Carryfast:
I think they mean ‘failed to look properly’ on the part of drivers not cyclists.
“failing to look properly” was the blame of 46% of cyclists in a collision and 54% of motorists. Almost half each. to me, the difference does not equal a need to rush through laws to automatically apportion blame to the motorist in all cases.
Not being disrespectful but I think the spate of cyclist deaths particularly in London, have made cyclists more cautious. I haven’t had an issue with a cyclist anyway, seen a few undertakers but not for a while. Just like motor racing, it takes a few fatal crashes to improve safety.
Think the Gov is (slowly !) trying to create a more cycle commuter friendly enviroment carryfast .
Not because they love cyclists , or are upset at them dying …
But because the business/economic benefits are potentially huge !
Saving on NHS , road building/maintenance , congestion , accidents , environment , importing oil etc etc
boredwivdrivin:
Think the Gov is (slowly !) trying to create a more cycle commuter friendly enviroment carryfast .Not because they love cyclists , or are upset at them dying …
But because the business/economic benefits are potentially huge !
Saving on NHS , road building/maintenance , congestion , accidents , environment , importing oil etc etc
You mean like it was before the 1960’s/70’s when the average worker was expected to commute to work by bus or bicycle to save on wage costs for the employers.Which is obviously an idea that reaches new levels with the Chinese Communist Party takeover of the country. 
While on that note we’d have a lot less congestion and demand for space if we stopped filling the country with immigrants and trying to force most/all of the resulting population levels into the South East of the country. 
boredwivdrivin:
Snudger:
If you make yourself as conspicuous as possible then at least there is less excuse for not seeing you.words of wisdom …
but ofcourse only applicable to less than 10% of fatalities
I don’t understand. If that Grauniad link states that “… more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike” then if those cyclists were noticed, you’re not suggesting they were deliberately rammed? No, for some reason, these cyclists were not noticed:- though in general I believe they are not mainly being killed by not being noticed but by drivers not being careful enough when passing. People don’t usually want to run someone down, though I suspect that does happen more than we think (road rage), but they don’t care enough to take all possible safety precautions to prevent this.
Snudger:
boredwivdrivin:
Snudger:
If you make yourself as conspicuous as possible then at least there is less excuse for not seeing you.words of wisdom …
but ofcourse only applicable to less than 10% of fatalities
I don’t understand. If that Grauniad link states that “… more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike” then if those cyclists were noticed, you’re not suggesting they were deliberately rammed? No, for some reason, these cyclists were not noticed:- though in general I believe they are not mainly being killed by not being noticed but by drivers not being careful enough when passing. People don’t usually want to run someone down, though I suspect that does happen more than we think (road rage), but they don’t care enough to take all possible safety precautions to prevent this.
It’s a reasonable assumption that in the case of large vehicle v cyclist collisions it’s mostly the left turn scenario where the problems are.Which is just a question of what is more believable cyclists undertaking left turning trucks or trucks overtaking and turning left.While even if/when the cyclists acknowledge the left turn issue they and the establishment still try to justify the former.On the grounds that there is nothing wrong with trying to outrun trucks across jumctions and the driver will/should always see the undertaking cyclist.
Snudger:
… No, for some reason, these cyclists were not noticed:- though in general I believe they are not mainly being killed by not being noticed but by drivers not being careful enough when passing. People don’t usually want to run someone down, though I suspect that does happen more than we think (road rage), but they don’t care enough to take all possible safety precautions to prevent this.
i think its people are distracted and vision obscured by satnav , road signs , mobile phones and passengers etc .
MOST cycling deaths occur on open road , not as carryfast says by left turns . left turn incidents occur almost exclusively in center of london .
this is because london is one of few places where cycling is consistently faster than driving , i think .
most deaths occur where vehicles are travelling faster than cyclists
its also worth remembering a lorry doesnt have to actually hit the cyclist to knock him off , and potrntially cause injury , just passing too close will do it .
beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/ref … ties-2015/
its amazing on the case files above how some people get arrested by police for death by dangerous driving but are never charged . it doesnt say if these decisions were made by CPS or not tho …
but it reinforces my belief that ALL deaths of cyclist should be referred to CPS and not left to police
boredwivdrivin:
Snudger:
… No, for some reason, these cyclists were not noticed:- though in general I believe they are not mainly being killed by not being noticed but by drivers not being careful enough when passing. People don’t usually want to run someone down, though I suspect that does happen more than we think (road rage), but they don’t care enough to take all possible safety precautions to prevent this.i think its people are distracted and vision obscured by satnav , road signs , mobile phones and passengers etc .
MOST cycling deaths occur on open road , not as carryfast says by left turns . left turn incidents occur almost exclusively in center of london .
this is because london is one of few places where cycling is consistently faster than driving , i think .
most deaths occur where vehicles are travelling faster than cyclists
its also worth remembering a lorry doesnt have to actually hit the cyclist to knock him off , and potrntially cause injury , just passing too close will do it .
beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/ref … ties-2015/
its amazing on the case files above how some people get arrested by police for death by dangerous driving but are never charged . it doesnt say if these decisions were made by CPS or not tho …
but it reinforces my belief that ALL deaths of cyclist should be referred to CPS and not left to police
That would obviously depend on the answer to how many fatal truck v cyclist collisions nationally happen in London and how many of those were left turn situations.Also cyclists seem to apply double standards as to what they consider is ‘too close’ when being overtaken as opposed to when they are undertaking moving traffic.
As for the type of speed differentials between motor vehicles and cyclists in anything other than a 30 limit it’s obvious that they are a hazard wether it is a cyclist or horse riders or tractor operators.The difference being that the latter two of those examples obviously try to avoid such risks where possible.While as usual the cyclists are on a crusade to reduce the speeds on such roads to a level which they are happy with by their usual re claim the streets mentality.
On that note you won’t see many/any horse riders who are stupid enough to even use this road,But since the London cyclist invasion you will find plenty of zb stupid cyclists using it rather than the perfectly good cycle ways provided.With the result that so far the council have reduced it to 50 mph max from NSL.Which London’s cycling lobby obviously won’t be happy with until they’ve got it to 30 mph.
google.co.uk/maps/@51.250669 … 312!8i6656
As for the arrest v charges anomaly as I said the CPS don’t have accident investigators.So what happens in the case of police investigations agreeing with the defence while the CPS say charge and prosecute ?.Assuming that is maintaining a regime of innocent until proven guilty according to the rules of the road and not cyclist ‘vulnerability’.
STOP calling people stupid if they choose entirely legitimately to shun useless facilities. It’s none of cyclists’ business where you drive your car, it’s none of your business where cyclists choose to ride. If they are using the road they are perfectly entitled to do so and if they ignore a cycle lane it may be because, unlike you, they know that cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road. You are not God, it’s not up to you to decide who can and can’t use the road, it’s one of your business why people ride on the road, stop getting worked up about stuff that’s none of your business and STOP calling people stupid because you don’t like riders who use the road.
roaduser66:
STOP calling people stupid if they choose entirely legitimately to shun useless facilities. It’s none of cyclists’ business where you drive your car, it’s none of your business where cyclists choose to ride. If they are using the road they are perfectly entitled to do so and if they ignore a cycle lane it may be because, unlike you, they know that cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road. You are not God, it’s not up to you to decide who can and can’t use the road, it’s one of your business why people ride on the road, stop getting worked up about stuff that’s none of your business and STOP calling people stupid because you don’t like riders who use the road.
As I said horse riders don’t generally choose to use that road for safety reasons nor from personal experience would tractor operators where possible.So exactly what is it that is supposedly so ‘useless’ about the cycleways provided.Being that they are at least as good surface quality,if not better,as the road and bearing in mind the speed differential issue.Let me guess you want the road reduced to 30 mph to fix the non existent problem as part of your anti motor vehicle re claim the streets agenda and crusade.
More projection, you have no idea whether the cyclists using that road have any opinion on speed limits, you just made that up. I don’t want to reduce the limit on that road either. Couldn’t care less. It is none of your business why riders choose to use the road. It’s safer for them, despite your ignorance about the safety of cycle lanes, so shut up calling people “stupid” just because they choose to ride in the road. It’s got nothing to do with you.
roaduser66:
More projection, you have no idea whether the cyclists using that road have any opinion on speed limits, you just made that up. I don’t want to reduce the limit on that road either. Couldn’t care less. It is none of your business why riders choose to use the road. It’s safer for them, despite your ignorance about the safety of cycle lanes, so shut up calling people “stupid” just because they choose to ride in the road. It’s got nothing to do with you.
We’ve got an obvious conflict and safety hazard there related to speed differentials.We’ve got perfectly good cycle ways.We’ve got horse riders who ( rightly ) think it’s a risk to horses and riders to ride along there.Also first hand experience of carrying slow vehicles like tractors along it by truck for the same/similar reasons.
So explain why you seem to be among the only road user group who thinks it’s a good idea to mix the vulnerability of cyclists with that speed differential issue.When there is a perfectly good alternative in the form of the expensively provided and maintained cycleways.
For the third time, it is NOT “perfectly good” at all, that’s why it’s shunned. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the lie, it’s still not true. Per mile traveled, cycle lanes have a higher collision and injury rate than the road. You should have looked that up first instead of consolidating your reputation as a dishonest blow hard who hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.
It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS if cyclists use the road, it has nothing to do with you, why can’t you understand this?
Here’s that A24 cycle lane a bit further on:
Instructions have been painted on the road to encourage cyclists to engage in some spontaneous ballet.
Farther along, at the junction with Westhumble Street, a minor road (admittedly, providing access to some wonderful North Downland country lanes) treats the cycle path thus.
And here, in the refuge, is a piece of cycle infrastructure that looks like it could feature as a Facility of the Month.
This is not good infrastructure. It is merely passable. The faults identified above support the contention that, in general, planning for cycling is appalling in this country and, for the most part, simply pays lip service to the needs of cyclists.
Perhaps the biggest indication that this is not a successful route – despite the intermittent quality of this path – is that it is very little used. In 2009 the 12 hour traffic count found that 29,494 motor vehicles used the route, but only 154 cyclists. And this is the road providing access to one of the most popular cycling roads in the south east.
So cyclists doing their best to stay safe also have to contend with muppets like carryfast, who doesn’t understand the issues and calls people “stupid” if they shun absurd and dangerous facilities like this.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
STOP calling people stupid if they choose entirely legitimately to shun useless facilities. It’s none of cyclists’ business where you drive your car, it’s none of your business where cyclists choose to ride. If they are using the road they are perfectly entitled to do so and if they ignore a cycle lane it may be because, unlike you, they know that cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road. You are not God, it’s not up to you to decide who can and can’t use the road, it’s one of your business why people ride on the road, stop getting worked up about stuff that’s none of your business and STOP calling people stupid because you don’t like riders who use the road.As I said horse riders don’t generally choose to use that road for safety reasons nor from personal experience would tractor operators where possible.So exactly what is it that is supposedly so ‘useless’ about the cycleways provided.Being that they are at least as good surface quality,if not better,as the road and bearing in mind the speed differential issue.Let me guess you want the road reduced to 30 mph to fix the non existent problem as part of your anti motor vehicle re claim the streets agenda and crusade.
From the example you give of the A24, I would agree it would be a very odd place to take a bike, even suicidal, there is no way I would venture on to that road on my bike (have you seen the traffic count for it 39,000 per day). And in the example you give the cycle path does look OK. however many cycle paths are just horrendous, overgrown, uneven, dog shet, broken glass, pedestrian (who seem to dislike you even more than car drivers) and even the ones that do appear visually to have a good surface, are in fact of a much lower standard than the road and are very tiring to ride on.
So although I agree with you on the example you give, I am uneasy about cycling infrastructure and excluding bikes from the general highway, the roads are as much for cyclists as they are for other vehicles, and we pay for them every bit as much as other road users (may be arguably even more so)
Bluey Circles:
From the example you give of the A24, I would agree it would be a very odd place to take a bike, even suicidal, there is no way I would venture on to that road on my bike (have you seen the traffic count for it 39,000 per day). And in the example you give the cycle path does look OK. however many cycle paths are just horrendous, overgrown, uneven, dog shet, broken glass, pedestrian (who seem to dislike you even more than car drivers) and even the ones that do appear visually to have a good surface, are in fact of a much lower standard than the road and are very tiring to ride on.
So although I agree with you on the example you give, I am uneasy about cycling infrastructure and excluding bikes from the general highway, the roads are as much for cyclists as they are for other vehicles, and we pay for them every bit as much as other road users (may be arguably even more so)
Admittedly there are obviously places where cycle ways won’t be an ideal solution.However in general it would be fair to say that if it’s considered unsafe by horse riders then it’s also just as unsafe for cyclists and the large speed differentials between cyclists and motor traffic are a bigger risk to safety than anything which you’ve described.In this case there are numerous safer more suitable routes in the area for cyclists than the A24 anyway and that’s even without the cycleway issue.
You want to force cyclists to use facilities where they are more likely to get hurt. You are pig-ignorant, lazy and bigoted.
roaduser66:
In 2009 the 12 hour traffic count found that 29,494 motor vehicles used the route, but only 154 cyclists. And this is the road providing access to one of the most popular cycling roads in the south east.So cyclists doing their best to stay safe also have to contend with muppets like carryfast, who doesn’t understand the issues and calls people “stupid” if they shun absurd and dangerous facilities like this.
What a surprise you seem to have missed the fact that the ‘popularity’ of the whole area for cyclists has gone ballistic since the 2012 Olympics.Ironically in this case from what was mainly ironically a safer environment,regards speed differentials,when it was mostly about at worse being a fast motorbike venue.As opposed to now being taken over by London’s cycling lot.
That’s not a sentence that makes any sense whatsoever. Go away, you are too stupid to argue with.
Christ. 4 pages dedicated to knobs who pedal recycled railings, whilst wearing Lycra leggings.
Worlds gone mad.