# Another HGV death in London (split from original thread)



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

_*Admin edit:* These posts have been split from the Cyclist Down forum as they were not directly related to the OP they were posted on._



philk56 said:


> Awful - saw that just as I was reading this: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html


I believe the lorry unroadworthiness figures work out at about 53% so the results are not far out of line.


----------



## newfhouse (18 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> It's the HGVs.


This. It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, HGVs and particularly skip/construction vehicles are just not (currently) built or sometimes driven to share the roads safely.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I believe the lorry unroadworthiness figures work out at about 53% so the results are not far out of line.



You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?


----------



## Davidsw8 (18 Nov 2013)

I do look at some of these big vehicles and think, they are just way too big to be driving through these streets. E.g. last week on Pall Mall, when one of these couldn't get out of it's parking space without totally mounting the long raised central bit, all the traffic backed up for ages while he tried, painfully slowly, to turn in to the road.

I know construction has to be undertaken and these deliveries have to be made but this current way just isn't working. Maybe more, smaller vehicles where possible would be some help but then the pollution goes up with the additional fuel used and then you have to pay for an extra driver etc...


----------



## Beebo (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?


 
It's an uneven contest, and the cyclist will always come off worse. It doesnt realy matter whether it's the lorry driver at fault or not.
HGV drivers have to understand they are driving a potential killing machine and take resonsibility to protect others.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?



Without wishing to speak for DepfordMarmoset, I don't think this is what was implied at all. I think what was being said was that 10 lorries out of 20 were clearly in breach of regulations whilst another 5 were suspicious and under investigation. This lines up with other studies and actions on lorries which have found around half are unroadworthy in some way (either driver or vehicle).

Boris - our cycling mayor - was very quick to blame cyclist actions for cyclist fatalities. What evidence he has for this is a mystery to me when all evidence seems to point the other way. I will eagerly await his views on having a significant proportion of HGVs breaking the law in the city. And bear in mind that many of these are breaking the laws concerning driving time and rest breaks which is possibly even more dangerous than having a lorry with defects.

And, as Beebo says, we are not talking about a meeting of equals here. We are talking about a company and driver bringing a very dangerous piece of equipment with limited visibility and operating it in close proximity to pedestrians and cyclists. This is about accounting for externalities.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?


No, not always, and that's probably why lorries never get taken to court.

When they stopped the budget for on-road checking in London, the last figures, from what I can remember, included tachograph irregularities. So, the faults dues to licensing, maintenance and driver were taken together. Over 50% of vehicles and drivers stopped were illegal then and as impunity seems to have reigned since then, I'd expect it to be well over half now.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

I was of the impression that there were also buses in mix ?

I'm not defending the actions of the errant HGV drivers (had a very close call a few months ago near Evesham with a 7.5 tonner and reported it as it truly scared the bejesus out of me) , but I think it important that they are not blamed unfairly if they are not doing anything wrong.
If cyclists are riding up the inside of them when they are turning left (and into the blind spotof the HGV), then poor cycling standards must also shoulder its share of blame.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

@Linford - I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I was responding to the link to the Standard about the HGV task force non-compliance check and how those figures compare with earlier figures. I know nothing about the circumstances of this particular fatality.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2776116, member: 30090"]No it's not. You'd need to have two 45 minutes breaks every 4 and a half hours of driving. The 45 mins breaks can be split but they must be a minimum of 30 mins and 15 mins.[/quote]

So driving for 10 hours without a stop could probably be viewed as a fairly major infraction?

Not wishing to have an argument on a thread which is detailing another fatal casualty, but I would consider 60 infractions amongst 20 vehicles (5 of which presumably had no infractions) as something that should cause concern.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

Beano - as someone who will drives, does the contractor (for example the construction company for whom the load is being delivered/ / removed) have any responsibility for the operation of their contracted vehicles outside the site? 

When I had a company car, I think something must have changed a few years ago (maybe in EU law - I worked for a multinational) and they really tightened up on company car owners. We had to have regular eyesight tests, prove our driving license each year as well as servicing / MOT of vehicle and went on driving courses (which were actually very good). I assumed that something had altered and the company had some responsibility for the car and the driver.

If many of the tipper trucks are owner driver, or small contracting companies then does this mean the construction company contracting them has no responsibility? Because if they had I suspect it might cause a change in attitudes overnight.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2776141, member: 30090"]I don't now if the driver stopped or not, they could have stopped but just had the required rest. A driver having two 44 minute breaks would go down as not having the legal rest even though they have stopped.[/quote]



> Sergeant Richard Golding, of the Met’s Traffic Command, said: “The two biggest HGV offences are drivers’ hours and how long they go without a break.
> 
> “We stopped one Belgian man who had driven 10 hours without stopping at one point, which obviously makes him tired and is very dangerous.”



The above quote seems to indicate that he had driven 10 hours without any stop. I understand that there maybe more "minor" infractions to do with administration and paperwork (although these may be masking more serious infractions) but the quote seems pretty clear. If the lorry driver had rested but maybe not for the requried time, the officer's quote is deeply misleading.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2776222, member: 9609"]I really don't see how - if you post a letter do you have any responsibilities on how the postman drives his van?

From my experience when it comes to haulage, 'the hirer' will only be interested in three things, how cheap, how quick and how reliable - and that is not good for safety.[/quote]

No, thank God. Most post vans seem to be driven like they are in a demolition derby - but it appears few actually kill pedestrians and cyclists to the extent that tipper trucks do.

So, humour me. If a contracted tipper truck driver knocks over and kills someone on site is the construction company at least partly liable? As they have responsibility for health and safety on site? Would the construction company have a problem if said driver was found to have been using a mobile and over the drink limit (as was the case with Dennis Putz)? Could this liability be extended (in a diluted form) to when contracted vehicles are used on the public roads? So in the case of Dennis Putz the end contractor would have a duty of care to ensure that all subcontractors are audited for their drivers and safety record?

I just don't know how it works at the moment. It sounds like the main construction contractor when selecting a haulage company has absolutely no requirement to ensure that said company operates correctly with qualified drivers and roadworthy vehicles?

I have been in a business where the shipping of certain goods to certain countries is banned. If the goods end up in a country that they shouldn't then you are in big trouble even if you didn't ship it directly there yourself. You have to prove that you couldn't have known that the items were likely to be shipped on. And in certain cases, not only did the supplier get big fines, but even the courier company got big fines even though they would have had no way of knowing the contents of the packages. So paperwork was so utterly tight it was ludicrous. We would prefer to lose business than have any doubt about the providence of the companies we were shipping to. A duty of care placed upon those doing the prime contracting might make them very interested in making sure their contracts went to firms with a good safety record and reliable audit trails.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> No, thank God. Most post vans seem to be driven like they are in a demolition derby - but it appears few actually kill pedestrians and cyclists to the extent that tipper trucks do.
> 
> So, humour me. If a contracted tipper truck driver knocks over and kills someone on site is the construction company at least partly liable? As they have responsibility for health and safety on site? Would the construction company have a problem if said driver was found to have been using a mobile and over the drink limit (as was the case with Dennis Putz)? Could this liability be extended (in a diluted form) to when contracted vehicles are used on the public roads? So in the case of Dennis Putz the end contractor would have a duty of care to ensure that all subcontractors are audited for their drivers and safety record?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what we're allowed to talk about on here but I'll persist, though I've just had posts removed, because right now I believe that the greatest respect we can show the dead is to try to improve the chances of the rest of us surviving. 

Anyhow, current state of play is ''Out of site, out of mind.'' Beside the driver's responsibility to do a regular cursory inspection of the vehicle and the constructor's responsibility to keep site deaths down, there's very little accountability. However, the emphasis of the TfL report I keep quoting (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/SSP-20131009-Item05-Cycle-Safety.pdf ) on extending responsibility to the 99% of the time these trucks are on the road makes me optimistic that some change is about to come.

EDIT: And there will be a press release from the Met about our roads tomorrow morning. I think it's still embargoed.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (18 Nov 2013)

Having driven at times over the years professionally, particularly in-between other jobs, there's a fairly high chance that a great number of HGV drivers in the capital are agency drivers (precarious employment). This isn't meant to tarnish all with the same brush but the unwillingness of companies to pay drivers properly, make them part of a team and instead just use them as and when they are required - quite often when someone doesn't turn up means the job is already pressurised for the guy from the agency turning up.

Vehicle checks? Don't be stupid, he won't know the routine and it'll take too long. Besides, matey did it yesterday or at least he said he did. Anyway, the stocks already loaded up, stick yourself on the weighing bridge over there and off you go...I think the Satnav works but you can read a map whilst you're driving can't you? You agency drivers work such long hours it's a wonder you can stay awake...still, that's the beauty of not having a contract eh? Haven't driven a 7.5 tonne for a while? Well your license is pre-1992 so you're covered...off you go...you've got a lot to get through and you're already too late to be over that side of the bridge so...er...watch the speed limits...


----------



## l33rec (18 Nov 2013)

Its all to easy to blame the hgv driver as the "professional" however they are often a secondary victim albeit more often mentally than physically, From the position of the vehicle it would appear to be a turning left incident in which the cyclist has either entered the blindspot of the hgv or the hgv has overtaken and then turned across the path of the cyclist either way its a tradgedy and i wish all the best for all parties involved.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDvJoG5arYI


Education as always is key on ALL sides


----------



## l33rec (18 Nov 2013)

Side mounted cctv cameras as fitted to those on the cross rail project would almost certainly save lives and at a minimal cost of approx 150 quid are viable to ALL professional hauliers


----------



## newfhouse (18 Nov 2013)

l33rec said:


> Its all to easy to blame the hgv driver as the "professional" however they are often a secondary victim albeit more often mentally than physically, From the position of the vehicle it would appear to be a turning left incident in which the cyclist has either entered the blindspot of the hgv or the hgv has overtaken and then turned across the path of the cyclist either way its a tradgedy and i wish all the best for all parties involved.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDvJoG5arYI
> ...




Why is a vehicle with such dangerous blind spots allowed on shared roads? Solutions exist.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> Why is a vehicle with such dangerous blind spots allowed on shared roads? Solutions exist.



Because they wouldn't be able to go around corners without the articulation....How many times to you see a car driver or experienced motorcyclist putting themselves into this position next to a HGV ?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Because they wouldn't be able to go around corners without the articulation....How many times to you see a car driver or experienced motorcyclist putting themselves into this position next to a HGV ?


Though the articulation I gather you're talking about would work better - far, far better - if the unarticulated bulk of the tractor didn't have such a blind ''drag sweep'' at the unarticulated end. If a worm can go round corners and keep its tail in line, why are trucks so much worse than ancient invertebrates? Well apart from the fact that they're thousands of times lighter....


----------



## newfhouse (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Because they wouldn't be able to go around corners without the articulation....How many times to you see a car driver or experienced motorcyclist putting themselves into this position next to a HGV ?



You're missing the point. I avoid the blind spots, perhaps you do too, but not everyone does. I presume you're not suggesting that inexperienced cyclists deserve to be squashed? It's poor form to pass on the left but if visibility was better then undertaking cyclists would at worst be an annoyance rather than dead or injured.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Though the articulation I gather you're talking about would work better - far, far better - if the unarticulated bulk of the tractor didn't have such a blind ''drag sweep'' at the unarticulated end. If a worm can go round corners and keep its tail in line, why are trucks so much worse than ancient invertebrates? Well apart from the fact that they're thousands of times lighter....



Because a worm effectively has many segments of articulation. The bigger the overhang behind the trailers axles, the more of the road it takes when it does go around corners.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Because a worm effectively has many segments of articulation. The bigger the overhang behind the trailers axles, the more of the road it takes when it does go around corners.


 Wormly rear steer?


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Because they wouldn't be able to go around corners without the articulation....How many times to you see a car driver or experienced motorcyclist putting themselves into this position next to a HGV ?



I see cars going up the inside of HGVs quite often. Normally a lack of space will prevent it, but I have seen more cases than could be explained by a one off. I have a video somewhere of a Saab driver using a bus lane (illegally) to undertake a left turning lorry. Of course cars are bigger and more likely to be seen than bikes and a collision is less likely to be fatal

It is interesting to note the difference in tone between cyclists putting themselves in blind spots and drivers. A common HGV / car accident involving blind spots is where a car driver on a multilane road sits alongside the HGV (normally the cab) with no escape route. I went on a drive and survive course where they repeated the mantra - three into two doesn't go - ie. if you get alongside a HGV with something alongside you in the third lane then you will get squashed if the HGV moves out. How many drivers hang back on busy motorways to avoid this potential situation? How many even think about it? And when a car gets sideswiped I have rarely heard of calls to educate drivers to avoid HGV blindspots or questioning the car driver behaviour at all.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Because a worm effectively has many segments of articulation. The bigger the overhang behind the trailers axles, the more of the road it takes when it does go around corners.


I was being a bit naughty. I know that perfectly well. I'm not sure why a truck with a human being in control of it has to be so stupid compared to worms though. It's not the articulation that's the problem, it's the lack of articulation that contributes so crushingly to the problem. At least trains have bogies and there's enough traction to keep massive loaded trucks in line. Except they'd have to go back to the design board. Those old Citroëns with the headlights that followed the steering of the car, you could do that to the mirrors, working solely from the degree of articulation between tractor and trailer, reducing blind spots enormously. The angle and degree of articulation connected to the mirrors to reduce the extent of the blind spot. Rear wheel steering gauged to reduce drastically the drag sweep.

All doable. All undone.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> You're missing the point. I avoid the blind spots, perhaps you do too, but not everyone does. I presume you're not suggesting that inexperienced cyclists deserve to be squashed? It's poor form to pass on the left but if visibility was better then undertaking cyclists would at worst be an annoyance rather than dead or injured.



The way I see it is that inexperienced cyclists shouldn't be stuffing themselves up the side of lorries which are turning left. If they are looking to do this dangerous move, they really have no place on the roads until these essential skills are acquired. 
A 44 tonne lorry carries in the region of about 30 tonnes of freight. A 7.5 tonne truck carries about 4 tonnes. Would you be happy to substitute 1 big lorry for 7 trucks to do the same job ?
When we talk about how dangerous the congested the roads are, then the alternatives need to be considered.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> I see cars going up the inside of HGVs quite often. Normally a lack of space will prevent it, but I have seen more cases than could be explained by a one off. I have a video somewhere of a Saab driver using a bus lane (illegally) to undertake a left turning lorry. Of course cars are bigger and more likely to be seen than bikes and a collision is less likely to be fatal
> 
> It is interesting to note the difference in tone between cyclists putting themselves in blind spots and drivers. A common HGV / car accident involving blind spots is where a car driver on a multilane road sits alongside the HGV (normally the cab) with no escape route. I went on a drive and survive course where they repeated the mantra - three into two doesn't go - ie. if you get alongside a HGV with something alongside you in the third lane then you will get squashed if the HGV moves out. How many drivers hang back on busy motorways to avoid this potential situation? How many even think about it? And when a car gets sideswiped I have rarely heard of calls to educate drivers to avoid HGV blindspots or questioning the car driver behaviour at all.



I am either in front or behind a HGV...I never ride along side one, and I see this same behaviour being displayed by other car and motorcycle users on the motorways.


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I was being a bit naughty. I know that perfectly well. I'm not sure why a truck with a human being in control of it has to be so stupid compared to worms though. It's not the articulation that's the problem, it's the lack of articulation that contributes so crushingly to the problem. At least trains have bogies and there's enough traction to keep massive loaded trucks in line. Except they'd have to go back to the design board. Those old Citroëns with the headlights that followed the steering of the car, you could do that to the mirrors, working solely from the degree of articulation between tractor and trailer, reducing blind spots enormously. The angle and degree of articulation connected to the mirrors to reduce the extent of the blind spot. Rear wheel steering gauged to reduce drastically the drag sweep.
> 
> All doable. All undone.




There are a lot of rear wheel steering lorries on the roads now

The alternative solution as you suggest might be this ?


----------



## Linford (18 Nov 2013)

People die because they ride up the side of left turning HGVs
Enough of them have this warning on them in London yet people still die because they think they know better, or are just ignorant to the risks.
If you don't do it yourself, it is probably because you appreciate it is a very dangerous thing to do.

This isn't about blame, it is about self preservation and prevention which all cyclists (and motorcyclists) as vulnerable road users should have burned into their consciousness when on 2 wheels.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> There are a lot of rear wheel steering lorries on the roads now
> 
> The alternative solution as you suggest might be this ?


Scale. That's all. Our alternative is to have all the trailers in one piece.

Oh, that's not all. Why don't all those rocks it's carrying fall off? They look a bit perilous to me.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> I am either in front or behind a HGV...I never ride along side one, and I see this same behaviour being displayed by other car and motorcycle users on the motorways.



I have no idea what motorways you drive on but they clearly aren't mine. In densely moving traffic car drivers will sit next to the HGV if their lane is moving at roughly the same speed. I see car drivers overtake a HGV whilst being overtaken by another car on the outside lane all the time. Sideswipes are a common cause of HGV / car accident on motorways with left hand drive HGVs especially prevalent due to decreased visibility. Those accidents wouldn't happen if the driver hadn't been alongside the HGV at the time (or had an escape route).

I have had several near misses with lorries. None of them were articulated HGVs apart from the one I caused myself by going up the inside. I did that once and it was enough for me to realise that it is a very bad thing to do. The others have been lorries overtaking me and either cutting back in too close or simply turning a corner. Luckily on those occasions I realised what was happening an backed off sharply. In those cases I would much prefer if I, the cyclist, wasn't having to accommodate and mitigate for poor driving. In these cases they happened on multilane roads where taking primary didn't help - the driver used the other lane.


----------



## newfhouse (18 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> The way I see it is that inexperienced cyclists shouldn't be stuffing themselves up the side of lorries which are turning left.


No, of course they shouldn't, it's bad manners. Should they suffer death or injury as a consequence of being impolite? 



Linford said:


> A 44 tonne lorry carries in the region of about 30 tonnes of freight. A 7.5 tonne truck carries about 4 tonnes. Would you be happy to substitute 1 big lorry for 7 trucks to do the same job ?
> When we talk about how dangerous the congested the roads are, then the alternatives need to be considered.


Are you sure you've covered all of the available options here?


----------



## PK99 (19 Nov 2013)

2776822 said:


> So we are still going with the idea that all cyclists killed by left turning lorries put themselves there? *No instances where the lorry driver pulled up alongside the cyclist* and then turned on them?



Cycle craft advises stopping at the head of a queue at lights in the centre of the lane. "... do not allow any other vehicle to share the same lane to the side of you..."

I frequently (ie multiple times every time i ride in London) see cyclists stopping hard left against the kerb and often holding on to the railings.


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

PK99 said:


> Cycle craft advises stopping at the head of a queue at lights in the centre of the lane. "... do not allow any other vehicle to share the same lane to the side of you..."
> 
> I frequently (ie multiple times every time i ride in London) see cyclists stopping hard left against the kerb and often holding on to the railings.



And how does that oblige an HGV to pull alongside?


----------



## l33rec (19 Nov 2013)

I have a trailer that is occasionally 100ft long and 100 ton it is a rear steer trailer so the rear end can kick the opposite way to the way i turn i have cyclist s holding on to it all the time in central London .

Linford you coverthe points very well on cheap and easy soloution is side mounted cctv with a screen in the cab where the rear view mirror would be i have one in all my trucks it shows both sides and and cost is minimal (£150) even cheaper on e bay from china


----------



## Mugshot (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> People die because they ride up the side of left turning HGVs
> *Enough of them have this warning on them in London yet people still die because they think they know better, or are just ignorant to the risks.*
> If you don't do it yourself, it is probably because you appreciate it is a very dangerous thing to do.
> 
> This isn't about blame, it is about self preservation and prevention which all cyclists (and motorcyclists) as vulnerable road users should have burned into their consciousness when on 2 wheels.


The issue with this particular warning seems to be that even if you can see their mirrors they can't necessarily see you, so it's a bit of a naughty sign really.


----------



## PK99 (19 Nov 2013)

User said:


> Ah - the HGV apologist makes an appearance.
> 
> Knowing what the the infractions are is an irrelevance - the core fact is that there were infractions in half of the vehicles checked.



Not an irrelevance at all. 100% of by bikes are illegal at night as i do not have pedal reflectors


----------



## DWiggy (19 Nov 2013)

It should be law when driving a HGV in London to either have a drivers mate to act as a visual aid or have side mounted cameras and a warning system (Possibly similar to reverse sensors) or even better have construction vehicles restricted to out of hours access to London/city's.
There is obviously a *major *problem at the moment and something really needs to be done quick before more people get hurt, even if its not the drivers fault the excuse of "I couldn't see them" is unacceptable in this day and age!


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

User said:


> Your bikes aren't illegal. Your use of them on public roads at night may mean you're committing an offence. There's a difference.


Also I'm guessing that they don't tend to kill and maim people if he makes a small error or has been riding them for too long.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

2776822 said:


> So we are still going with the idea that all cyclists killed by left turning lorries put themselves there? No instances where the lorry driver pulled up alongside the cyclist and then turned on them?


That needed to be said. It's funny how easily it gets left out of the discussions. My own most endangered moments on a bike have come when exactly that situation has been forced on me.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> No, of course they shouldn't, it's bad manners. Should they suffer death or injury as a consequence of being impolite?
> 
> 
> Are you sure you've covered all of the available options here?



You think putting yourself into the blind spot of a left turning lorry is 'impolite'....Jeez, where did you learn road craft ?....by the sounds of things you never have...and consider it is your god given right to put yourself into any gap you can get through and that then every one else on the road has a duty to protect you against your own ineptitude.

If you want to play in the traffic with the big boys, then you need to know the rules and best practice (Roadcraft) which are there to keep you alive. If you want to ignore this, then you become your own worst enemy !

The advice I was given when I learned to ride a motorcycle 30+ years ago was treat everyone else on the road as if they have not seen you, ride accordingly, and you might just avoid connecting with them


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> You think putting yourself into the blind spot of a left turning lorry is 'impolite'....Jeez, where did you learn road craft ?....by the sounds of things you never have...and consider it is your god given right to put yourself into any gap you can get through and that then every one else on the road has a duty to protect you against your own ineptitude.



No, I've already said elsewhere in this thread that I don't do this, and I would advise anyone against doing so. But people make mistakes, some are inexperienced, some think they can safely follow painted road markings, some get trapped, some don't give a damn. They may be in harm's way, but consider where the harm comes from.



Linford said:


> If you want to play in the traffic with the big boys, then you need to know the rules and best practice (Roadcraft) which are there to keep you alive. If you want to ignore this, then you become your own worst enemy !



Or, if you're driving a vehicle unsuitable for the conditions, someone else's worst enemy.



Linford said:


> The advice I was given when I learned to ride a motorcycle 30+ years ago was treat everyone else on the road as if they have not seen you, ride accordingly, and you might just avoid connecting with them



Broadly sensible advice, but it applies to all road users equally.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> No, I've already said elsewhere in this thread that I don't do this, and I would advise anyone against doing so. But people make mistakes, some are inexperienced, some think they can safely follow painted road markings, some get trapped, some don't give a damn. They may be in harm's way, but consider where the harm comes from.
> .



Sorry, but your argument could also be applied to people swimming in the sea without any ability or caution. the risk is always there because The sea is a dangerous place, but it is the persons choice to put themselves in to that environment.

What tells you personally that stuffing yourself up the side of a lorry turning left is so dangerous that you avoid doing this ?


----------



## davefb (19 Nov 2013)

you wouldn't have a swimming beach, where ferries were going back and forth..

this isn't a general issue of mixing traffic, there appears to be a major problem with more construction traffic in the mix that you'd normally expect in an urban environment.. they need to DO SOMETHING, but the something is either ban tippers, clamp down on driving regs for the trucks ( 20 trucks stopped by the police in london whilst moaning against cyclists not wearing hi-vis, 60 offences)..
something better than slap some blue paint down


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> I have no idea what motorways you drive on but they clearly aren't mine. In densely moving traffic car drivers will sit next to the HGV if their lane is moving at roughly the same speed. I see car drivers overtake a HGV whilst being overtaken by another car on the outside lane all the time. Sideswipes are a common cause of HGV / car accident on motorways with left hand drive HGVs especially prevalent due to decreased visibility. Those accidents wouldn't happen if the driver hadn't been alongside the HGV at the time (or had an escape route).
> 
> I have had several near misses with lorries. None of them were articulated HGVs apart from the one I caused myself by going up the inside. I did that once and it was enough for me to realise that it is a very bad thing to do. The others have been lorries overtaking me and either cutting back in too close or simply turning a corner. Luckily on those occasions I realised what was happening an backed off sharply. In those cases I would much prefer if I, the cyclist, wasn't having to accommodate and mitigate for poor driving. In these cases they happened on multilane roads where taking primary didn't help - the driver used the other lane.




And so you hang back if you are in moving traffic, and you are looking to sit in the middle lane, and wat for the gap to grow so you can position yourself in front. The only time I'd draw level on the motorway and sit there is when the traffic is stationary. How closr are you tailgating the car in front if you feel you must ride alongside a moving HGV ?


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> You think putting yourself into the blind spot of a left turning lorry is 'impolite'....Jeez, where did you learn road craft ?....by the sounds of things you never have...and consider it is your god given right to put yourself into any gap you can get through and that then every one else on the road has a duty to protect you against your own ineptitude.
> 
> If you want to play in the traffic with the big boys, then you need to know the rules and best practice (Roadcraft) which are there to keep you alive. If you want to ignore this, then you become your own worst enemy !
> 
> The advice I was given when I learned to ride a motorcycle 30+ years ago was treat everyone else on the road as if they have not seen you, ride accordingly, and you might just avoid connecting with them



Linfy.

Motorcyclists might get taught this, but it seems somewhat flawed seeing as motorcyclists have appalling KSI statistics.

I don't really want to play in the traffic particularly. I have to because I choose to cycle, but I don't cycle to play with traffic, I do it because it is a more convenient way to do the shopping and go to work.

You are completely missing a few points

1) Cyclecraft / Roadcaft is all very well but it is a bit flawed if the other road users - the ones are operating the danger - have very little idea about it and don't get taught it either. Hence the view that cyclist in the middle of the road is an arrogant tw@t who thinks he/she owns the road as opposed to someone trying not to get hurt by implementing approved techniques. I have even had conversations with police who don't get the cyclecraft idea. If the principles aren't taken seriously by those who are meant to enforce road safety then the whole cyclecraft idea starts to look a bit futile.

2) Lorries bring immense danger to our roads. The fact that they are allowed to operate in crowded cities with huge "blind spots" just seems insane. Not every road user is the same. Pedestrians and cyclists bring very little danger to the road, but drivers do. This "everyone is equal" is really a way of drivers justifying dangerous driving by providing a comparison with an activity that isn't remotely comparable. If I drive I expect I should be held to a much higher level of responsibility for my actions than if I am walking. If I fly I expect the pilot to be held to a higher level of responsibility than the average car driver. Because the activities are different in the level of danger they bring to the environment in which they operate. So those operating trucks in the city need to be held accountable to why they are operating dangerous machinary so close to other people and yet have such poor visibility. If I set up a factory in this way I would be sued to high heaven even if the accidents were due to people wandering out of my line of sight.

3) You have no idea why these latest spate of accidents happened. Neither do I. What I do know is that there is a list of fatalities where the cyclist was simply mown down by the truck and hadn't gone up the inside beforehand. So it is clear to me that staying back from lorries is a good idea but isn't a guarantee of safety. I do think some people take this advise along with stuff like high-viz and helmets and rationalise it to say "if I do this then I will be safe". In reality my near collisions with lorries have nearly all involved them driving dangerously around me. I cannot mitigate for this. I can try to prevent being put in the situation in the first place (primary, staying back) but all this won't help me if a driver hasn't seen me or simply decides to drive through me. Which has happened on at least several occasions where I have had to take strong evasion and hope that it is enough. 

Do not confuse survival techniques such as cyclecraft with responsibility.


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> And so you hang back if you are in moving traffic, and you are looking to sit in the middle lane, and wat for the gap to grow so you can position yourself in front. The only time I'd draw level on the motorway and sit there is when the traffic is stationary. How closr are you tailgating the car in front if you feel you must ride alongside a moving HGV ?



Sideswipes are a common HGV / Car accident. You are saying what you do (and what others should do) but it cannot be what many actually do otherwise HGV sideswipes would be very rare.

I was taught by this ex-police driver to simply overtake in lane 3 where at all possible. And before committing to an overtake of an HGV to assess whether it was closing in on slower traffic or a busy slip road. His opinion was that if you are next to a HGV when they start signalling to move out then you haven't been aware enough of the road situation. Of course this is all survival techniques - in practice no vehicle should have blind spots in which you can lose entire cars. But that is another story.

Finally, traffic in queues which are moving at 40-55mph are prime sideswiping territory. Everyone closes up the gaps but if you are alongside a HGV then you are probably not going fast enough to overtake completely. Think of the M25 when the traffic isn't at a standstill but very heavy and each lane is full.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> Sideswipes are a common HGV / Car accident. You are saying what you do (and what others should do) but it cannot be what many actually do otherwise HGV sideswipes would be very rare.
> 
> I was taught by this ex-police driver to simply overtake in lane 3 where at all possible. And before committing to an overtake of an HGV to assess whether it was closing in on slower traffic or a busy slip road. His opinion was that if you are next to a HGV when they start signalling to move out then you haven't been aware enough of the road situation. Of course this is all survival techniques - in practice no vehicle should have blind spots in which you can lose entire cars. But that is another story.
> 
> Finally, traffic in queues which are moving at 40-55mph are prime sideswiping territory. Everyone closes up the gaps but if you are alongside a HGV then you are probably not going fast enough to overtake completely. Think of the M25 when the traffic isn't at a standstill but very heavy and each lane is full.




Whilst I do wholeheartedly agree with assessing the lorries potential movements and positioning oneself correctly before they make indications, I don't agree with the defending your position bit if it involves riding alongside lorries at 50mph. If some other vehicle wants to occupy that space, then let them...it simply isn't worth the risk...and that is where we differ...you see it as acceptable risk to do this, and I don't. This is also apparent in the way you view other vehicles in London. Simply put, a city the size of London would grind to a halt very quickly without HGV's....the alternatives would gridlock with congestion, and nearly all construction work would stop.

I am certainly not blaming all cyclists forthese accidents, but there are an undeniable proportion of riders who don't consider anything more than A to B in the quickest way possible, and risks....what are risks ?????

Incidentally, the majority of tipper lorries are not articulated.


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Sorry, but your argument could also be applied to people swimming in the sea without any ability or caution. the risk is always there because The sea is a dangerous place, but it is the persons choice to put themselves in to that environment.



This is a false analogy. The sea is intrinsically dangerous, but it's not a designed environment is it? If I choose to ride my bike to work I have an expectation that other road users, backed up by enforcement if required, will drive sensibly and carefully in suitable vehicles.



Linford said:


> What tells you personally that stuffing yourself up the side of a lorry turning left is so dangerous that you avoid doing this ?



Forty years of experience as a road user. I still make mistakes; do I deserve to die if I get it wrong? And anyway, what's this obsession you seem to have with cyclists undertaking left-turners? I'm not saying it never happens, but how many of the recent deaths had this as a contributory factor? And of that subset how many would have been prevented if the driver could have seen the cyclist?


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> This is a false analogy. The sea is intrinsically dangerous, but it's not a designed environment is it? If I choose to ride my bike to work I have an expectation that other road users, backed up by enforcement if required, will drive sensibly and carefully in suitable vehicles.
> 
> 
> Forty years of experience as a road user. I still make mistakes; do I deserve to die if I get it wrong? And anyway, what's this obsession you seem to have with cyclists undertaking left-turners? I'm not saying it never happens, but how many of the recent deaths had this as a contributory factor? And of that subset how many would have been prevented if the driver could have seen the cyclist?



How many involved recently were with left turners..no idea as we haven't seen the inquest, but it is well established historically that people riding up the inside of left turning HGVs are the cause of many fatilities in the City


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Incidentally, the majority of tipper lorries are not articulated.


Yet they still kill disproportionately. Why is that?


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> Yet they still kill disproportionately. Why is that?




'They kill' implies it is always their fault


----------



## RedRider (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> The way I see it is that inexperienced cyclists shouldn't be stuffing themselves up the side of lorries which are turning left. If they are looking to do this dangerous move, they really have no place on the roads until these essential skills are acquired.


Are you proposing cyclist's should be licensed? 


PK99 said:


> Cycle craft advises stopping at the head of a queue at lights in the centre of the lane. "... do not allow any other vehicle to share the same lane to the side of you..."
> 
> I frequently (ie multiple times every time i ride in London) see cyclists stopping hard left against the kerb and often holding on to the railings.


We don't know what led led to the recent death at Albany Rd (other than another tipper crushed a cyclist) but my experience of making that same turn is that cycle craft is not a cloak of invincibility. I'm very experienced and would always take a strong primary. this did not always prevent a motor vehicle taking the lane to my right and attempting to make the turn 'over'/around me.


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 'They kill' implies it is always their fault


No it doesn't. Will you answer the question?


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> Are you proposing cyclist's should be licensed?
> 
> quote]
> 
> I feel that all people should be able to demonstrate a minimum standard of competence if they want to operate in a dangerous environment which they share with others.


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Whilst I do wholeheartedly agree with assessing the lorries potential movements and positioning oneself correctly before they make indications, I don't agree with the defending your position bit if it involves riding alongside lorries at 50mph. If some other vehicle wants to occupy that space, then let them...it simply isn't worth the risk...and that is where we differ...you see it as acceptable risk to do this, and I don't. This is also apparent in the way you view other vehicles in London. Simply put, a city the size of London would grind to a halt very quickly without HGV's....the alternatives would gridlock with congestion, and nearly all construction work would stop.
> 
> I am certainly not blaming all cyclists forthese accidents, but there are an undeniable proportion of riders who don't consider anything more than A to B in the quickest way possible, and risks....what are risks ?????
> 
> Incidentally, the majority of tipper lorries are not articulated.



Linf.

I don't see it as an acceptable risk and I try not to do it. I leave a gap in front to position myself at the rear of the HGV.

My point which has been lost in my rambling posts is that car drivers have accidents where they position themselves next to the HGV. I don't see a huge outcry about stupid drivers going up next to HGVs - in fact when the popular media gets hold of the story the talk is all about blind spots. Not one story had about how cars shouldn't go near HGVs. Now with cyclists because the media and establisment is anti-cycling to a large degree (just hear what our mayor is saying about us at the moment) it is easy to blame cyclists and everyone nods wisely.

I guess my point is that it isn't that simple. I avoid HGVs and especially tippers like the plague. But there are times when one has to interact with them and a mistake by me shouldn't mean death because the vehicle is being operated half blind.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> No it doesn't. Will you answer the question?



'They still kill' is a fairly unambiguous statement. If that isn't specifically what you mean, would you like to reword it ?


----------



## RedRider (19 Nov 2013)

How do you propose they do that? That is demonstrate competence.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Simply put, a city the size of London would grind to a halt very quickly without HGV's....the alternatives would gridlock with congestion, and nearly all construction work would stop.


Do you have any examples of this happening anywhere in the world? Just so we can test your hypothesis. Besides, we're already pretty much gridlocked down here.

And please give this excellent post about London v Paris a read - it touches on HGVs, construction practices, the use of banksmen, the resulting better sightlines and visibility. Though it's largely based on Kieron Yates' personal observations and knowledge of the city - so no claim to being definitive evidentially-supported fact- it does give a glimpse of how the problems can be mitigated.
http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpres...ost-about-lorries-cyclists-and-paris-deja-vu/


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 'They kill' implies it is always their fault



No it doesn't. You can kill someone yet not be at fault. How would you word it? I cannot think of another word for kill that means... well... kill.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> Linf.
> 
> I don't see it as an acceptable risk and I try not to do it. I leave a gap in front to position myself at the rear of the HGV.
> 
> ...




Believe me, I thought that I had a very close brush with death when the Bablake wine lorry skimmed my elbow a few months ago at 50+mph...it really put the shytes up me. I had to stop when I could pull in to gather my courage to continue...it totally spoiled the ride. You don't get this in a car or on a motorbike as you can always stay ahead of them. 

We are very vulnerable from overtaking vehicles, we both agree on this, but this wasn't the point I was disagreeing on.


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> '*They still kill' is a fairly unambiguous statement.* If that isn't specifically what you mean, would you like to reword it ?



It's an unambiguous statement, because it's an unambiguous fact. Lorries/drivers/construction companies/hauliers are killing cyclists and pedestrians - crushing their flesh and bones. No amount of poisonous trolling makes any difference to this fact.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> No it doesn't. You can kill someone yet not be at fault. How would you word it? I cannot think of another word for kill that means... well... kill.



To kill implies responsibility for the death of someone. You cannot make that claim if the person has deliberately put themselves in harms way....would you say that a train driver is responsible for the death of someone who lies down on the track and waits for it to roll over them ?


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Nov 2013)

A little balance here I think, drivers of large vehicles obviously do not start the day with the intention of killing a cyclist, the impact on the life of a driver that has been involved in a fatality is massive and will be with them for the rest of their lives. Some of these drivers may never get behind the wheel again even if they were not to blame.

I personally would like to see a scheme where cyclists spent a few hours in the cab of a truck / bus and drivers had to ride a bike in London. Not the complete answer I know, but at least it would be a start to appreciating each others problems, whether there would be the political will to do something like this is another question. At the very least we could have TV programmes airing short documentaries of the problems road users face in London [and elsewhere for that matter].

If there is little or no understanding of each others problems on the road there will always be friction between road users. I have never cycled in London but when I have been there as a driver or on foot it always seemed that everyone was in a rush to get somewhere and sod everyone else. I never experienced this in any other city in Europe where cycling levels are much higher.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> It's an unambiguous statement, because it's an unambiguous fact. Lorries/drivers/construction companies/hauliers are killing cyclists and pedestrians - crushing their flesh and bones. No amount of poisonous trolling makes any difference to this fact.



I'd say you have just joined in this thread for the specific purpose of trolling Claudine.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

totallyfixed said:


> A little balance here I think, drivers of large vehicles obviously do not start the day with the intention of killing a cyclist, the impact on the life of a driver that has been involved in a fatality is massive and will be with them for the rest of their lives. Some of these drivers may never get behind the wheel again even if they were not to blame.
> 
> I personally would like to see a scheme where cyclists spent a few hours in the cab of a truck / bus and drivers had to ride a bike in London. Not the complete answer I know, but at least it would be a start to appreciating each others problems, whether there would be the political will to do something like this is another question. At the very least we could have TV programmes airing short documentaries of the problems road users face in London [and elsewhere for that matter].
> 
> If there is little or no understanding of each others problems on the road there will always be friction between road users. I have never cycled in London but when I have been there as a driver or on foot it always seemed that everyone was in a rush to get somewhere and sod everyone else. I never experienced this in any other city in Europe where cycling levels are much higher.


See, if I got into one of those trucks, I'd be thrown headlong into the question ''How on Earth did these trucks get to mix with urban traffic when the driver can't see what's going on?''


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Believe me, I thought that I had a very close brush with death when the Bablake wine lorry skimmed my elbow a few months ago at 50+mph...it really put the shytes up me. I had to stop when I could pull in to gather my courage to continue...it totally spoiled the ride. You don't get this in a car or on a motorbike as you can always stay ahead of them.
> 
> We are very vulnerable from overtaking vehicles, we both agree on this, but this wasn't the point I was disagreeing on.



I have actually forgotten what we disagreeing about!

Here is the summary of my thoughts. I realise that my thing about car drivers in HGV space and cyclists in HGV space is a bit of a red herring, I was just trying to illustrate how the narrative changes when the victim changes.

So here is my summary

I try to cycle defensively using cyclecraft as best as I can as it _may _help me not get into a situation where my life is threatened. I urge any cyclist or pedestrian or car driver to do the same. But I think phrases like "cyclists have a responsibility not to go up HGVs" is transferring responsibility from the company/driver who has chosen to operate a large and dangerous machine in close proximity to people to the people it is affecting. If a company/driver chooses to drive a lorry in central London from which they cannot survey the perimeter of their vehicle then they have responsibility for this.

If I was Mayor (without having to worry about things like legislation) I would say that lorries can operate in cities in two ways. They can fit equipment to eliminate blind spots or they can employ a banksman to aid the lorry negotiate every turn. Oh, and if your company is caught employing people without licenses or violating health and safety codes then you will get fined until you change or get shut down. As will whoever contracts you. But I am not the Mayor and our Mayor appears to be believing that earphones are the greatest danger on our roads. I think that is because he is an idiot.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

totallyfixed said:


> If there is little or no understanding of each others problems on the road there will always be friction between road users. I have never cycled in London but when I have been there as a driver or on foot it always seemed that everyone was in a rush to get somewhere and sod everyone else. I never experienced this in any other city in Europe where cycling levels are much higher.



I don't know if it's really unique to London but I have noticed this rush mentality and the irony of it is that rushing, be it by RLJ'ing, speeding, cutting corners (for all road users) doesn't get you anywhere any quicker. There will always be a set of lights or heavy traffic that will catch you and you'll end up waiting with the others who have got to the same place at the same time but they've got there much more safely and with a fraction of the stress.

The amount of RLJ'ing drivers and cyclists I've caught up with just by going at my own pace and stopping when I'm supposed to is testament to that for me.


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> To kill implies responsibility for the death of someone. You cannot make that claim if the person has deliberately put themselves in harms way....would you say that a train driver is responsible for the death of someone who lies down on the track and waits for it to roll over them ?



I would say they were killed by a train. It implies no responsibility. What would you say? This is semantics I know but I am struggling to think of a way of saying "A cyclist was killed in a collision with a HGV" than "a cyclist was killed in a collision with a HGV".


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> I'd say you have just joined in this thread for the specific purpose of trolling Claudine.



I was participating in the original thread when you weighed in with your repellent victim-blaming. I indulge you in P&Lite because it doesn't matter much. Here it is grotesque.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777384 said:


> At the risk of appearing harsh here, good. I am comfortable with a one strike and you are out policy for all drivers involved in another person's death.



Even if they did absolutely nothing wrong? That is very harsh Adrian. They're just trying to earn a living.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777399 said:


> To turn the argument around, in the same way that people are only too happy to say, based on little to no evidence, that the cyclists could or should have done something different to protect themselves, so the driver could always have been a little more careful to protect that livelihood.



I wouldn't place blame on anyone without any evidence and I think those people who make an assumption that a cyclist who got killed did something wrong merely by virtue of them being a cyclist are idiots.

To get back to the point, there are circumstances when it's impossible to be any amount more careful when another road user does something suddenly and irrationally.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777434 said:


> True but it is not as though we are at all short of drivers is it? So we can easily afford to discard some.



Some people would say the same about cyclists and they'd be just as wrong.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777449 said:


> Big difference though. I walk and cycle on our roads by right. I drive by licence. In the same way that we have no problem about excluding people on medical grounds, I have no problem with extending that to attitudinal ones and even to any instance of having been unlucky enough to run someone over.



Interesting... So, would you extend that judgement to tube or train drivers that killed a suicidal individual?


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777465 said:


> Once I start riding my bike on the train track, I'll give this one all due consideration.



Ah ok, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant but I get the gist of this anyway.

Thanks


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777480 said:


> On case it is at all unclear. What I want is a regime where all drivers are absolutely terrified of coming anywhere near a cyclist.



No, I did get that Adrian, no worries


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

2777500 said:


> Meanwhile the bouffant one has been talking to Vanessa Feltz and seems to think that the issue to be addressed is cyclists wearing headphones. Words fail me to the extent that he doesn't even annoy me any more.



Without wishing to stir anything up :-) I don't imagine he mentioned all those black cab drivers who seem to be listening to music on headphones lately too?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

2777500 said:


> Meanwhile the bouffant one has been talking to Vanessa Feltz and seems to think that the issue to be addressed is cyclists wearing headphones. Words fail me to the extent that he doesn't even annoy me any more.


BJ needs to come up with answers. The fact that he deflected the issue onto a peripheral one shows how far away from having any real answers. I wonder whether Gilligan considered resigning at any point today.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (19 Nov 2013)

I'd be interested to know what action is taken as a result of the various HGV infractions found by the police. If, as I expect, all blame and as a follow-on any action/prosecution undertaken is levelled entirely at the individual driving the vehicle, then the whole exercise will have little effect beyond the immediate future.

The law itself is a cop-out, whereby all blame is attached to the driver; no action is therefore taken to look at company procedure, health and safety issues, time versus workload, tachograph issues or the role of various manpower agencies effectively exonerating the companies for any wrongdoing because the actual employer is the agency not the company. How, furthermore, good practice can be enforced in the 'precarious employment' sector. To blame the individual alone is a mistake and until the companies themselves doing the hiring (without the need for pesky contracts) are held accountable, nothing will change. 

Some twat in a blue uniform who thinks he's clever telling some overworked agency driver (with no employment protection whatsoever) that he alone is to blame just doesn't cut the mustard.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> If you want to play in the traffic with the big boys, ...


 
This thoroughly pìsses me off; it's arrogant and condescending.

The way to look at this is for each road user to assess the potential for harm his particular vehicle brings to those around him. The bigger the vehicle, the greater the burden of responsibility and the greater level of care he must exercise.

GC


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I was participating in the original thread when you weighed in with your repellent victim-blaming. I indulge you in P&Lite because it doesn't matter much. Here it is grotesque.




If you run a red light, or you deliberately put yourself in the blind spot of a vehicle as it is executing a maneuver, then you cannot realistically call yourself a victim. If I top my motorbike out at 160+ miles per hour I have made a conscious decision to do that and would hae to face the consequences it it went wrong. 
your attitude diminished the value of cycling, it diminished the equality of cyclists as people who have as much right to be on the road as a HGV, a bus, car, or motorcycle.


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> BJ needs to come up with answers. The fact that he deflected the issue onto a peripheral one shows how far away from having any real answers. I wonder whether Gilligan considered resigning at any point today.



I think Boris is cleverer than this. I think that maybe he, and TfL, are deeply concerned over the publicity and the thought that this might end up in a court case against them. I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to shift the conversation away from infrastructure for this reason. He surely isn't stupid enough to think that wearing of helmets or not using earphones would have made a material difference to these deaths.

The immediate response appears to be a show of force by the police on the roads, in an effort to stop more deaths and the resultant publicity. This cannot be a sustained strategy (wish it could) so it sounds to me like a brute force approach until the media have found something else to concentrate on. The ban on HGVs is "being considered", so I suspect this means that they will say they are commissioning reports, canvassing experts etc. until such a time that everyone forgets about the latest spate of deaths and they can quietly drop the whole idea.

I might be being rather cynical but I think he has been rather clever. If cyclists say that we are against a headphone ban it sounds like we don't want to protect ourselves, if we say yes it sounds like a tacit admission that cyclists actions are causing the deaths. It plays very well to the lawless lycra lout narrative.

I have to say that I thought Boris would be a force for good for cycling in London. His actions in the past week has proven otherwise.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> This thoroughly pìsses me off; it's arrogant and condescending.
> 
> The way to look at this is for each road user to assess the potential for harm his particular vehicle brings to those around him. The bigger the vehicle, the greater the burden of responsibility and the greater level of care he must exercise.
> 
> GC




And I would agree with this, but if I got hit off my bike because I'd RLJ's or put myself into a dangerous position, I'd not be looking to blame the driver of another vehicle as you appear to be doing.

If they are guilty, then let them feel the weight of the law, but if they aren't because someone did something very stupid, then why should an innocent HGV driver carry that guilt if they have done nothing wrong ?


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

User3094 said:


> So it should be illegal to stop on a bicycle on the inside of a truck?



We have a duty of care to ourself mister...where there is blame, there is a claim....let's blame the guilty eh


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> your attitude diminished the value of cycling, it diminished the equality of cyclists as people who have as much right to be on the road as a HGV, a bus, car, or motorcycle.



Ha! You couldn't make this sh1t up. I'm going to stop now as it's impossible to continue talking to you without committing a gross breach of forum etiquette.


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2777647, member: 9609"]In the 30cases involving HGVs, how many were shown to be the fault of the driver?
How many of the cyclists were demonstrating good cycle-craft before the collision?

I wish they would publish accident reports, not because I have any desire to read the gory details, but it would be so informative to understand what is actually happening, and why the accidents are occurring - that information could go along way in identifying situations to avoid.

Simply saying a cyclist has died in an accident is meaningless without some detail. I know of three cyclists dying within a 25 mile radius of where I live - (only two appear as fatalities). One had a heart attack and the other crashed into the back of a stationery trailer. The one that did not appear in the stats (because he died a year later of his injuries) was hit by a car at one of those pedestrian crossing with the bollards in the centre of the road.[/quote]

HGVs kill cyclists and pedestrians in numbers out of all proportion to any other factors. It's the constant, there-in-black-and-white, stand-out, all-singing-all-dancing, big ugly elephant in the room. The deaths are occurring because a) HGVs and their mode of operation present an extraordinary and unacceptable level of danger and b) this occurs in a road environment in which motor-vehicle dominance is taken for granted and pedestrians and cyclists are marginalized. What exactly do you imagine you need to know?


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Ha! You couldn't make this sh1t up. I'm going to stop now as it's impossible to continue talking to you without committing a gross breach of forum etiquette.



If they pay their VED, and are road worthy, they have as much right as anyone else to occupy that space. The courts don't give a monkeys who has the biggest tonka toy, only who is in the right or wrong.
Try and manipulate that process and you might as well throw away the statute book...you seem to be saying that a cyclist should have a god given right to break every law and get away with it...this works well until the errant rider connects with an innocent one.....and then all your stupid new ethos goes up in the air!


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

User3094 said:


> Is that a "yes" or a "no"?



You cannot criminalise that act because the HGV might have pulled up alongside a stationary cycllist.
What would be argued is 'contributory neglegence'.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Nov 2013)

Every time this subject comes up, the same arguements get ping ponged around.

Some cyclists say that the roads are not suitable for Lgvs. The truck lobby says there is too much traffic on the roads for it to be safe for cyclists.

You can bang on forever about how many cyclists are being killed by being involved in accidents, but at some stage the penny must drop. We are not going to get trucks off the road. The UK need to look at rest of Europe who are trying to sort the problem out by taking bikes off the road and away from the traffic.

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Nov 2013)

Adrian,

I have listed that under "the same arguements"

Rightly or wrongly.

Smeggers. We all have the right to be on the road, no doubt. But having the right does not keep us safe.

User,

HGV is the old term for LGV

In Denmark i would think there as many miles of cycle paths outside of towns as there are in towns. Most of our "main" roads have cycle paths. All of our Urban areas have cycle paths. From my house to the centre of the nearest large town is 5 miles. I live in the sticks. 4.5 miles is on cycle paths.


Steve


----------



## Origamist (19 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> I think Boris is cleverer than this. I think that maybe he, and TfL, are deeply concerned over the publicity and the thought that this might end up in a court case against them. *I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to shift the conversation away from infrastructure for this reason. He surely isn't stupid enough to think that wearing of helmets or not using earphones would have made a material difference to these deaths.*
> 
> I have to say that I thought Boris would be a force for good for cycling in London. His actions in the past week has proven otherwise.


 
Indeed - it's a classic diversionary tactic. Boris has form in this area. In 2012 he said:

"I've seen a figure, I think, of 62%, which is the high proportion of cycling KSIs that are associated with some infraction by the cyclists themselves of the rules of the road."

When asked for corroboration of this figure, none was forthcoming from TFL, TRL, City Hall, or The Met.

It's also worth remembering that Bojo "used" to be an inveterate RLJer and would squeeze along the inside of buses. I would take everything he says regarding cyclist safety with a large pinch of salt...


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

2777690 said:


> Where do you get that from?


The usual place...


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> It's also worth remembering that Bojo "used" to be an inveterate RLJer and *would squeeze along the inside of buses*. I would take everything he says regarding cyclist safety with a large pinch of salt...



https://twitter.com/adamtranter/status/402767072608153600/photo/1


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

2777793 said:


> No left turn danger right there and you can see the light cleanly enabling you to judge whether or not you can make it before things start moving. The only problem is that the light is green, so that lorry is going to be moving already or very soon.



I've not really got a problem with the manoeuvre - only with Boris being a ****.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> Combine this stuff with the earlier "If you want to play in the traffic with the big boys", and see Linford's true colours.



What true colours mightthey be then ?

A bicycle on the highway is a serious proposition when mixing it up with other vehicles. It is a very quick and cost effective mode of transport in an urban area. It is most certainly not a childs toy as this public highway environment is not a sterilised playground. 
Don't dilute its value by implying that user standards should be any less than any other mode. Those standards are what keeps its riders alive.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> And I would agree with this, but if I got hit off my bike because I'd RLJ's or put myself into a dangerous position, I'd not be looking to blame the driver of another vehicle as you appear to be doing.
> 
> If they are guilty, then let them feel the weight of the law, but if they aren't because someone did something very stupid, then why should an innocent HGV driver carry that guilt if they have done nothing wrong ?


 
You are ascribing to me something I haven't said.
I don't think I can put it any simpler than I already have.

GC


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> *You are ascribing to me something I haven't said.*
> I don't think I can put it any simpler than I already have.
> 
> GC



Oodathortit?!


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

2777981 said:


> Where do you get this idea from?


See post #127


----------



## PK99 (19 Nov 2013)

User said:


> As anyone who knows anything about the Mid Staffs case knows, the figure of 1,200 additional deaths is a complete urban myth - whipped up by the media who who misunderstood and misrepresented the statistics. In the Francis report it is made clear that the figure is spurious...



thank you for that link - most informative. As always the press take the dramatic spin while boring science takes a back seat


----------



## RedRider (19 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> Indeed - it's a classic diversionary tactic. Boris has form in this area. In 2012 he said:
> 
> "I've seen a figure, I think, of 62%, which is the high proportion of cycling KSIs that are associated with some infraction by the cyclists themselves of the rules of the road."
> 
> ...




He went through a red light avoiding a collision with me by inches. We both slammed the brakes on. He bumbled through a 'charming' apology and we went our separate ways. This was more than a decade ago, I remember it was around the time he'd made some crass remark about church bells and Ken Bigley.


----------



## stowie (19 Nov 2013)

> [MET Chief Superintendent Glynn] Jones said half of all cyclists killed on London’s roads since January 2010 have been going down the inside of lorries, adding: “They may well have the right to be there but the fact is it is a dangerous manoeuvre



From : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985

54 cyclists have died since 2010, 30 of them in collision with HGVs. So the above statistic means that 27 were in a situation with the cyclist progressing down the inside of the lorry whilst only 3 involving HGVs weren't.

Not sure what to make of this. The number I have above includes the six recently killed by HGVs.where I would assume that the exact circumstances are being investigated. If I eliminate these 6 from the figures it means every single instance of HGV / cyclist collision had the cyclist undertaking - which seems not to chime with some reports of some of the accidents. Because of a lack of information about the circumstances of the incidents I guess it is almost impossible to work out exactly what he means by going down the inside. It sounds as if in all these cases the cyclists were undertaking large lorries but maybe he means the number hit by the side of the HGV?


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 'They still kill' is a fairly unambiguous statement. If that isn't specifically what you mean, would you like to reword it ?


No, it stands. Are you going to answer the question or simply use this as a diversion? Why are so many cyclists killed by vehicles that make up such a small proportion of the traffic in London?


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> To kill implies responsibility for the death of someone. You cannot make that claim if the person has deliberately put themselves in harms way....would you say that a train driver is responsible for the death of someone who lies down on the track and waits for it to roll over them ?


Another false analogy I'm afraid, and a rather distasteful one. How many cyclists go out with the intention to commit suicide?


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

2777384 said:


> At the risk of appearing harsh here, good. I am comfortable with a one strike and you are out policy for all drivers involved in another person's death.


An acceptable risk under the circumstances I think.


----------



## Linford (19 Nov 2013)

2777981 said:


> Where do you get this idea from?





newfhouse said:


> Another false analogy I'm afraid, and a rather distasteful one. How many cyclists go out with the intention to commit suicide?



Obviously not what people set out to do, but that is realistically what happens when they put themselves between a set of railings and a left turning HGV.
You might find it distasteful, but this is a far too regular an occurrence. If people are ignorant of the dangers of this maneuver, they shouldn't be riding in this environment.


----------



## Dan B (19 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> If people are ignorant of the dangers of this maneuver, they shouldn't be riding in this environment.


I could almost agree with this, but the remedy is not to ban the people, it's to fix the environment. Roads are public spaces, for the use of the public. If you want to drive around that space in vehicles that you can't see out of and that can't stop and that can't go round corners on their own side of the road, it should be your job to make sure no members of the public come to grief as a result. Just like if you want to set up a chainsaw juggling show in a shopping mall


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/london-cyclist-deaths-panic-change-wont-work
Warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan.
Second warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan that rejects victim-blaming and attempts to review evidence in a sober way.

I think we can all agree that a mate of Boris's who's been given a job because of the fact is _de facto_ a nobber. And one of the commenters points out that his interpretation of Parisian statistics is incorrect. But assuming the rest of his stats are correct, he's that rare thing - someone who's trying to make policy based on evidence and to balance the interests of lots of different groups. That gives rise to grudging respect.
And, for the record, there's plenty online to support his Amsterdam statistic - 6 deaths in a city of 800,000 is far worse than 14 in a city of 8,000,000.


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/london-cyclist-deaths-panic-change-wont-work
> Warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan.
> Second warning: Article by Andrew Gilligan that rejects victim-blaming and attempts to review evidence in a sober way.
> 
> ...



Sorry SRW but this doesn't cut it for me. What does comparing the two based on city size prove? Surely the measure should be either deaths per number of trips on cycles or the deaths per km cycled? Using your measure the bigger the conurbation and smaller modal share cycling has, the more safe it would seem.


----------



## bianchi1 (21 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> Sorry SRW but this doesn't cut it for me. What does comparing the two based on city size prove? Surely the measure should be either deaths per number of trips on cycles or the deaths per km cycled? Using your measure the bigger the conurbation and smaller modal share cycling has, the more safe it would seem.



You are quite correct:

"Out of the countries that provided data on the number of kilometres cycled, Norway ranks first, with 11.0 cyclist deaths per billion kilometres cycled, followed by Denmark with 12.1, the Netherlands with 12.4, Sweden with 14.4 and Great Britain with 22.4. The significantly higher rate of cycling observed in the Netherlands, 863 km/person-year on average between 2008 and 2010 (Fig. 6), accounts in large part for the high rate of cycling mortality presented in figures 4 and 5, and figure 6 makes it clear that the high cycling mortality does not result from the risk of cycling in the Netherlands being particularly high."

From: http://www.etsc.eu/documents/BIKE_PAL_Safety_Ranking.pdf


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2013)

Here's what Gilligan actually writes:


> In 2002, London had 110 million cycle trips, of which 20 ended in death. By last year, there were 180 million trips and 14 deaths – a reduction per trip of more than half. That is not "carnage". Serious injury rates are the same as they were 10 years ago.
> ...
> Even that nirvana called Amsterdam averages six deaths a year, in a city with about the same number of bike trips as London (Amsterdamers cycle more often, but there are fewer of them).


I've also seen a suggestion elsewhere that the official stats on the number of trips undertaken by bike in London is _understated_.

Moreover, deriving from the Wikipedia article on cycling in the Netherlands, the average journey distance is only 4km (2.5 miles). I can't find stats for London, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't much longer - the typical cyclist in London is a cross-city or a suburb-to-city rider.

I shall now sit back and wait for the wails of "yebbut it's _terrible_." It's not, and all the statistics prove it. It could be better with some well-directed specific policy interventions, but it's not terrible.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2780951, member: 45"]I'd rather you addressed the fact that your link handily stops talking numbers when he gets to Amsterdam, replacing them with "about the same number of trips as London", and then read the post prior to your last one.[/quote]
Wrong. "About the same number" still talks numbers. 

If you want the hard facts:
Amsterdam - 6 deaths per year at 500,000 trips per day (Wikipedia)
London - 14 deaths per year at 600,000 trips per day (multiple sources, originally TfL, using a methodology that focuses on main roads and may undercount). Take account of distance and I'd not be surprised to see parity. 
The post before mine was irrelevant. Gilligan, I and this thread are talking London. Whole UK and whole NL stats are irrelevant.


----------



## benb (21 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> Wrong. "About the same number" still talks numbers.
> 
> If you want the hard facts:
> Amsterdam - 6 deaths per year at 500,000 trips per day (Wikipedia)
> ...



So London has about double then, and you think that's parity?
Besides, we need to look at KSI not deaths, because the difference between a K and a SI is often just dumb luck, so KSI is a more useful and accurate figure.


----------



## totallyfixed (21 Nov 2013)

I can't for the life of me understand why you guys are arguing over statistics, but just for the record, 40% of cyclists that die in the Netherlands are between 70 and 90 years old. However this is to miss the point completely, it is about perception, many perceive the roads over here to be a dangerous place to ride a bike, not the case in the Netherlands, and this for me is the biggest difference.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Nov 2013)

benb said:


> So London has about double then, and you think that's parity?
> Besides, we need to look at KSI not deaths, because the difference between a K and a SI is often just dumb luck, so KSI is a more useful and accurate figure.


I watched the webcast of Mayor's questions and there was a very heated confrontation between Jenny Jones and BJ regarding exactly this distinction. While deaths are now a smaller proportion of the KSI figures, she repeatedly had to try to stop BJ drifting back to talking only about deaths, which he was using as vindication. Her point was that the number of journeys a cyclist could make before statistically becoming a KSI had actually decreased. Her interventions ended up with BJ saying that the sooner she was in the House of Lords the better. And an ally of BJ later accused Jenny Jones of hysterical scaremongering. So, clearly, in some political circles it's true when deaths are decreasing, and hysterical scaremongering when JJ provides figures showing increasing danger...

Here, if you can bear to watch it - http://www.london.gov.uk/webcasts/34830/asx


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Nov 2013)

I don't get this attitude that people like BJ has which says that people have to die in significant numbers before any real action is taken.

What happened to making people 'feel' safe. If a car or a cyclist RLJ's and scares some OAP attempting to cross the road, it puts them off going out, but that doesn't matter because they haven't been physically hurt and they're not dead.


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

Meanwhile a Peer has claimed, during a debate in the house of Lords on littering from cars, that cyclists are longing to be run down so they can film it on their cameras.


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> Here's what Gilligan actually writes:
> 
> I've also seen a suggestion elsewhere that the official stats on the number of trips undertaken by bike in London is _understated_.
> 
> ...



If cycling was terrible I wouldn't be doing it. I use a bicycle to do my shopping not because I want to play Russian Roulette. If it was significantly dangerous I wouldn't bother no matter how convenient. 

The stats for London - according to a couple of new sites I have seen - are pretty sketchy. TfL publish statistics based on trips whilst DfT bases their UK stats on km.Both, in my opinion, are valid in their own way, but the normal measurement is in km for safety measurements. It appears that this measure isn't available for London cycling.

What I do understand is that low statistics such as those killed cycling in London can be prone to clumping and when this happens it is "common sense" to attribute a sudden spate of deaths to something other than "chance". The small numbers involved with the killed statistics actually makes it more valid to use KSI to determine trends in cycling safety (especially as a drop in deaths might be due to - for example - better healthcare processes for RTAs rather than less cyclists getting hit).

But one of the things I find disingenuous about Gilligan's article is the urge against knee jerk reactions. As small as the killed statistics are, there has been a common theme running through them for years. Enough not to be a statistical anomaly. And that is that cyclists deaths disproportionately involve HGVs and in particular tipper trucks. This isn't something that needed the latest spate of deaths to occur to become clear. Yet not a lot seems to have been achieved to reduce these aside from the occasional stickers on the back of them. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that changes would involve decisions unpopular with haulage and construction companies and could well highlight the dangers of the cycle infrastructure that has been popular to implement as it doesn't need any difficult decisions.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Nov 2013)

Actually saw a helmetless Brompton rider undertake a huge truck turning left on to Parliament Square this morning, I thought such creatures were the stuff of myth and legend. Me and another cyclist were sat behind as he did this, the other cyclists' reaction was quite funny, I'll post a clip later.


----------



## theclaud (22 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Actually saw a *helmetless *Brompton rider undertake a huge truck turning left on to Parliament Square this morning, I thought such creatures were the stuff of myth and legend. Me and another cyclist were sat behind as he did this, the other cyclists' reaction was quite funny, I'll post a clip later.



Shocking. Or possibly irrelevant. Someone help me out here.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Shocking. Or possibly irrelevant. Someone help me out here.



lol, I knew someone would focus on the helmet-less bit. Sorry, I shoulda known better than to dare mention that. Apologies.

Focus on the undertaking a huge truck turning left bit (unless that's the irrelevant bit?!)


----------



## PK99 (22 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2781094, member: 45"]Well that will be why he wrote "about the same" rather than using the figures then. Using your stats-

Amsterdam 1 death per 83333 trips
London 1 death per 42857 trips

That's 1.94x more deaths in London per journey. I'd say it's virtually twice. Where's the parity in that? If you're discounting whole-country statistics then your journey distance statistic is irrelevant.[/quote]

Trip numbers is not a particularly useful stat if trip length is very different



> Moreover, deriving from the Wikipedia article on cycling in the Netherlands, the average journey distance is only 4km (2.5 miles). I can't find stats for London, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't much longer - the typical cyclist in London is a cross-city or a suburb-to-city ride



From my observation of cycling in Holland, Belgium and Lille by far the vast majority of cyclists there are on sit up and beg bikes and pootle at pretty low speed.
Contrast that with many of the cyclists in central London, riding fast on fast road bikes, choosing to weave in and out of traffic.

It would be useful to have a breakdown in the London stats: who is it that is involved in most KSI's?
The experienced cyclist putting in many miles or the pootler doing fewer lower speed miles.


----------



## srw (22 Nov 2013)

2782895 said:


> You are asking a lot of the stats compilers there


Quite. The numbers are so low that people don't tend to bother. They're also incredibly difficult to define, and don't actually tell you a great deal.

I did wonder when someone would get on to the KSI thing. I think that's another statistical red herring. For a start, there's no standard international definition of Seriously Injured, so no international comparability. Then there's the fact that SI is a matter of judgement, not fact. Then there's the fact that the KSI numbers are broadly stable when measured relative to the number of cyclists.

Then there's the fact that "seriously injured" in statistical terms doesn't actually mean what you might expect - and it certainly doesn't mean "not killed but for a quirk of fate". Here's what it does mean in the UK:


> The UK definition covers injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.[2]


My perception is that most reports on this forum (and there are an awful lot) of serious injuries according to this definition are self-inflicted - people falling off because they're going too fast downhill and breaking a bone. This is borne out by a quick google search, unearthing this quote from a bit of helmet research (OK, American not British):


> The most common cause of crashes was loss of control by cyclists causing the cyclist to fall to the ground or hit an obstacle. Motor vehicles were involved in only 15 percent of crashes




And, to round it all off, I blame the Tories. Seriously. Over the last few years A&E funding has not kept up with demand. That means that more people are being admitted as inpatients because they can't be treated in A&E within the four-hour target time. Each one of those (and Mrs W was one a couple of years ago) is automatically counted as a "serious injury" even if (as in Mrs W's case) the injury is something that will heal of its own accord within a couple of weeks.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> And, to round it all off, I blame the Tories. Seriously. Over the last few years A&E funding has not kept up with demand. That means that more people are being admitted as inpatients because they can't be treated in A&E within the four-hour target time. Each one of those (and Mrs W was one a couple of years ago) is automatically counted as a "serious injury" even if (as in Mrs W's case) the injury is something that will heal of its own accord within a couple of weeks.


In respect of the final point up there Î I was wondering, when I saw the deteriorating KSI statistics v the K alone stats confrontation during this week's Mayor's Questions (Jenny Jones v BJ, notably), whether improvements in emergency surgery (alongside an increase in KSI injuries per trip over a 10 year period) were working to make cycling less fatal as it becomes actually more dangerous per journey. JJ was quoting TfL's actual figures on KSIs and her point was that, while fatalities were lower, you could do fewer journeys (over 400,000 10 years ago, now in the 360,000s) without becoming a KSI statistic. 

Admittedly, the definition of SI may have changed in that period, but as BJ and ally Andrew Boff referred to JJ as hysterical or a scaremongerer rather than saying that she'd failed to take into account a change in the way the SIs were defined accounted for the deterioration suggests that personal insults were the only way they saw of moving onwards without change.


----------



## srw (22 Nov 2013)

One more thing to add to the mix. There's a House of Commons report on road safety which very clearly shows that A roads are more dangerous than other roads. You're more likely to end up a KSI statistic if you ride on them - by a factor of 3 or 4. What I can't find is a stat telling me whether the distance people have cycled on A roads has gone up - but that's certainly my suspicion.

If I've got one message to get across in all this statistical barrage it's that the statistics are sketchy and shaky. Just because you believe you've spotted something it doesn't mean that you have - unless it's that cycling is statistically far safer than you'd believe looking at the road warriors in london.


----------



## PK99 (23 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> If I've got one message to get across in all this statistical barrage it's that the statistics are sketchy and shaky. Just because you believe you've spotted something it doesn't mean that you have - unless it's that cycling is statistically far safer than you'd believe looking at the road warriors in london.



well said!


----------



## srw (24 Nov 2013)

User said:


> How funding is spent by hospitals is decided by the trusts - not by government. Good trusts have ensured that sufficient funding is given to A&E.


Fair enough - but everything you say reinforces my point that a rise in the KSI stats doesn't necessarily mean the roads are getting worse.

For the sake of completeness, here's a relatively short list of reasons why a 10% increase in KSI per billion km might not be bad news for cyclists:

Hospitals may be recording "SI" where they didn't previously.
Hospitals may be getting better at recording that a patient is a cyclist.
Cyclists may be cycling more on A roads which are more dangerous.

Cyclists may be doing less road riding and more mountain biking, where the risks are higher.
More cyclists may be taking part in group riding, e.g sportives, without recognising the increased risk this brings.

Cyclists may be taking more risks, perhaps because they may generally be becoming less experienced (don't forget that very many incidents - probably the large majority - are cyclist only or cyclist-on-cyclist).
The recorded distances that cyclists ride may be understated because the methodology is flawed. This may be because it uses traffic counts on main roads only, so undercounts lane and off-road riding.
I could probably keep going all day on that list, but I'll stop there. All of the above are easily supportable by anecdote. Some may be supportable by statistics too. In particular, the people at National Statistics who compile the KSI stats themselves acknowledge the last - to the extent that they are reviewing their methodology because the traffic count stats contradict what cyclists themselves say.


----------



## srw (24 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2781094, member: 45"]
That's 1.94x more deaths in London per journey. I'd say it's virtually twice. Where's the parity in that? If you're discounting whole-country statistics then your journey distance statistic is irrelevant.[/quote]
I think it's worth exploring this a bit more.

First - the journey distance statistic isn't irrelevant. It's a standard way of comparing road risk.
Second - you've cited your multiple to 2 decimal places. I'd be wary of citing even one significant figure.

Here are some statistics that are pretty reliable - the exact number is somewhere within about 5% of the statistic. These are statistics that are easy to measure in that the definitions are clear and, in the case of population, the statistic has very many uses.

There are about 6 cyclist deaths per year in Amsterdam and 14 in London.
The population of London is about 8 million and the population of Amsterdam is about 800,000.
Here are some statistics that are moderately reliable - the exact number is probably within 25% of the statistic, if it exists. These are statistics that are more difficult to measure and not desperately interesting except for one particular use.

Amsterdam and London have about the same number of cycling trips per day.
A higher proportion of the population of Amsterdam cycle than that of London.
Londoners probably typically take longer trips by bike than Amsterdammers.
And here are some reasons why we need to be incredibly careful comparing Amsterdam stats with London stats:

London is a major international city; Amsterdam is a small regional centre.
Both London and Amsterdam are cities which attract people from their regions for work, and therefore many of their cyclists are not locals.
Finally, here are some measures which speak of different things.

Per head of population, London has fewer cycling deaths than Amsterdam, and fewer cycling deaths than pedestrian deaths or murders or deaths from heart disease. This will be the key stat for government, as it will inform the distribution of resources towards reducing death.
Per journey, London probably has somewhat higher cycling death rates than Amsterdam. This is probably not very interesting, as it has a huge number of confounding variables and is based on a tiny sample size.
Of those cycling deaths in London, a disproportionate number are caused by HGVs and buses. This is hugely important, as it speaks to some very simple interventions which could significantly reduce cyclist death - if that is a desired outcome of public health policy.*

Per billion km cycled, London is probably a similarly safe city to Amsterdam - although the exact comparators are not very clear. This is also important, as it tells us that the solution of Amsterdam - mass cycling and mass segregation - is not necessarily the only way to make a city safe for cyclists.
In this whole debate I'm reminded of the global warming debates. There's an awful lot of froth from people who haven't understood that the story isn't as simple as it might appear from a cursory glance at some statistics.



*For the avoidance of doubt, I think it is - but others probably disagree.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Nov 2013)

When it comes to the deterioration in TfL figures we could presumably discount mountains (except anecdotally, of course) and sportives (there may be some but I doubt that there are many in the Greater London Area). And we could take into account that during rush hour periods cyclists make up 24% of road traffic in central London. That's where the cyclists are at least at one point of the day so we have a good idea about where the KSI figures are most probably coming from.


----------



## srw (24 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> When it comes to the deterioration in TfL figures we could presumably discount mountains (except anecdotally, of course) and sportives (there may be some but I doubt that there are many in the Greater London Area). And we could take into account that during rush hour periods cyclists make up 24% of road traffic in central London. That's where the cyclists are at least at one point of the day so we have a good idea about where the KSI figures are most probably coming from.


Agreed about mountains and sportives in the specific case of London (which, fair enough, is what this thread's about). But the increase in _number_ of seriously injured over one year is 100 - which could quite easily be random variation. Indeed, the TFL report points out that the change wasn't statistically significant.

I'd take that 24% stat with a pinch of salt myself - it means that it's somewhere between about 20% and 30%, and it only refers to central London, not Greater London. My suspicion is that outer London is seeing as much growth in cyclist numbers as central London, but doesn't seem to have the same increase in casualties.


----------



## RedRider (24 Nov 2013)

I posted this elsewhere but it's highly relevant to this thread. Chris Boardman speaks out on the relative risks of cycling, wearing helmets and hi-viz and where responsability lies. He was speaking during the media furore after Wiggins was hit by a car when out training (two years ago?)
To my mind he's the most reasoned and respectable high-profile voice in cycling advocacy. (I guess I would say that because I agree with him just about entirely.) He's interviewed from 2.15 onwards and if you're not cheering or at least nodding your head vigourously by the end then I don't know what. Be interesting to hear people's views on on what he says and him as a cycling advocate. Well worth a watch but I recommend starting at 2.15.

There's also a link to a recent interview with Chris in the thread about Hogan-Howe's comments re cycling in London.


----------



## albion (24 Nov 2013)

You will probably find that certain danger spots in London are maybe 10,000 times above the usual safe risk level.

Risk per trip are thousands of times greater on some journeys compared to others.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> Agreed about mountains and sportives in the specific case of London (which, fair enough, is what this thread's about). But the increase in _number_ of seriously injured over one year is 100 - which could quite easily be random variation. Indeed, the TFL report points out that the change wasn't statistically significant.
> 
> I'd take that 24% stat with a pinch of salt myself - it means that it's somewhere between about 20% and 30%, and it only refers to central London, not Greater London. My suspicion is that outer London is seeing as much growth in cyclist numbers as central London, but doesn't seem to have the same increase in casualties.


I'm not a statistician but TfL have specifically targeted the outlying areas for development because their figures suggest that the increase in modal share is stubbornly poor. It's figures again, of course, but at least they're TfL figures, and they appear to have been sufficiently convincing for TfL to push what is effectively a catch up program. The dominance of arterial corridors in the suburbs and a lack of alternative routes may be largely down to the slower development. Bow roundabout would be a notorious example of this: everything heading west into town, north and south (Blackwall tunnel in the South East to the M11 in the North East) is channelled over the River Lea at one point.


----------



## srw (24 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The dominance of arterial corridors in the suburbs and a lack of alternative routes may be largely down to the slower development.


Or it may be because in the suburbs the arterial routes are the most attractive!

Certainly my favourite way into London from home is the A404. Most of its junctions are fine - the exception is the rather awkwardly laid out Northwick Park roundabout. When I took the alternative route (the LCC's back route) I found myself going downhill at 20mph on what was effectively a single-track road taking two directions of traffic, because of the parked cars. And I found myself traversing the North Circular on a motorway-style underpass roundabout.

I suspect that the simplest way to improve cyclist safety in London is first of all to sort out the HGVs (easy - there are already so many controls over London traffic that one more won't make a difference) and then sort out the main road junctions (fairly easy - strip out the roundabouts, and control everything with traffic lights with proper advanced bike phases). Incidentally, both will also make being a pedestrian far safer and more pleasant.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> Or it may be because in the suburbs the arterial routes are the most attractive!
> 
> Certainly my favourite way into London from home is the A404. Most of its junctions are fine - the exception is the rather awkwardly laid out Northwick Park roundabout. When I took the alternative route (the LCC's back route) I found myself going downhill at 20mph on what was effectively a single-track road taking two directions of traffic, because of the parked cars. And I found myself traversing the North Circular on a motorway-style underpass roundabout.
> 
> I suspect that the simplest way to improve cyclist safety in London is first of all to sort out the HGVs (easy - there are already so many controls over London traffic that one more won't make a difference) and then sort out the main road junctions (fairly easy - strip out the roundabouts, and control everything with traffic lights with proper advanced bike phases). Incidentally, both will also make being a pedestrian far safer and more pleasant.


Yes, when the alternative routes are so poor, so meandering, and so often clogged up with carlesterol, arterials (ideally with bus lanes) are more attractive, despite the increased number of traffic lights. 

I'd agree that sorting out the HGVs would be easy in principle, the snag is that nobody yet is prepared to own the responsibility for doing so, Boris least of all.


----------



## RedRider (24 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> carlesterol


I'll nick that.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> I'll nick that.


It's far from original but it seemed very appropriate for our roads.


----------



## srw (24 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Yes, when the alternative routes are so poor, so meandering,


You're about 100 years too late to solve that particular problem!


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2781094, member: 45"]Well that will be why he wrote "about the same" rather than using the figures then. Using your stats-

Amsterdam 1 death per 83333 trips
London 1 death per 42857 trips

That's 1.94x more deaths in London per journey. I'd say it's virtually twice. Where's the parity in that? If you're discounting whole-country statistics then your journey distance statistic is irrelevant.[/quote]
as srw sez. Journey length. And then (he says for the 1000th time) you have to look at the vehicles that cause the deaths. And then you reckon that if you could tame this relatively small number of vehicles the death per trip (let alone the death per mile) would be the same as Amsterdam's. Without spending nine hundred million quid on cycle ways that people won't use.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Nov 2013)

PK99 said:


> It would be useful to have a breakdown in the London stats: who is it that is involved in most KSI's?
> The experienced cyclist putting in many miles or the pootler doing fewer lower speed miles.


ffs. See above.


----------



## srw (25 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2787087, member: 45"]
I gave you sufficient numbers for you to work it out yourself, but for ease it's 1.944443148143827 before the calculator runs out of digits. Does that make it more acceptable for you, now that it's even more deaths per journey.[/quote]
Nope.
(a) deaths per journey is irrelevant as a statistic.
(b) 1.9444 is not a good estimate of the ratio. "Somewhere between 2 and 0.5" is a better estimate.

And repeat posting of a link to the same set of out-of-date anecdotes* doesn't really tell anyone anything.

*It's not data. It's full of supposition and subjectivity. It could be turned into data with a lot of hard work.


----------



## srw (25 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2788682, member: 45"]It's not irrelevant. It just shouldn't be taken on face value. As is the case with all stats.[/quote]
I agree it shouldn't be taken on face value. Which is why I'm seriously questioning why anyone (including, apparently, you) is treating it as a serious indication of risk. Because Gilligan isn't.


----------

