Another cyclist dies in London
- Thread starter Hackney Andy
- Start date
Yes, it's absolutely true that cycling has become safer as it's been increasing, especially in London. But it's also evident from the circumstances of these last six deaths in London that it could be much safer yet if cyclists would only heed warnings about avoiding the most obvious dangers.
Other measures are possible, but they mostly concern infrastructure and vehicle modifications which take time. Only the cyclists themselves can achieve an instant improvement.
Other measures are possible, but they mostly concern infrastructure and vehicle modifications which take time. Only the cyclists themselves can achieve an instant improvement.
There's a link to a London page on Ghost Bikes.
Links to several other city sites in the UK in the links on the right under 'United Kingdom'. You then need to click in the 'blank box' that opens to reveal the city links.
According to that page, the .org.uk site hasn't been updated in a long time - maybe someone never renewed the domain name?
Until many cyclists lose this mindset that they shouldn't ever have to stop on the roads in traffic, then fatalities will carry on happening. I see it time & time again.
Cyclist enters a road from a side road and turns left. The cyclist seems to think because they take up so little room that they can pull out even with traffic approaching from the right.
Plus we all know many of them seem to think traffic lights doesn't apply to them.
Plus this reckless undertaking of large vehicles like trucks & buses.
Cyclist enters a road from a side road and turns left. The cyclist seems to think because they take up so little room that they can pull out even with traffic approaching from the right.
Plus we all know many of them seem to think traffic lights doesn't apply to them.
Plus this reckless undertaking of large vehicles like trucks & buses.
Hold hauliers to account over cyclist fatalities, says CTC | CTC
Or one could approach it from a different point of view!
"The industry could move to using safer vehicles with low driver positions, which are already on the market, but they choose not to introduce them in significant numbers. Instead they run occasional schemes called “Exchanging Places”, in which cyclists are invited to sit in lorry cabs and see for themselves how limited the visibility is. In other words, hauliers are demonstrating how unfit to share the roads their vehicles are, and expecting vulnerable road users to take responsibility for avoiding them"
Or one could approach it from a different point of view!
"The industry could move to using safer vehicles with low driver positions, which are already on the market, but they choose not to introduce them in significant numbers. Instead they run occasional schemes called “Exchanging Places”, in which cyclists are invited to sit in lorry cabs and see for themselves how limited the visibility is. In other words, hauliers are demonstrating how unfit to share the roads their vehicles are, and expecting vulnerable road users to take responsibility for avoiding them"
Wouldn't make much difference Mike, these are not static situations. At the point of turn a driver cannot be staring at the mirrors, from experience it's glance first and then concentrate on the corner one is turning into, necessary to cope with the length of vehicle and possible centreline overlap. Sometimes rear overhang necessitates a glance at the right mirror too.
So wherever the driver is, there's plenty of opportunity for cyclists to ride rapidly into the danger spot as they try to overtake the traffic stream on the left, something London commuting cyclists do all the time.
When they do it at left turn junctions they place themselves in danger and only have themselves to blame. Of course the CTC don't address such issues as the illegality of cyclists overtaking slow moving traffic on the left.
So wherever the driver is, there's plenty of opportunity for cyclists to ride rapidly into the danger spot as they try to overtake the traffic stream on the left, something London commuting cyclists do all the time.
When they do it at left turn junctions they place themselves in danger and only have themselves to blame. Of course the CTC don't address such issues as the illegality of cyclists overtaking slow moving traffic on the left.
The reason why the drivers of trucks sit up high, is because they are effectively sitting on the engine. A low driving position can be achieved with buses because the engine is in the rear of the vehicle. Easily done in a rigid passenger carrying vehicle, not so in a goods carrying vehicle. Especially articulated vehicles where the tractor unit is using many different trailers. Engines need to be big & powerful to haul the large weights they have to pull. Where would you place these engines in a truck, where they are not situated currently ?
Far easier, is for cyclists to take responsibility for their own safety, and that means not cycling recklessly. It can be done, I manage it perfectly well.
Small sailing boats at times may have right of passage over a powered supertanker. Those with any sense keep out of harms way.
The same applies to cycling. I do not understand why some think that their safety is the sole responsibility of others.
Just get real and understand that if you hide and you are hiding if the truck driver cannot see you, then you are likely to get injured or worse.
The same applies to cycling. I do not understand why some think that their safety is the sole responsibility of others.
Just get real and understand that if you hide and you are hiding if the truck driver cannot see you, then you are likely to get injured or worse.
I'm now confused as to whether 'undertaking' is legal or not, and under what circumstances. In York there are many narrow kerbside cycle lanes, a large proportion of which have faint dotted or solid demarcation markings, and are faint and extremely narrow. In other words they give you no confidence at all. At the same time it's reasonable to assume that these belong to cyclists and no other vehicles?
Bike lanes do belong to bikes, but vehicles often use them, even park on them, and officialdom ignores that, probably recognising that the roads aren't wide enough to keep everything separate at all times.
Strictly speaking undertaking moving vehicles is illegal, and that includes bikes in bike lanes just as much as cars in other lanes.
Of course in heavy city traffic it can be considered "blind eye" reasonable for cyclists to undertake slow moving lines of traffic, but it's also reasonable to expect them to bear in mind the danger and act accordingly. That surely means not being "invisible" alongside a heavy vehicle at a junction where it might turn left.
.
Strictly speaking undertaking moving vehicles is illegal, and that includes bikes in bike lanes just as much as cars in other lanes.
Of course in heavy city traffic it can be considered "blind eye" reasonable for cyclists to undertake slow moving lines of traffic, but it's also reasonable to expect them to bear in mind the danger and act accordingly. That surely means not being "invisible" alongside a heavy vehicle at a junction where it might turn left.
.
Last edited:
So bike lanes offer no advantages at all it seems. They also lull you into a false sense of security perhaps.
Thats exactly right. If the so called lane is just some additional paint applied to the road, beware.
It may appear to be traffic free but if traffic can drive over this paint at any point, expect it t do so.
A segregated path is the answer but in a lot of cases this is not possible. I believe the answer lies in aerial pathways in congested city's but what do I know.
Indeed, and they add to the danger in other ways:
Often too narrow, drivers passing near to the cycle lane are unwittingly not leaving safe room for the cyclists.
Because they are narrow, a cyclist overtaking another cyclist has to move onto the vehicle lane, something which can catch drivers out since they may not expect a bike to suddenly go outside the lane.
If the line is constant then it is supposed to be just for bikes, if the line is dashed/dotted then it is advisory and cars can pull into it if needed. It isn't enforced and drivers simply don't know so both are treated as optional. The colours are also optional as the only marking that are legally mentioned are the line to show the side of the lane and then the picture of a bike at reasonable distances along the lane to show what it is for, in london I have seen green red and blue cycle lanes as one council decided to make them match the bus lane paint they had and the blue cycle super highways and green regular ones.
In some places the "cycle super highway" just becomes a bike picture in a blue square dotted about. To give an example this is taken at the lights about 100m short of clapham south tube station if you cycle along the common from clapham common tube station, the pavement as you can see is more than a lane of traffic wide and could accomidate a cycle lane but doesn't and the other side of the road is clapham common which again could loose a meter for a cycle path but doesn't.
Also this seems to have been around since march. It isn't an impossible or secret design of truck but it is smaller than many used so most will need 2-4 to do the job of 1 and they still aren't good for moving skips or other things coming from the building site traffic issues, delivering to supermarkets and highstreet shops I really see no reason other than the potential extra costs in drivers/trucks to hold people back.
London Cycling Campaign | LCC challenges construction industry to adopt our Safer Urban Lorry to reduce lorry-cyclist deaths
I can't really offer a solution but I know the "latest safety equipment" to be taken up by lots of trucks and tfl buses is this...
I'm entirely on the ropes about this one, on one hand I admit some cyclists take the gaps they shouldn't but on the other hand I find it insulting. Should I have a sign on my back with "motorists stay right"? If I did I can imagine the horns going behind me and inch close passes by motorists it rubs the wrong way.
I understand your feelings, but motorists aren't being killed by not staying back. Cyclists are persisting in riding up alongside trucks and buses on the left despite all the advice so far, so maybe an on-the-spot reminder isn't a bad idea. It might just work at times.
'Choppper' effect at work in East Sussex. From BBC news, on A21 bypass, 18 Nov, 16:30 (dusk).
'60-year-old woman has been arrested after a cyclist died in a suspected hit and run collision in East Sussex'.
Consider Smeeds Law, "as the sheer number of cyclists increases, motorists will be more likely to adjust their driving to accommodate them". Critical Mass - safety in numbers!
'60-year-old woman has been arrested after a cyclist died in a suspected hit and run collision in East Sussex'.
Consider Smeeds Law, "as the sheer number of cyclists increases, motorists will be more likely to adjust their driving to accommodate them". Critical Mass - safety in numbers!
Last edited:
Effectively it is. The law does allow a left hand overtake under certain circumstances, stating only when you are sure that the other driver has seen you and understands your intention. Since that condition is virtually impossible to meet, the law is broken when undertaking.
That is why I posted "strictly speaking".
And the cyclists who squeeze past other vehicles in the left turn collision circumstances described elsewhere in this thread are mostly not in their own lanes since there often isn't a cycle lane and few of the lanes which do exist are marked through junctions.
Therefore the Highway Code won't help when the cyclist is not in possession of a traffic lane. They are only allowed to keep up, not pass:
Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right.
.
That is why I posted "strictly speaking".
And the cyclists who squeeze past other vehicles in the left turn collision circumstances described elsewhere in this thread are mostly not in their own lanes since there often isn't a cycle lane and few of the lanes which do exist are marked through junctions.
Therefore the Highway Code won't help when the cyclist is not in possession of a traffic lane. They are only allowed to keep up, not pass:
Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right.
.
Last edited:
I would guess that applies to everything inside the M25, the M25 itself, and most of the approach roads.
Big report on the BBC London news this evening, even they thought that the Met Pol 'talking' to cyclists about helmets and hi-viz missed that many are hit in broad daylight and a plastic bowl won't stop tons of rolling metal!
Also check Three Pedestrians Dead On London Streets In One Day | Londonist, reminding us that 'pedestrians account for 51% of all fatalities and 37% of serious injuries on our roads', & i don't think they were undertaking vehicles at the time.
While in Paris, in 2011, there we no, nil, zero cyclist deaths! It wasn't because they were wearing croissants for helmets and batting vehicles away with French loafs either. It's coz HGV's are banned from city centre in rush hours. Food for thought, eh?
Also check Three Pedestrians Dead On London Streets In One Day | Londonist, reminding us that 'pedestrians account for 51% of all fatalities and 37% of serious injuries on our roads', & i don't think they were undertaking vehicles at the time.
While in Paris, in 2011, there we no, nil, zero cyclist deaths! It wasn't because they were wearing croissants for helmets and batting vehicles away with French loafs either. It's coz HGV's are banned from city centre in rush hours. Food for thought, eh?
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
