another bike run over by large truck

[Otta]

I'm too scared to cycle in London these days (although I do have less than perfect eyesight, so that does give me extra pause for concern.

Even if everyone does what they are supposed to do, mistakes do happen and on a bike you're just so vulnerable.

Shame, as I'd love to cycle to work, and often consider getting a new bike and doing just that. But always arrive at the same conclusion. Walking is safer.

[bawdy-nan]

This, this, this

bmoney Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > I am not following. A cyclist going on the

> inside

> > of a vehicle at an intersection or bend is one

> of

> > the dumbest things possible,

>

> I'm not saying it's smart, I'm saying it's poor

> design. The road design there encourage people to

> do potentially dangerous things - changing the

> design is the most efficient way to change

> behaviour.

>

> > It deserves a Darwin

> > award http://www.darwinawards.com/ for the

> > improvement of the human species by removing

> dumb

> > genes from the gene pool.

>

> 2edgy4me

[DulwichLondoner]

Btw, there has been a long, and successful campaign, to replace the "cyclists (and motorcyclists) stay back" stickers with something less offensive for those poor sensitive souls. I now see lots of "caution, blind spot" stickers instead.

As I said countless times, I am a motorcyclist, I stay back from large vehicles myself, and I most certainly do not feel offended by a "cyclists and motorcyclists, stay back" sticker. The sticker makes me think we live in a world full of brain-dead idiots if they even need to be reminded of such a banal concept, but, well, it seems we do.

To be absolutely clear, there is nothing wrong in overtaking a large vehicle in a lane next to you, if you can do so safely and quickly, in a straight stretch of road with no bends nor intersections, but riding intentionally and for prolonged periods of time on a lane next to large vehicle is just stupid, for all the reasons discussed at length.

I am particularly shocked because it seems that more time and energy have been dedicated to changing the wording into something more politically correct, than to actually warn those on two wheels of the bloody danger. If i google "cycling london safety tips", the first page that comes up is one by TFL which does mention "stay back from HGVs". However, cyclists' association do not seem to care as much about the point - asserting their constitutional right to be killed, ehm, to ride next to large vehicles seems more important to them.

There's a link from LondonCyclist which recommends not to undertake, but doesn't say anything about staying back from large vehicles: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/7-mistakes-you-are-making-with-your-cycling-and-how-you-can-correct-them/

The BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33779950 again, no mention

The London Cycling Campaign does mention that "behind a lorry is often the safest place to be", but does not shout "stay the hell back" from the rooftop like I believe it should be done .

I couldn't find anything at all on the bicycle association website: www.bicycleassociation.org.uk

This is the kind of attitude I find idiotic, and which I hate with all my heart. I know what I am talking about because I am a motorcyclist: for my own safety. I always stay the hell back from large vehicles, and this was the first piece of advice I gave to a friend who asked me after getting his motorcycle licence. Shame that the cyclists associations seem more interested in the political correctness of a sticker, than in actually informing their members of the danger they are exposed to when riding next to a large vehicle, which, yes, is in theory perfectly legal, it's their right, etc etc, but is still dangerous.

[rendelharris]

DL I couldn't give a stuff about the stickers and in fact I thoroughly approve of them, any and all warnings are welcome. As a cyclist and motorcyclist in London of nearly forty years' standing I know as well as you do never to go up the inside of HGVs and indeed sometimes get grief from cyclists behind me for not doing so and blocking them. However that doesn't absolve HGV drivers (and more pertinently their parent companies, to whom all manner of safety devices are now available (yet still rarely fitted), from better mirrors to sensors and side view cameras) of responsibility to take care of other road users. Yes if a cyclist tries to undertake a left turning HGV in the act then it's their fault if they get crunched (harsh but true). However, this actually rarely happens - check out the coroner's reports of recent tragic deaths, more often than not it's been the HGV driver at fault - in one particularly egregious recent case it was proved that the HGV driver had the victim in view ahead of him for at least eighteen seconds but still accelerated, turned left across her and killed her.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the most lethal machines on the road take care of the most vulnerable road users, do you? Or of course we can segregate the two, but you're none too keen on that...

[DulwichLondoner]

So do you agree with me that cyclists and motorcyclists should stay back from large vehicles? I thought you had said I was anti-cyclist for saying so!

Yes, of course, it does not absolve HGV drivers who behave recklessly.

I did ask you before if/how you know for a fact that most collisions between HGVs and cyclists are the HGV's fault; you did not answer, so I'm not gonna ask again. You know, cyclists rightly maintain that single incidents of cyclists misbehaving should not be generalised; similarly, the bad behaviour of other categories should not be generalised. Single cases, however egregious, are utterly irrelevant!

I will be keen on segregated cycle lanes once the benefits are proven. Until that point, I will continue to think it was an utter folly to embark on this initiative ignoring the concerns of the travel watchdog, and an even greater folly to build even more segregated cycle lanes without assessing the impact of the existing ones. If it weren't insane, it would be ridiculous that one of the effects of the segregated cycle lanes is greater congestion and therefore greater pollution, all courtesy of the green cycle lobby! Oh, yes, we all agree that 'something' should be done to limit all the nasty HGVs etc, but, nothing has been done, nor is anything in the works AFAIK, so we are stuck with more congestion and more pollution. Way to go, cycle lobby - our lungs thank you, big time.

I appreciate that, in the era of Brexit Trump fake news alternative facts etc. I am in the minority, but - call me crazy - I still believe that decisions should be based on some kind of evidence, of data, of cost-benefit analysis, rather than on ideological guff shouted from the rooftops with no backing.

[ianr]

> check out the coroner's reports of recent tragic deaths,

> more often than not it's been the HGV driver at fault

I assume you mean the ones here. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/subject/road-highways-safety-related-deaths/ It would be helpful if you could give the names of some of the cyclist ones please.

[malumbu]

Not sure what your issue is with cyclists, and the stickers, DL. A nice 'careful blind spot' or 'take care' is great for a nudged remnider. Stay back is stoopid. I want to change it to fight back (rather than the stay cool as others want). Got a lot of time for many in local and national government but the TfL stickers were designed by someone in the wrong job. Some companies push it even further, is it Addison Lee who have some postitive stuff on bikes? National Express also do a nice bike sticker.

Who needs to collect Eddie Stobart trucks when you can do much better with bike warning stickers.

Been in a truck cab twice with the Met Police/TfL which is illuminating making me even more careful.

Getting a bit bored of all the transport stuff on this site so need to find another activity like cleaning the house, sorting out my paperwork etc.