupled with some pish poor driving skills from the tipper driver, not making the turn, tut tut.

To be fair the tipper driver might have been trying to block cyclists from undertaking then only realised his mistake when it was too late.

Seriously having said that it’s a mystery how the cyclist just seems to have disappeared.While another seems to have appeared from no where on the pavement while the truck was turning.

Aborted the turn! That’s hilarious, they couldn’t make the turn in the first place.
Yes you’re probably right, the driver passed the cyclist, saw he might want to go up the inside because that’s what they all do, tried to block them, failed miserably, then when they start to turn realises they’ve cocked up big time. If only he’d concentrated on the road instead.
No mystery there, they obviously realised the tipper was going to turn left & hopped onto the pavement & turned left whereas the lady came from behind the stranded tipper.
Right, just for the maoster, that’s me out of this one.

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 09:17

Yoyo perhaps put it a little forcefully, but he appears to be right. Risky or illegal behaviour by cyclists is NOT what’s causing these tragedies. In some cases, it was the cyclist obeying the law and stopping at red lights that contributed to their deaths. Mary Bowers was in an ASL box, waiting at the lights, where she was supposed to be. The lorry driver behind her failed to notice and rolled over her effectively ending her life:

thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy … 631594.ece

It was the same with Sebastien Lukomski, waiting at the lights, doing nothing wrong, killed by a tipper driver who failed to notice him:

ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/seb.html

Both cyclists doing NOTHING wrong, yet were killed by lorry drivers who weren’t paying attention.

Catriona Patel, waiting at the lights, doing nothing wrong, killed by a drunk lorry driver who was chatting on a mobile phone.

road.cc/content/news/27696-londo … lowed-kill

Consider the death of cyclist Daniel Cox.

thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 … l-cox.html

The lorry driver who killed Daniel had driven into the ASL box for cyclists, did not have the correct mirrors fitted and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned. The cyclist did NOTHING wrong. In a quarter of cyclist fatalities the cyclist was hit from behind. In fact it is rare that anything the cyclist did wrong contributes to a KSI RTC:

Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury

theguardian.com/lifeandstyle … ents-study

So, if it is rarely cyclist behaviour that contributes to these horrible events, what is it? Construction vehicles are wildly disproportionately represented in the fatal stats. Are we to suppose that cyclists are generally happy with their life, content and stable, and then suddenly become suicidal when they see a construction lorry? Are cyclists careful around all other HGVs and rash and reckless only when tippers are around? Seems unlikely.

Could it be the type of vehicle?

Jenny Jones: Could you confirm the number of HGVs stopped by police in London for each year since 2000, the proportion that were found to be driving illegally, any breakdown of offences and the proportion that were stopped by specialist traffic police?
Answer from the Mayor: The MPS did not, until 2008, keep a record of the number of HGVs that were stopped. In 2008/09 3,000 vehicles were stopped (all types including lightweight vans). Of these 1329 were ‘trucks’ over 7.5 tonnes [note: vehicles over 7.5 tonnes are defined as HGVs]. Proportion found to be driving illegally: Offences were found in an average 80% of these vehicles.

That means that of every five lorries that overtake a cyclist, according to the conviction stats only one of the drivers is obeying the law. Now that’s scary. Whatever the causes, can we please stop claiming that it is cyclists’ behaviour that is causing these fatalities. It usually isn’t.

the-snowman · 27 February 2015 10:34

roaduser66:
can we please stop claiming that it is cyclists’ behaviour that is causing these fatalities. It usually isn’t.

Maybe not in the instances you mentioned but are you seriously saying that cyclists in a majority are law abiding road users? Very rarely do you see cyclists waiting at red lights. Very few bother with lights at night or bright clothing. Rarely will they look to see if anythings behind before moving out to pass stationary vehicles. Plenty use bikes far too small. And dont get me started on parents who let their kids out on the road in a bike far too big because “they’ll grow into it”.
Your right,cyclists dont become suicidal the moment they get on a bike. Are you suggesting that when a lorry driver sees a cyclist he turns into a homicidal maniac who will happily kill a cyclist by running over them because he doesnt want to wait behind them? No. In most cases it will be a lapse in judgement,concentration or commen sense. Something plenty cyclist suffer from as well. They are no innocents on the road. How about you have a look for statistics of cyclists killed from red light jumping and all the other suicidal moves they pull? You’ll find plenty of examples.
As ive said before,cyclists and motorists will never agree on who’s worse because there are shocking examples from both sides. We all need to share the road whether we like it or not.
But if everyomne followed my rather simple examples posted earlier,im arrogant enough to think that would solve most problems of deaths of cyclists. It’s not rocket science

dieseldog999 · 27 February 2015 11:40

that would all work swimmingly if you removed human nature from the equation,or once again is it only me that cant stand the sight of some whale kissing tree huggers lycra clad bum tettering about at the lights wobbling and balancing instead of just putting a foot on the ground till the lights change,or watching them go to incredible lengths to wriggle up the inside just to get in front just for the sake of it when in reality they would just get there anyway.at the least,they are generally an irritation without taking into consideration,zero road tax,no licence,no training with their usual inbuilt attitude problem. the traffic flow gets designed to suit bikes when realistically the road is for cars and trucks that make up the majority.same logic as sail has priority over steam in boats…but you still see the yachts scattering when the belfast ferry is belting down towards them…

muckaway · 27 February 2015 11:54

In the case of Catriona Patel, she was killed by an idiot with no right to drive, employed by a firm not known for driving professionally.

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 12:33

The-Snowman:

roaduser66:
can we please stop claiming that it is cyclists’ behaviour that is causing these fatalities. It usually isn’t.

Maybe not in the instances you mentioned but are you seriously saying that cyclists in a majority are law abiding road users?

Without question. There are only around a million regular cyclist commuters in the country. There are 1.2m uninsured cars on the roads. So, drivers break the law more than cyclists before you even start counting drugged driving, drunk driving, driving on a mobile, speeding etc etc etc.

Specifically, with regard to London fatalities, the cause is usually driver error. Specifically with regard to red light jumping- a cyclist is more likely to be hurt by a motor vehicle jumping a red than the cyclist jumping a red themselves. In short, cyclists are more likely to be sinned against than sinners.

the-snowman · 27 February 2015 12:42

roaduser66:
Without question. There are only around a million regular cyclist commuters in the country. There are 1.2m uninsured cars on the roads. So, drivers break the law more than cyclists before you even start counting drugged driving, drunk driving, driving on a mobile, speeding etc etc etc.

Specifically, with regard to London fatalities, the cause is usually driver error. Specifically with regard to red light jumping- a cyclist is more likely to be hurt by a motor vehicle jumping a red than the cyclist jumping a red themselves. In short, cyclists are more likely to be sinned against than sinners.

Spot the troll. Your on the wrong forum pal. Two posts and coming out with crap like that? Im guessing your not a truck driver or even a motorist. Check the forum name.

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 12:53

The latest fatality was Westminster:

More than two thirds of all crashes between drivers and cyclists in Central London are the fault of the motorist, research indicates.

The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause could be found or both parties were to blame.

thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy … 758677.ece

Cyclists REALLY don’t want to collide with anything, because it bloody hurts! Cyclists don’t have air-bags, crumple zones, bumpers, heated seats and seatbelts. Cyclists spend a lot of concentration on NOT colliding with anything, in 25% of fatalities the rider was hit from behind.

james_the_cat · 27 February 2015 13:22

I take on board what you’re saying. However, someone can get on a bike and take to London’s main streets with no experience. You talk as if cyclists have this higher skill level due to vulnerability yet how is that skill acquired? Probably by hard luck and experience. Some may go into be good cyclists, some very poor.

Reading the few pages dedicated to cyclists in the highway code doesn’t provide good training anymore than learning to drive an LGV aroudn London just by reading the highway code.

The emphasis seems to be on better training and mirrors for LGV drivers and vehicles. This maybe a valid point. However the other 50 percent of the accident equation are not trained or assessed at all. I firmly believe before you are allowed onto the main streets of certain cities notorious for these accidents cyclists should have training that emphasises practical risks and techniques, then assessed.

To do the above would be a true way of getting the 2 groups to work together rather than just sentiment.

It’s my personal feeling that cyclists and LGVs shouldnt be put in the situation where they’re together at all, but segregated cycle ways seem an impractical solution in the tight streets of London.

dipper_dave · 27 February 2015 13:23

Statistics and facts rarely go hand in hand, yes some incidents are totally the fault of the truck of that I have no doubt, but some incidents are also totally the fault of the cyclist. Other instances there is some degree of shared blame.

Only by seeing this common ground can cyclists and truck drivers come together in a positive way as the cyclist as the vunerable road user deserves, dare I say has a right to our protection / respect on the roads.

Cyclists can educate each other when out and about and im sure some do but there needs to be mutual co-operation to stop this happening and a louder message than just point scoring on internet forums.

Having the moral highground is little compensation when your organs are getting squashed.

Im sure every member of cyclist / truck forums know how to behave on the road, those most at risk need a louder message, perhaps a shock TV campaign could work. Better than wasting time arguing with each other.

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 13:30

James the cat:
I take on board what you’re saying. However, someone can get on a bike and take to London’s main streets with no experience. You talk as if cyclists have this higher skill level due to vulnerability yet how is that skill acquired? Probably by hard luck and experience. Some may go into be good cyclists, some very poor, with a very poor attitude only fuelled by the ivory tower feeling coming from cycle blog YouTube videos.

And yet, counter-intuitively, if inexperience was a significant causal factor in cycling ksi rates you would expect Boris Bikes to have a higher collision rate. Often ridden by tourists, maybe by people who are unfamiliar with the road, right? Except it isn’t true. The ksi rates for Boris Bikes is less than that for “normal” riders. Seems crazy to me, maybe because they go slower, I don’t know. Whatever, rash, illegal or injudicious behaviour by riders isn’t usually what causes the collisions.

james_the_cat · 27 February 2015 13:41

So would you by virtue feel happy if a lorry driver had no training or test? Do you feel training and checking should only be based on the notion of vehicle size, therefore cycles exempt?

Your assertions assume zero culpable blame from the cycling community, at all. If even one cyclist was at fault in a collision between a vehicle in London to me that ratifies the benefit of proper training and checking for all road users. To assume the minute you mount a cycle you are of a higher level of skill base and knowledge because of stats is frankly nonsense. Equally nonsense is the idea that you are less culpable because of your vulnerability. Stats or not, there are cyclists at fault who have contributed to their own misfortune.

To truly work together means playing the game both sides. You either want to seek a mutual solution as a community or not. If you’re so sure of cyclist’s higher skill level then training/checking would be no barrier. Believe it or not the LGV community is doing a lot on it’s side. What’s yours doing other than alienating everyone by using stats to disprove responsibility? This is the 21st century.

windrush · 27 February 2015 13:41

A serious question, is it ONLY London that has these tragedies? I only ask as both Oxford and Cambridge (plus other towns/cities of course) have a large cycling community, and presumably they also have trucks delivering/collecting/on construction work etc, yet I never hear of any issues elsewhere. I was always wary of cyclist’s coming up on the nearside at junctions but, once they had cleared the rear axles they were lost from view anyway so if I hadn’t spotted them by then I wouldn’t see them at all. You only have one pair of eyes and (unless you are like the Late Marty Feldman! ) can only see in one direction at once.

Pete.

casual_observer · 27 February 2015 13:49

Nerves & unfamiliarity will play a part in Boris Bikes .
The non tourists , may through time become complacent & even blasé , as familiarity can breed contempt .
Also , more than a few cyclists do not appear to give their safety the required consideration & attention it deserves .
That is not to say other road users are entirely blame free , anyone can have a lapse of concentration , or loss of attention .
Being so vulnerable , they must take a lot of responsibility for their safety on their own shoulders . They cannot expect that others will always have cyclists at the top of their priority list , and as such should not expect others to be solely responsible for cyclists safety .

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 13:52

James the cat:
Your assertions assume zero culpable blame from the cycling community, at all.

No. 12% of KSI RTCs involve an error by the cyclist. It’s in the Westminster research I linked to upthread.

james_the_cat · 27 February 2015 14:03

Apologies, I can see you highlighted the stats where cyclists were to blame. I just hope as 2 communities we can come together to address it.

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 14:10

No need to apologise, sorry if I was abrupt. I see…strange behaviour by cyclists too. For instance, a chap on a road bike, a very nice Bianchi, an Italian-crafted bike, beautifully retro styled, but with no lights. Who spends £1200 on a bike and hasn’t got a spare quid even for Poundshop jobbies?

But I also ride in London, and I see some incredibly dodgy driving. If it’s not a beat-up ■■■■■■ old transit with cannabis smoke wafting out of the window it’s construction vehicles using the roads as a racetrack. There has been some crass generalisations about other road users here, so I’ll chip in: Tipper lorries, scaffolding lorries and skip lorries are often driven by crazy ape bonkers drivers. In this sector it’s a cut-throat business and they’re mostly subbies paid by the load so have a built-in incentive to cut corners. Those three classes of vehicle terrify me, the occasional good driver notwithstanding.

roaduser66 · 27 February 2015 14:11

Whoops, that was a “beat up crappy transit” but I used a swear word, soz.