another bike run over by large truck

[bawdy-nan]

I don't know what happened here but have cycled that stretch of road a lot. That stretch of road has a cycle lane running on the left side of the road which is to say cyclists encouraged to assume that is "their" road space and to be alongside a vehicle on the right is not to be behaving dangerously rather, using the road as it is laid out. A large vehicle turning left across this cycle lane, where cyclists expect and are encouraged by road markings to expect, to be able to proceed safely is a nightmare scenario. A properly segregated cycle path and lights for vehicles turning left across is would help.

https://goo.gl/maps/Y6J2ggub9uS2

[DulwichLondoner]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> [...] to be alongside a

> vehicle on the right is not to be behaving

> dangerously rather, using the road as it is laid

> out.

I disagree in the strongest possible way!

If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if the road is straight, the risks are much lower, but there is still the risk the large vehicle might change lane and, again, not see you. And all of this for what? To assert a constitutional right to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are worth more than that... Make an honest assessment of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should ride next to a large vehicle.

Notice I say 'our' lives because this is exactly what I do when I ride my motorcycle; I am speaking out of direct personal experience here.

[Kbarts82]

I saw the whole thing as I was in my car at the lights on Bellenden Road. I called the ambulance.

I looked up just as he was being sucked under the wheels and hooted at the truck driver to stop, he was completely unaware of the guy under his wheels!

[Penguin68]

It is not just being on the inside of a large vehicle which is a danger to two wheelers - I was struck (on a moped) by an artic's trailer when on the right of it - when it swung out as the artic. turned left - I was too far ahead to see him signalling (and couldn't have done much anyway had I seen it, as I had nowhere to go to avoid the trailer at that stage), and his cab had turned sufficiently that I was no longer visible in his mirror (which I had been before he made the turn). I was not expecting him to turn (we were in queued traffic at lights on a narrow-ish road) - but I was still in a dangerous road position (and I had not worked out just how much the trailer might swing into my lane on that manoeuvre). Didn't make that mistake again (I was knocked off my bike, but no real damage to it or me). Two wheelers and large trucks do not come well together, and simple physics says that it is the two wheel driver who has most to lose and is at most risk in any encounter. So (very) cautious driving should be the rule of the day for the two-wheeler. Being 'in the right' is no real recompense. Which is not to say that bad or reckless driving by HGV drivers should not be punished. Nor that additional warning signs and voiced warnings are not appropriate or necessary.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is

> a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you

> are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as

> the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an

> intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn

> and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if

> the road is straight, the risks are much lower,

> but there is still the risk the large vehicle

> might change lane and, again, not see you. And all

> of this for what? To assert a constitutional right

> to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your

> destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are

> worth more than that... Make an honest assessment

> of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should

> ride next to a large vehicle.

Yet again, as you have throughout this thread, you make an automatic assumption that a cyclist must be at fault: you appear to be telling people not to ride alongside HGVs even on straight roads, well guess what, HGVs overtake. Should a cyclist dismount every time they hear an HGV coming?

Are you the same DulwichLondoner, by the way, who acknowledges how dangerous roads are for cyclists to share with HGVs but also wants all segregated cycle lanes torn out?

[DulwichLondoner]

@rendelharris, are you for real?

Please tell me where I said a cyclist must automatically be at fault. It is a rhetorical question, of course, because I notice you have still not answered my other questions, nor admitted you were wrong in accusing me of saying the cyclist was at fault.

I shall remind you that, as a motorcyclist, I do the very same (stay back from large vehicles) myself. By your logic, does this mean I assume every motorcyclist is automatically at fault?

Being in the right or in the wrong is beyond the point. Riding cautiously and defensively, whether on a pushbike or a motorcycle, means trying to preempt danger as much as possible. This is what I do myself, because, guess what, I'd much rather say: "phew, thankfully I avoided that, regardless of whose fault it would have been" while riding my motorbike safe and intact, than: "your honour, it was his fault" while paralysed in a wheelchair. This is the same point Penguin made above.

Thank you for reminding me that HGVs can and do overtake. Since we are talking about self-evident banalities here, you won't be offended if, similarly, I remind you that there is a difference between ending up next to an HGV which has just overtaken, and intentionally riding next to one.

It's the same attitude I follow when I am not the most vulnerable. If I am approaching a green traffic light, and my bike and bus lane is empty while the car lane next to me is jammed, I almost come to a stop because I assume there can always be an idiot pedestrian, hidden behind a car or truck in my right lane, who may decide to cross the road when he shouldn't. This doesn't mean he'd be in the right, it simply means I'd rather preempt the situation even if hitting him wouldn't be my fault.

I must say I am simpathetic towards drivers who are undertaken by cyclists, especially at intersections and bends. It is something I have witnessed myself so frequently that I have taken to honking and signalling with my hand, too, when I turn left. Similarly, when cyclists are around I ride around bends "the wrong way" : I don't make my way to the right of my lane before a left bend (which is the proper way on a motorcycle as it draws the shortest line around the bend and increases the field of view, as also advised by the Police in their bikesafe course), but, rather, I stay as far to the left as possible, because this way cyclists don't have room to undertake me. Of course I cannot say this, because this makes me an anti-bike fanatic, rather than a cautious motorcyclist who rides defensively to preempt dangerous situations, regardless of whose fault they might be, right?

Finally, I am the same individual who strongly objects to public works, costing a lot of money and causing considerable disruption, being undertaken without a proper cost-benefit analysis. The Transport Watchdog (are they fanatics, too?) raised my same concerns about the negative impact of segregated cycle lanes on bus users, since bus lanes would be removed to make way for them. These concerns were ignored and the first cycle lanes were built, AFAIK, with no cost-benefit analysis at all. After the first were built, why was their impact not measured, so as to have a proper discussion, informed by facts rather than prejudices? Before they were built, their impact could only be guessed and estimated. Now that they have been built, it wouldn't be particularly complex nor expensive to measure how much they are used throughout the day, the impact on bus journey times, the impact on the rest of the traffic, etc. Why was this not done? Why was it decided to spend more money on building more segregated cycle lanes without assessing the impact of the existing ones? Is mine such a weird demand?

You refuse to acknowledge that I am ready to accept my negative impressions of the cycle lanes may be wrong. Maybe bus journey times have not increased. Maybe the cycle lanes are not empty outside rush hours. Maybe my experience is unrepresentative. It is possible. However, it should be TFL, not me (I'd love to but I can't!) which monitors the impact of cycle lanes, publishes the result and allows us to have an informed discussion.

[SpringTime]

I saw the bike too and have to say I'm surprised he didn't sustain further injuries.

Given where the bike and truck were at the junction after the accident also seems strange that it happened at all. The junction is small for a truck of that size and so the truck must've swung out to the right a little in order to make a left hand turn which might have given the cyclist some advance warning of potential collision. But if the truck didn't need to make such a wide turn it probably would have been going quite slowly anyway as it looked pretty tight.

Glad to hear he survived.

I recently hit a cyclist in my car - thought I'd killed the guy but fortunately he was ok. Didn't see him COMING TOWARDS ME and we collided head on. Seems my previous attention wasn't 100% after all...

[titch juicy]

I'm a commuting and free time cyclist and I agree wholeheartedly with Dulwich Londonder here.

If a cyclist cycles down the inside of a large vehicle clearly indicating to turn left, they are asking for trouble. Large vehicles have blind spots. If they indicate early enough before turning and can't see anything in their nearside mirrors, there's nothing else they can reasonably be expected to do. They don't want to knock cyclists over, the post-trauma of doing so would be horrendous.

Cycle deaths on London roads would be greatly reduced if cyclists followed that simple rule. Hang back until the vehicle has turned left as it has clearly indicated to do. Whether it's out of ingorance of the dangers or just plain impatience, i'm staggered that cyclists still do this. Add 10 seconds to your journey folks to potentially save your life.

The cycling agenda would be furthered a lot quicker if some cyclists could accept that some other cyclists are a menace to themselves and others (this is a general point based on experience rather than a dig at anyone specific- please don't think otherwise).

I can't help thinking that focus groups with cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians, bus drivers, delivery drivers, other HGV drivers, Police, Ambulance drivers etc coming together to try and work out how to make the roads safer for everyone, would be an excellent starting point.

[bawdy-nan]

sigh ... what I am saying is that an unprotected bike lane encourages you to think that you have a lane not that you are undertaking in a "normal" lane and it is most often the case that you are not undertaking but are being "overtaken". By your assertion no large vehicle should ever pass a bike in a bike lane? Of course travelling on the kerbside of a large vehicle is dangerous and I am (of course) not suggesting this as a course of action. A vehicle turning left across a lane of traffic, whether a bike lane or a fully "trafficed" lane doesn't have right of way.

What I'm saying is that having large vehicles turn across a bike lane is pretty dangerous.

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > [...] to be alongside a

> > vehicle on the right is not to be behaving

> > dangerously rather, using the road as it is

> laid

> > out.

>

> I disagree in the strongest possible way!

>

> If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is

> a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you

> are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as

> the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an

> intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn

> and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if

> the road is straight, the risks are much lower,

> but there is still the risk the large vehicle

> might change lane and, again, not see you. And all

> of this for what? To assert a constitutional right

> to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your

> destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are

> worth more than that... Make an honest assessment

> of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should

> ride next to a large vehicle.

>

> Notice I say 'our' lives because this is exactly

> what I do when I ride my motorcycle; I am speaking

> out of direct personal experience here.

[nunhead_man]

On a broader point construction management on the site to which I assume that truack was going in Highshore Road is piss poor - no banksmen, no warning signs of trucks turning at all this am

[Otta]

James Barber Wrote: ON PAGE ONE, REALLY EARLY ON

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

> Cyclist taken to major trauma centre - sounds

> grim.

>

> This will be a Police investigation and potential

> charges. Not sure it's helpful to speculate on

> this thread while evidence being collected and

> until a jury have decided against any charges.

And yet you've got it on to a second page. Well done muppets.

This is absolutely classic, cyclist won't accept that some people cycle like complete cnuts and get themselves hurt or killed, and driver thinks all cyclists are to blame for everything.

Both parties end up looking like dicks.

Sorry but have a word with yourselves.

Hope this bloke is recovering.

[stringvest]

What a horrible accident! I was on foot and had to step back away from the kerb when a large tipper truck was turning left, it was sounding an alarm "turning left". I thought it wise, else I might have been too near it's back wheels.

If there was more thought and consideration by ALL PARTIES, the roads would be nicer. I let people cross and get no thanks. I wait for cyclists who are next to me when I turn left, whilst getting beeped and abuse from the drivers behind, I also get cyclists whizzing across red lights turning right across my path ...

i had a nice drive in Kent, some cyclists waved me infant of them at a level crossing, I said thanks ... all very civilised. London is too busy and whizzy!

[uncleglen]

I'd like to add that, not for the first time, I was driving down to Peckham and there were cyclists everywhere...to the left of me, to the right of me, some with helmets, some without, all going at different speeds. My reaction was to just continue on my way, driving my car correctly (as i always do) and gritting my teeth- I would've shut my eyes but that is not advisable....there was no way I could make allowances for them all- in my rear view mirror, in my side mirrors- it was bloody chaos

[bmoney]

Did anyone see if the lorry was indicating left? Also, did anyone see if the cyclist was on the inside of the lorry?

The 'infrastructure' there encourages cyclists to go on the inside of vehicles. Up until the introduction of Bikeability cyclists were generally taught to stay on the left and always use bike lanes - an attitude that many cyclists and drivers still retain. People often have a go a cyclists for not using bike lanes, even though the legacy ones are often pretty dangerous, so it's not beyond reason to see why many cyclists go on the inside of vehicles.

[DulwichLondoner]

@bawdy-nan, I said "at intersections and bends". Apologies if I was unclear - let me try to clarify. Of course a cyclist on a cycle lane can (and, in fact, IMHO should) overtake large vehicles on a straight stretch of road. It is at intersections and at bends that extreme caution should be exercised.

As for right of way, first of all in this country the Highway Code does not grant any one right of way - it simply tells road users whether/when they must give way to others. Surely you knew this, right, because the thought of a cyclist not knowing the highway code is simply inconceivable ! :) Btw, I don't think the difference is as subtle and useless as some think.

The Highway code, rule 183: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 states:

"when turning [...] give way to any vehicle using [...] a cycle lane [...] in either direction".

This does not change the fact that, again, extreme caution should be exercised!

I don't honestly understand what your beef with me is. I have simply been saying that two-wheelers (cyclists and motorcyclists alike) should not intentionally ride next to large vehicles for prolonged periods of time: they should stay back or overtake them as quickly as possible, but not stay next to them, because that exposes them to unnecessary danger. Again, I speak from personal experience because this is precisely what I do myself as a motorcyclist. Could you please help me understand if you disagree with this statement and, if so, why?

Yes, large vehicles turning onto a cycle lane are dangerous. Yes, as I have reported above, the Highway Code explicitly states that vehicles turning onto a cycle lane must give way to cyclists. No, nothing comes even remotely close to exonerating or excusing a driver who does not signal well in advance, swerves to the left abruptly, does not pay enough attention, etc etc etc. But none of this changes the fact that the most vulnerable road users (again, I category I belong to myself as a motorcyclist) should exercise extreme caution regardless of whose fault a collision might be.

Yes, a vehicle turning onto a cycle lane is dangerous, but isn't this danger reduced by a great deal, if not eliminated altogether, if:

1) cyclists do not intentionally ride along a large vehicle (unless they can overtake it quickly in a straight stretch of road, without any intersections), thus making sure they are not in their blind spot?

2) And if a cyclist slows down, if he sees a vehicle about to turn left, and has even the slightest doubt that the driver might not have seen him or might not give him way?

You might argue that a cyclist should not give way to a driver if it's the driver who has to give him way. Technically true, but who'd come out worst from a collision? There is no point in proactively seeking a dangerous situation that might kill you for the sole purpose of asserting a legal right. Again, this is what I do myself when I ride my motorcycle, and I'd like to think this, alongside pure luck, has contributed to me never having an accident in ca. 10 years of riding: if I have the slightest doubt that another vehicle might not give me way, I slow down and let him pass. I may try to film and report the bastard, to loudly praise his mother's virtue, etc, but I sure as hell do not intentionally put myself in a situation that has a high probability of injuring or even killing me.

Do you disagree? My advice is: "stay the hell back from large vehicles". What is yours? "Don't bother staying back because we'll prosecute the bastard and make sure your widow gets a fair payment"?

[DulwichLondoner]

Applespider Wrote:

> On one occasion,

> if I hadn't heard the engine revving to accelerate

> and chosen to brake and stop, I'd probably be dead

The importance of being heard is an interesting point. In fact, one of the reasons why I do not like electric vehicles is precisely because they are too quiet, yet it shouldn't be particularly difficult to install some kind of noise-generating contraption, for the sole purpose of being heard by other road users.

I would never ever ride an electric scooter or motorcycle, unless it had some kind of noise-generating thingy that makes me reasonably loud and easy to hear, for this very reason.

[DulwichLondoner]

bmoney Wrote:

> [...] so it's

> not beyond reason to see why many cyclists go on

> the inside of vehicles.

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, for all the reasons already discussed at length. It deserves a Darwin award http://www.darwinawards.com/ for the improvement of the human species by removing dumb genes from the gene pool. Now feel free to have a go at me for being insensitive - it doesn't change the fact that that behaviour is stupid.

@ Otta, not sure what drivers you are referring to. I don't own a car and drive one no more than a handful of days per year. Also, I did not generalise - I have simply been advocating the very same behaviour (stay the hell back from alrge vehicles) I follow myself as a motorcyclist, something a number of cyclists agree with.

[Administrator]

Moving this to the Lounge as it's turned into yet another discussion about general cycling/cyclists

[macutd]

-- moved topic --

[flocker spotter]

As an aside but related - I cycled past highshore towards Burgerking yesterday morning - on the other side of the road, a large truck was driving along, suddenly veering across the road to position itself to reverse into the highshore site. Both myself and a car were in plain sight to the truck at the time, yet both of us had to brake sharply and wait for the truck to reverse into the site. At no point did I see a banksman or the truck indicating it was going to do anything except continue in a straight line. make of this what you wish but be very careful in that area.

[titch juicy]

bmoney Wrote:

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

> Did anyone see if the lorry was indicating left?

> Also, did anyone see if the cyclist was on the

> inside of the lorry?

>

> The 'infrastructure' there encourages cyclists to

> go on the inside of vehicles. Up until the

> introduction of Bikeability cyclists were

> generally taught to stay on the left and always

> use bike lanes - an attitude that many cyclists

> and drivers still retain. People often have a go a

> cyclists for not using bike lanes, even though the

> legacy ones are often pretty dangerous, so it's

> not beyond reason to see why many cyclists go on

> the inside of vehicles.

The cyclist can still use the cycle lane, just hang back in the cycle lane until the vehicle has turned and it's safe to proceed.

[DulwichLondoner]

*

[bmoney]

> 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

[JohnL]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> The cyclist can still use the cycle lane, just

> hang back in the cycle lane until the vehicle has

> turned and it's safe to proceed.

That's why I'm scared to cycle

You can hang back 364 days of the year - but the one time you forget you're in extreme danger.

The cycle lane could lull you into a false sense of security.

[titch juicy]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The cyclist can still use the cycle lane, just

> > hang back in the cycle lane until the vehicle

> has

> > turned and it's safe to proceed.

>

> That's why I'm scared to cycle

>

> You can hang back 364 days of the year - but the

> one time you forget you're in extreme danger.

>

> The cycle lane could lull you into a false sense

> of security.

If the vehicle is indicating to turn it shouldn't be a case of remembering.

It's like saying that 364 days a year you remember not to step out into the fast lane of a motorway into oncoming traffic. Or, 364 days a year you remember not to throw yourself onto the tracks in front of a train. Or, 364 days a year you remember to breath.