Look out for the cyclist

[maritap]

Another cyclist dead this evening in camberwell, please look out for them. Another family left to mourn this tragety.so sad

[LadyDeliah]

50% of HGV drivers stopped this morning were driving illegally.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html

So you guys still think it's the cyclists who are the main culprits of road rule breaches?

[Penguin68]

The (vast) majority of the very sad recent cyclist deaths have involved HGV (and bus/ coach) drivers - although some of these are no doubt ED Forum participants I guess that most of us are not in fact HGV and bus drivers here. Which is not to say that we who are car drivers shouldn't be wary of, and look out for, cyclists (and vice versa - cyclists also need to look out for other road users, most of whom can do them a lot more harm than they can themselves meet out).

But car drivers on the forum should not beat themselves up (or be beaten up by the cycling fraternity) because of these, as I have said, very sad deaths.

And much of the illegality (I believe) discovered for HGV drivers was about driving hours - which of course means that they may be tired and lack attention, but is not, in itself, being dangerous at the time, just (!) potentially dangerous.

Commuting cyclists are now, as winter draws on, cycling in increasingly diffficult conditions, in terms of visability and grip - other drivers need to be more aware, clearly, but cyclists need to be additionally careful to make themselves fully visible, particularly at dusk/ dawn when lighting conditions are at their most difficult.

I am still coming across cyclists in suburban roads without Hi Vis cycling gear and with poor, or no, lights. If we must look out for cyclists (which we must) - they need to make our job as easy as possible by working to be visible, and by cycling predictably.

I was in traffic 2 days ago and watched 2 cyclists 'jinking' through the stationary traffic passing vehicles on the left, then the right, then the left as they sought passing space. I had no idea where they would go next. As the two lanes of traffic moved off cars adjusted their positioning - but no car driver could have known where the cyclists might be next - they did not of course make any signals to indicate their turns, unlike cars in traffic which do try to be predictable. So, perhaps this thread should be 'look out for cyclists, cyclists look out, and cyclists make looking out for you easier'

[the man with a van]

Ok another cyclist has died and I am sad that is has happened but surely alot of cyclists put themselves in danger I mean on the inside of a 30 ton tipper lorry also why do most people blame the lorry hgv drivers also why do the tv channels bang on that nothing is being done roads can not change overnight and london is not amsterdam and never will be why is it allways more priority for cyclists why not less

[LadyDeliah]

So here we go again. Blame the victim.

The fact that drivers of any vehicles are so much more dangerous when tired is why the inherently more dangerous HGV's drivers are legally obliged to take breaks. If you think that's a minor breach, then you are totally missing the point.

Plus, why aren't the 'all laws must be obeyed' lobby all over this like they are with pavement cycling?

[LadyDeliah]

And the reason most cyclists end up on the left hand side of any vehicle is because that's where the cycle lanes are.

Junctions are the most dangerous places for cyclists and something as simple as phased lights, allowing cyclists to go before other traffic, could potentially save lives, but idiots like the van man think cyclists should get even less priority than they do currently, because the deaths are 'sad' but he needs to get where he's going 5 minutes faster.

[JohnL]

Segregation seems the way forward - separate lane and lights at junctions at least.

I think the idea is to move towards an Amsterdam model - and that might mean 'access only' for some roads.

[the man with a van]

Here we go again fact london is a hell of a lot bigger and a lot busier than amsterdam so stop banging on about amsterdam I drive in london every day and the fact is a lot of cyclists seem to have a death wish and nearly all cyclists break the law because they know they can not be caught

[Townleygreen]

man with a van said: Here we go again fact london is a hell of a lot bigger and a lot busier than amsterdam so stop banging on about amsterdam I drive in london every day and the fact is a lot of cyclists seem to have a death wish and nearly all cyclists break the lae because they know they can not be caught

So it's OK to kill them with your van so you can get someplace 5 minutes early is it?

[the man with a van]

I am a idiot what about let the traffic go first then the cyclists but then most cyclists do not stop and traffic lights anyway but why are cyclists allways the victims accept sometimes the cyclists are at fault

[the man with a van]

Look townley green did I say it is ok to kill them to get somewhere 5 minutes earlier no I did not but why are cyclists allways the victims because of the green brigade that everybody should cycle

[Townleygreen]

cyclists are always the victims because they have no protection. You in your van are in a protective cage with airbags, seat bags.

Hadn't you noticed?

[spider69]

When have you ever read on this forum that I was in the wrong from either a biker or driver?

[the man with a van]

Townleygreen no the victim is the person at fault just because I as a driver would not get injured that does not mean that I could be the victim but it I hit a cyclist and it was the cyclist fault then who is the victim

[davidk]

I don't understand the "London is bigger than Amsterdam" argument. The overall size of the city is irrelevant. Most cities in the Netherlands had very similar roads and very similar public spaces to the UK until they started to do something about all of the deaths on their roads. Yes, that is going to mean driving a motor vehicle in London will be less convenient and you will be given less space. You're just going to have to get used to that idea because it is coming.

In the short term, we could very easily restrict HGV movements in the city, we did it for the Olympics. We're doing it right now in fact, just the wrong way around. HGV's aren't allowed in London until 7am, just when all the cyclists and pedestrians start making their journeys. Madness. The voluntary safety equipment under TFL's FORS scheme should be made mandatory immediately. No access to London without FORS compliance for any HGV.

[the man with a van]

So when has a cyclist admitted they were in the wrong

[Townleygreen]

a dictionary definition of victim is

"a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident"

[davidk]

the man with a van Wrote:

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

> So when has a cyclist admitted they were in the

> wrong

TFL found that in crashes involving cyclists, blame could be apportioned to the cyclist in just over 10% of cases.

[spider69]

davidk Wrote:

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

> I don't understand the "London is bigger than

> Amsterdam" argument. The overall size of the city

> is irrelevant. Most cities in the Netherlands had

> very similar roads and very similar public spaces

> to the UK until they started to do something about

> all of the deaths on their roads. Yes, that is

> going to mean driving a motor vehicle in London

> will be less convenient and you will be given less

> space. You're just going to have to get used to

> that idea because it is coming.

>

> In the short term, we could very easily restrict

> HGV movements in the city, we did it for the

> Olympics. We're doing it right now in fact, just

> the wrong way around. HGV's aren't allowed in

> London until 7am, just when all the cyclists and

> pedestrians start making their journeys. Madness.

> The voluntary safety equipment under TFL's FORS

> scheme should be made mandatory immediately. No

> access to London without FORS compliance for any

> HGV.

What has not been mentioned is the Dutch system has evolved over many many decades.

Most Dutch cities are no where near as busy as greater london.

Also the Dutch are more considerate of others unlike here.

[the man with a van]

Really so when I nearly run over a cyclist who fell of his bike in front of me if I had run him over why is he the victim not me it was his fault not mine just because they are on cycles not mean that they are not at fault

[davidk]

spider69 Wrote:

>

> What has not been mentioned is the Dutch system

> has evolved over many many decades.

>

> Most Dutch cities are no where near as busy as

> greater london.

>

> Also the Dutch are more considerate of others

> unlike here.

There is nothing inherently different in the character of the Dutch compared to us. They have just designed the conflicts out of their roads. And it is untrue that the centre of Dutch cities are less busy. I have spent a lot of time in The Hague and Amsterdam. Plenty busy. Also very safe to walk and cycle around.

Dutch cities have evolved to be how they are because political decisions were taken to redesign public spaces for the benefit of everyone, not just motor vehicle traffic. We do not have the political will to even begin that evolution in this country. "Smoothing Traffic Flow" is King.

[StraferJack]

anyone likely to use "man with a van"'s services after his posts on here?

I mean you just can't beat " so when I nearly run over a cyclist who fell of his bike in front of me if I had run him over why is he the victim not me it was his fault not mine just because they are on cycles not not mean that they are not at fault" for logic

If only it was more succint we could get a tshirt craze out of it

[davidk]

the man with a van Wrote:

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

> Really so when I nearly run over a cyclist who

> fell of his bike in front of me if I had run him

> over why is he the victim not me it was his fault

> not mine just because they are on cycles not mean

> that they are not at fault

Because we have a system of presumed liability for any vehicle following another vehicle. Person in a car ahead brakes hard and you run into him? Your fault. Person on a bike tumbles off infront of you and you run him over? Your fault.

I'm glad you were driving carefully and managed to avoid him.

[Townleygreen]

SJ, what "van man" says is just incredible isn't it.

[Mellors]

the man with a van Wrote:

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

most cyclists do not stop and traffic lights anyway

What a load of bollocks. Some don't (and they are idiots, granted). Most do.