Another Tragedy

Well after 5 minutes thought heres my rough draft for a TV ad.

Opening scene shows a woman and man from two different families kissing their loved ones before going to work.

As a twist the woman drives a tipper and the man is cycling to work.
Then short clip of woman getting into truck and man getting on bike with all safety equipment hi viz helmet etc.

Next scene cyclist and tipper on same road, tipper in front and cyclist catching up as tipper is stuck at a set of lights.

Shot then of cyclist behind tipper waitin but getting impatient, switch to tipper driver checking mirrors and seeing cyclist, then looking ahead as cyclist now decides to creep up inside.
Shot then of tippers indicator to turn left coming on ( accompanied by some dodgy music to show danger) and tipper driver looking in mirrors and not seeing any cyclist, cyclist is then shown in drivers blindspot as the lights change and the tipper driver starts off.

Cyclist doesnt react in time and cut to gruesome images of human body getting crushed.

then cut to both families devastation afterwards.

Screen then shows graphic warning of left turning trucks (this same graphic will be attached to all trucks in london asap).

Final message, Think Bike -Think Truck.

Just a rough draft as im nearly loaded but any buddung Speilbergs out there feel free to tweak it.

roaduser66:

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.

You are , in my opinion right, about Boris Bikes going slower.However unlike you I would define Boris Bike riders as the " normal " ones.
The riders I have issues with are those whose aim seems to be pedal flat out everywhere and nothing but NOTHING must get in their way or heaven forbid cause them to put a foot on the floor.They seek to achieve this aim by any means possible, overtaking,undertaking, swerving in and out,taking to the pavement if the aforementioned reckless riding is not enough to maintain flat out progress.
If you choose to commute on a cycle, how about getting up a bit earlier and riding like a Boris Biker ? You will then increase your chances of survival and make life less stressful for yourself and other road users.

old 67:

roaduser66:

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.

If you choose to commute on a cycle, how about getting up a bit earlier and riding like a Boris Biker ? You will then increase your chances of survival and make life less stressful for yourself and other road users.

The behaviour you cite is not how these collisions are taking place. As I explained, law-breaking by at least two of the riders would have saved their lives. They didn’t jump the red and both had their lives ended by lorry drivers who failed to notice them.

Dennis Putz is an interesting example, he had been banned from driving before. He had three convictions for drink driving and three convictions for careless driving, yet he got a job driving for Thames Materials in London. Who insured him? What checks did the company run?

road.cc/content/news/27511-break … iona-patel

roaduser66:
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.

You’re having a laugh just like BH’s bs.The fact is cyclists don’t get run over by left turning trucks by waiting at the stop line at lights and/or holding back at junctions for the truck to enter the junction and turn.Even in the worse case scenario of the type of driver who zb’s up a turn as shown above.

IE at worse the rear wheels of the truck can only run over the kerb ‘after’ the truck starts turning having ‘entered’ the junction.As we’ve said rule 73 always applies and most/all cyclists seem to have a problem in understanding it or even wanting to understand it.Ironically in that case forcing truck drivers to act mistakenly in the hope that hugging the kerb on the approach to a left turn will stop the cyclists undertaking regardless of wether the truck driver overtook them on the approach or not.

As for the establishment trying to make all that the fault of truck drivers what a surprise.When at best it is a case of 50/50 when truck drivers overtake before a left turn then the cyclist ignores rule 73.While at worst an innocent truck driver,who was just a victim of being undertaken by a cyclist at the wrong place at the wrong time,gets falsely accused by the suicidal cyclist cause and their political appeasers in the government. :unamused: :imp:

Roaduser,your pro cycle agenda has me in disbelief. You seem incapable of admitting that cyclists can be in the wrong,even to the point of justifying running a red light. You cant pick and choose which parts of the highway code you want to abide by. And you keep quoting statistics as if it is the be all and end all. But there will be plenty statistics out there where the cyclist is to blame also. All incidents need to be taken individually.
But heres some questions for you
1 - Do you agree some cyclists run red lights when they shouldn’t?
2 - Do you agree some cyclists ride while drunk?
3 - Do you agree some cyclists have no road sense?
4 - Do you agree some cyclists are a danger to themselves and others?

If you can at least admit that then you can be taken seriously. Im not interested in statistics for motorists in the above,just cyclists.
I have said many times both sides have good and bad. You seem to be of the ridiculous mind set that the cyclist is always innocent in a collision. Till you at least admit cyclists can be at fault then Im gonna go with my first impression of you. A non driver with a pro cycle chip on his shoulder incapable of seeing both sides

windrush:
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! :slight_smile: ) can only see in one direction at once.

Pete.

It’s all about the odds and the law of averages.In the case of cyclists there is an obvious almost total disregard of the issues concerning undertaking left turning traffic IE not some but most cyclists.While in most cases it is a credit to most drivers that every such example doesn’t end up in a collision.The number of cyclists in London being disproportionate to its area compared to most other parts of the country.In which case it shouldn’t be any surprise that London has a higher number of examples of what happens when yet another suicidal cyclist undertakes the wrong truck/bus/car at the wrong time in the wrong place during a left turn.On the mad basis that they will always be able to outrun turning traffic and in the cases where they fail they then just blame the innocent turning driver. :unamused: :bulb:

The-Snowman:
Roaduser,your pro cycle agenda has me in disbelief. You seem incapable of admitting that cyclists can be in the wrong,even to the point of justifying running a red light. You cant pick and choose which parts of the highway code you want to abide by. And you keep quoting statistics as if it is the be all and end all. But there will be plenty statistics out there where the cyclist is to blame also. All incidents need to be taken individually.
But heres some questions for you
1 - Do you agree some cyclists run red lights when they shouldn’t?
2 - Do you agree some cyclists ride while drunk?
3 - Do you agree some cyclists have no road sense?
4 - Do you agree some cyclists are a danger to themselves and others?

If you can at least admit that then you can be taken seriously. Im not interested in statistics for motorists in the above,just cyclists.
I have said many times both sides have good and bad. You seem to be of the ridiculous mind set that the cyclist is always innocent in a collision. Till you at least admit cyclists can be at fault then Im gonna go with my first impression of you. A non driver with a pro cycle chip on his shoulder incapable of seeing both sides

^ This.Except it isn’t ‘some’ in the case of 3 and 4 it is most.

Maybe he’s the cycling version of CF, but more articulate with none of his propensity for repetition.
As for your questions my answers would be:

  1. Yes, but not all and certainly not most.
  2. Never seen it myself but it must happen.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes
    How did I do?

BillyHunt:
Maybe he’s the cycling version of CF, but more articulate with none of his propensity for repetition.
As for your questions my answers would be:

  1. Yes, but not all and certainly not most.
  2. Never seen it myself but it must happen.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes
    How did I do?

Perfect. The questions wern’t aimed at you because you have said in previous posts that cyclists can be to blame too,meaning your arguments and points can be respected even if I dont agree with them. At least you can admit cyclists arnt always whiter than white. My point with these questions to roaduser is to get him to at least admit that cyclists can be to blame for incidents as well,not just pull up half a dozen statistics to support his views while ignoring what happens in the real world. Substitute the word cyclist for motorist,van driver or trucker and you will get the exact same answers as you gave but some cyclists cant seem to admit they have an element with total disregard for road safety and the highway code,picking and choosing what laws they want to abide by.

The-Snowman:
Roaduser,You seem incapable of admitting that cyclists can be in the wrong

Then you haven’t been reading my posts. I’ve stated that cyclists are at fault in 12% of RTCs. I’ve said that twice, actually.

Carryfast:
You’re having a laugh just like BH’s bs.The fact is cyclists don’t get run over by left turning trucks by waiting at the stop line at lights and/or holding back at junctions for the truck to enter the junction and turn.

Mary Bowers was stationary at the lights and was driven over and crushed:

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

Sebastien Lukomski, stationary, waiting at the lights, crushed by a lorry driver:

ahalenia.com/memorial/slukomski.html

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23424735

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile.:

thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 … tlana.html

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

road.cc/content/news/103530-boyf … oad-layout

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

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

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile. Ms Patel was stationary, at the lights, obeying the law.

roaduser66:

The-Snowman:
Roaduser,You seem incapable of admitting that cyclists can be in the wrong

Then you haven’t been reading my posts. I’ve stated that cyclists are at fault in 12% of RTCs. I’ve said that twice, actually.

Ok I stand corrected on that score but statistics are meaningless. Any statistic can be massaged and manipulated. How many of the remaining 88% were the cyclists fault by,for example,not looking while passing stationary vehicles and getting hit from behind? The motorist gets the blame there,yet cyclist moved lanes without looking. I had a cyclist do this to me today. How many of the 88% were the cyclists fault by having a bike too big or too small,making them unsteady and wandering onto the path of vehicles? Again,the motorist gets the blame but is the cyclist blameless? No chance. And that’s just two examples. There will be countless others where blame is at least 50-50. The 12% you quote is only where the cyclist is without doubt to blame,yet the motorist gets it if there is any doubt. So your 88% is misleading at best.
Any answers to the questions I posed you earlier?

These took me about 1 minute to find.
youtube.com/watch?v=FguuUKaeIxo SIX run a red light at pedestrian crossing?

youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc Motorist would get the blame here but is the cyclist blameless? Nope

youtube.com/watch?v=1YD1bTbpwV4 Look how close to the bus AND trying to touch it. One handed. In full control?

youtube.com/watch?v=fvXLcSrz61c Talking on phones,turning left with traffic coming from the right,running red lights. And the last clip has one going between a truck AND a bus.

Can you pro cyclists PLEASE at least admit cyclists are bad for ignoring the highway code and basic laws of the road? We all know motorists etc do but some cyclists always think they are blameless

Plenty more examples of cyclists causing near misses etc available. Yes,plenty of ones available of motorists to blame with cyclists but im not banging a “motorists are blameless” drum

I think it would be simpler if you read the link first. It answers all your questions and explicitly provides the breakdown you need. I have never heard of a collision caused by the bicycle being the wrong size, is that based on an actual example? I can’t find a single RTC involving a cyclist where blame is allocated in that manner. It’s certainly not mentioned in the report.

When I’m driving, if I see a cyclist ahead of me and also a parked car I can predict exactly what will happen-the cyclist will move out to overtake the car, obviously, so I leave room to overtake as it states in the HC. A cyclist negotiating a parked car shouldn’t present a problem to a competent driver. Thousands of drivers carry out that maneuver every day. It’s pretty simple.

The-Snowman:
Roaduser,your pro cycle agenda has me in disbelief. You seem incapable of admitting that cyclists can be in the wrong,even to the point of justifying running a red light

I have not justified running red lights, not once. I pointed out that had the cyclists jumped the red lights they would still be alive. That’s a statement of fact, it’s not justifying anything.

certainly more than 12% of the cyclists in this situation are at fault…so why should i believe they are any better in general.

commonrail:
certainly more than 12% of the cyclists in this situation are at fault…so why should i believe they are any better in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE

Because that is a video clip which is titled “Silly Cyclists”, so extrapolating robust conclusions about the behaviour of cyclists based on a short clip produced to specifically highlight silly cyclists would not be sensible.

roaduser66:
I think it would be simpler if you read the link first. It answers all your questions and explicitly provides the breakdown you need. I have never heard of a collision caused by the bicycle being the wrong size, is that based on an actual example? I can’t find a single RTC involving a cyclist where blame is allocated in that manner. It’s certainly not mentioned in the report.

Have you never seen a cyclist on a bike too big or too small? Ive seen plenty. I used to work in Halfords and the number of people who just wouldnt listen when it came to getting the right size of bike was staggering,esp when it came to their kids. Just because it isnt in a report or put down as the cause does not mean it didnt happen. It highlights my point. How many of the 88% involves this? We dont know because its not reported so the statistic is now doubtful

roaduser66:
When I’m driving, if I see a cyclist ahead of me and also a parked car I can predict exactly what will happen-the cyclist will move out to overtake the car, obviously, so I leave room to overtake as it states in the HC. A cyclist negotiating a parked car shouldn’t present a problem to a competent driver. Thousands of drivers carry out that maneuver every day. It’s pretty simple.

So do I. My point is thus. Why is a cyclist allowed to just move out whenever,without looking and yet the guy behind gets the blame? In a car you are expected to look and if you dont and cause a collision,you get the blame. Yet cyclists dont even look but expect the traffic behind to watch for their safety and life.

roaduser66:
I have not justified running red lights, not once. I pointed out that had the cyclists jumped the red lights they would still be alive. That’s a statement of fact, it’s not justifying anything.

Maybe justify is a strong word for me to use but I quoted it earlier on and you came up with some crap about cyclists being more likely to die from a motorist running a red light than running one themselves. Unbelievable in its entirety. Rather than admit it happens,you skipped it and moved the blame game back to motorists. I have seen a van run a red light once. I see at least on cyclist A DAY do it.
Any joy on the questions I asked you yet? Or are you just convenitently ignoring them because you will then have to admit things you want to brush under the carpet?

roaduser66:

commonrail:
certainly more than 12% of the cyclists in this situation are at fault…so why should i believe they are any better in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leW8Mx1GciE

Because that is a video clip which is titled “Silly Cyclists”, so extrapolating robust conclusions about the behaviour of cyclists based on a short clip produced to specifically highlight silly cyclists would not be sensible.

but dont you think that the fact that approx 80% of the cyclists in this simple situation,get it so badly wrong...kinda blows your stat outta the water? of course..you wont,which is why you keep dying. :bulb:

The-Snowman:
Maybe justify is a strong word for me to use but I quoted it earlier on and you came up with some crap about cyclists being more likely to die from a motorist running a red light than running one themselves. Unbelievable in its entirety.

The Mayor of London’s recently published Cycle Safety Action Plan reveals some interesting statistics about cyclists and London’s roads. The report data (from 2007) shows that 79% of all cycling casualties occurred at or within 20 metres of a junction in London. It also shows that the second largest source of cycle casualties, after close proximity impacts with other vehicles, comes from other vehicles disobeying junction controls. That is to say 17% of all cyclists killed or seriously injured were hit or forced off the road by other vehicles jumping the lights or ignoring a give way line.

By comparison, just 5% of cyclist’s KSI were caused by the cyclists doing the same.

ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2010/ … clist.html

14% of drivers jump a red light at least twice a month – Direct Line survey, August 2011

10% of cyclists found to jump red lights – Sunday Times operation, November 2013

Red light jumping is more common among drivers than cyclists, and a cyclist is three times more likely to be hurt by a driver jumping a red than by jumping a red themselves.

commonrail:
but don`t you think that the fact that approx 80% of the cyclists in this simple situation,get it so badly wrong…kinda blows your stat outta the water?

No. That video channel is titled “Silly cyclists” and is devoted exclusively to, er, silly cyclists. Someone edited footage to just depict silly cyclists. Cyclists who aren’t silly don’t appear. Therefore, unless you think a Youtube channel called “Silly drivers” would be a sensible source upon which to build your case that all drivers are silly I’m not sure where your confusion comes from.