# Cycling death



## Aperitif (6 Dec 2007)

'A 41 year old cyclist died this evening, Thursday...Brixton Hill / Streatham area. Head on collision. Be as careful as possible.


----------



## yenrod (6 Dec 2007)

God dammit.

What can you do.

Some lazy ****er in a car done this - bastard.


----------



## ash68 (6 Dec 2007)

sad, very sad. Someones family will be grieving for a lost loved one tonight. Lets hope we all stay safe this winter.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (6 Dec 2007)

Very sad indeed. 

The family are in my thoughts.


----------



## trio25 (7 Dec 2007)

It's always sad to read about something like this, my thoughts are with the family.


----------



## Arch (7 Dec 2007)

yenrod said:


> God dammit.
> 
> What can you do.
> 
> Some lazy ****er in a car done this - bastard.



Assuming the cyclist didn't ride into the car that is. Until you know the facts,you can't say. I agree a 'head on collision' doesn't sound like the sort of thing a cyclist would do, but then we've all seen some pretty bizarre riding out there.

I think 'be careful' is a more helpful remark than yours.


----------



## jashburnham (7 Dec 2007)

It's a bad time of year for it isn't it. Poor bloke, and awful for his family.

I had this rammed home to me yesterday; my boss either cycles or mopeds into work. Yesterday he was on his red scooter wearing orange hiz viz trousers and a yellow hi viz jacket, he's so luminous you can probably see him from space yet some twunt still managed to pull out right into his path, he took evasive action but the car clipped hem and he came off, bashed up his knee and wrote the scooter off... the lady driving claimed she just didn't see him. We're all just glad he wasn't on his bike or it could have been much worse.

Bloody people, they get in their cages, wack the heater on full and then drive around half asleep. This woman had her young daughter with her as well so you think she'd be more observant.

Take care out there folks!

Oh and if I see one more moron cycling in black clothing with no lights i'm gonna lose it completely, MORONS. 

rant over.


----------



## Tynan (7 Dec 2007)

no details at all?


----------



## yenrod (7 Dec 2007)

Arch get real - the deal is that some twat in a car basically killed the cyclist end of' - what is it with you; stop being a smart arse its always the deal with you and me - you pointing out the real smarmy smart bitch comments !

Get a life girl, yeh !



And if anyone else dont like this post _****_ !!!!!!!!!!!



Arch said:


> Assuming the cyclist didn't ride into the car that is. Until you know the facts,you can't say. I agree a 'head on collision' doesn't sound like the sort of thing a cyclist would do, but then we've all seen some pretty bizarre riding out there.
> 
> I think 'be careful' is a more helpful remark than yours.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2007)

Steady on Yenrod, Arch is right. You don't know the facts (none of us do) and it might well be that the poor chap in this case was unlit, on the wrong side of the road, or whatever. He might not have been, true, but we don't know.


----------



## yenrod (7 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief - thin air DIDNT kill him !

Getting sick and tired of this apologise for everything shoot in life: so british !

The dicks in the cars get everything they deserve !!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Like IUve said many times if I seen a car crash would I help generally yes but if I was in this mood then I'd prob. laugh !

The shoot Ive taken from them over the years - yeah alright!


----------



## medals (7 Dec 2007)

Easy Yenrod,
Arch is right, no-one here knows the exact circumstances. All we know is a tragedy has happened and my thoughts are with the family of this poor person. 
I can understand your anger, goodness knows, there but for the grace goes all of us, however your anger at Arch is misplaced.


----------



## yenrod (7 Dec 2007)

Dont believe I have.

If it needs saying then Ill say it !

Rediculous. esp. this Arch woman.


----------



## Tynan (7 Dec 2007)

stop being an arse yenrod, arch is spot on

cyclists have no god given right on be on the road, they can make mistakes just as much as car drivers, head on is a strange accident for a cyclist


----------



## Arch (7 Dec 2007)

Well, I'm sorry if I've offended you so much yenrod, but if you consistantly jump in with ranting posts that jump to conclusions, I'm consistantly going to niggle at you for it.

If it turns out that a driver was at fault, I'll be down on them like a tonne of bricks, as will everyone else. But until there's more information, we can't possibly tell. 

Your attitude is a bad as those drivers who brand all cyclists as lycra louts who jump red lights, it's just turned the other way.


----------



## Aperitif (7 Dec 2007)

Steady on... I think we all hold the same sentiments. The cyclist was a woman I think, and it was a Tescos lorry. I haven't had time to track down a link this morning but the area was restricted for a few hours...watch htis space - and ride with anticipation 

http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/...var.1888889.0.cyclist_dies_in_lorry_crash.php


----------



## Arch (7 Dec 2007)

Ah, the report doesn't say 'head on' does it... Starts to look like another blind spot tragedy... But still not enough to go on yet.


----------



## Aperitif (7 Dec 2007)

That's how local radio reported it last night Arch, when I posted it... here's another bit from 'moving target'.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killed-by-collision-with-tesco-lorry-in-brixton


----------



## Cab (7 Dec 2007)

Really not enough information here for us to say what happened. As ever, when this kind of tragedy happens, we can all immediately share a sense of horror an regret, and extend our sympathy to the loved ones of the deceased. But at present thats all we can do.


----------



## yenrod (7 Dec 2007)

Tynan – if I rode with the ideaology that cyclists have THE god given right on the road I wouldn’t be here now !

Arch you musnt have much of a pleasureable life if your are ‘consistantly going to niggle at you for it.’

Either way Arch – we’re all cyclists, we know the deal.

Having risked death and serious injury (none being my fault) & been hit by cars many over a 17yr + time period I know my feelings towards car drivers.


----------



## Arch (7 Dec 2007)

Aperitif said:


> That's how local radio reported it last night Arch, when I posted it... here's another bit from 'moving target'.
> 
> http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killed-by-collision-with-tesco-lorry-in-brixton



Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply you'd got it wrong, I worded that badly.

But it does go to show that it can take a while for the right information to come though...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Dec 2007)

yenrod said:


> Having risked death and serious injury (none being my fault) & been hit by cars many over a 17yr + time period I know my feelings towards car drivers.


Glad to see you approach life and cycling with an open mind. Tar all the cagers with the same brush, that'll help. No, really.

Muppet.

Completely agree with Arch, until we know the facts it's best not to take sides (as it were). Although I am more inclined to believe it's the car driver at fault (as it does sound pretty strange for a cyclist to just crash head-on) it's not inconceivable for it to be purely the cyclist - they could also have been going too fast down a hill without adequate brakes and just hit a stationary car...


----------



## andy_wrx (7 Dec 2007)

Every time there's any sort of incident between a car and a bike, there are some on this forum, just as on C+ before it, who instantly react '2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad' before they know the facts, or even regardless of the facts.

This Commuting section is in danger of becoming home to a narrow-minded angry anti-car lynchmob.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (7 Dec 2007)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Glad to see you approach life and cycling with an open mind. Tar all the cagers with the same brush, that'll help. No, really.
> 
> Muppet.
> 
> Completely agree with Arch, until we know the facts it's best not to take sides (as it were). Although I am more inclined to believe it's the car driver at fault (as it does sound pretty strange for a cyclist to just crash head-on) it's not inconceivable for it to be purely the cyclist - they could also have been going too fast down a hill without adequate brakes and just hit a stationary car...



From the latest reports, the other vehicle was a lorry, not a car, and the lorry was apparently making a turn. The first report here was (as has been stated) based on an incorrect local radio report.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (7 Dec 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> This Commuting section is in danger of becoming home to a narrow-minded angry anti-car lynchmob.





The sort of people that might buy a shirt like this?

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cars-suck


----------



## Terminator (7 Dec 2007)

The trouble out there is quite a few motorists don't give their driving one hundred per cent concentration.I watch them all the time and they think they can drive while yapping into a mobile phone.HALF OF YOU (MOTORISTS) HAVEN'T THE BRAINS TO CROSS THE ROAD IN THE CORRECT PLACE LET ALONE USE A MOBILE WHILE DRIVING.


----------



## Cab (7 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> The trouble out there is quite a few motorists don't give their driving one hundred per cent concentration.I watch them all the time and they think they can drive while yapping into a mobile phone.HALF OF YOU (MOTORISTS) HAVEN'T THE BRAINS TO CROSS THE ROAD IN THE CORRECT PLACE LET ALONE USE A MOBILE WHILE DRIVING.



Passed no less than three texting cyclists this morning. Ain't just the drivers who are idiots.

Edit: Thats equivalent to the number of texting riders I usually pass in a whole week, so there must be some important stuff going down in txt spk lnd.


----------



## Aperitif (7 Dec 2007)

Arch said:


> Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply you'd got it wrong, I worded that badly.
> 
> But it does go to show that it can take a while for the right information to come though...



Didn't take it as an implication Arch  Only interest is in trying to inject as much accuracy as poss. otherwise people get the wrong ends of their sticks and 'off we go' again... Then others pile in and the victim is sidelined in favour of a pithy debate.
Do your best everyone - it's Friday, and many people on four wheels will be phoning, satnavving, singing, christmaslisting, partythinking and...


----------



## Terminator (7 Dec 2007)

Thats up to cyclists.If they want to kill themselves then I have no problem with that although personally I never use the phone while cycling.I do hate falling off and I find I need one hundred per cent concentration for the general morons out there.

Sorry did I go into one again?

I haven't even had any booze.

*Do your best everyone - it's Friday, and many people on four wheels will be phoning, satnavving, singing, christmaslisting, partythinking and...*


That is no doubt.


----------



## andy_wrx (7 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> The trouble out there is quite a few motorists don't give their driving one hundred per cent concentration.I watch them all the time and they think they can drive while yapping into a mobile phone.HALF OF YOU (MOTORISTS) HAVEN'T THE BRAINS TO CROSS THE ROAD IN THE CORRECT PLACE LET ALONE USE A MOBILE WHILE DRIVING.




_Why_ would motorists be crossing the road ?

Is this rant also against pedestrians ?


----------



## Terminator (7 Dec 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> _Why_ would motorists be crossing the road ?
> 
> Is this rant also against pedestrians ?



Motorists are pedestrians part time.We all are.

Oh come on the standard of ped road crossing in England is atrocious.How many times do peds put themselves in danger?


----------



## Cab (7 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> Thats up to cyclists.If they want to kill themselves then I have no problem with that although personally I never use the phone while cycling.I do hate falling off and I find I need one hundred per cent concentration for the general morons out there.



You've clearly never had to take evasive action when a hoarde of idiot cyclists on the wrong side of the road head right at you, some texting, some just hollering at each other. Its not just up to the cyclist, we've got a responsibility not to endanger others too. Even just the way they swerve around when texting, its insane.


----------



## Cab (7 Dec 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> _Why_ would motorists be crossing the road ?




Because one of its legs are both the same? Oops, sorry, wrong crap joke.


----------



## Terminator (7 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You've clearly never had to take evasive action when a hoarde of idiot cyclists on the wrong side of the road head right at you, some texting, some just hollering at each other. Its not just up to the cyclist, we've got a responsibility not to endanger others too. Even just the way they swerve around when texting, its insane.



You don't know me arch you just make assumptions.

I've had texting or mobile phone using cyclists yes.Just think they are idiots.

I tell you what I bloody hate mobile phones though.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2007)

Bit OTT there yenrod, even when you bear in mind that you have a roughly 4 in 5 chance of being right. Only 17% of cyclist/motor vehicle collisions are the fault of the cyclist.


----------



## Arch (7 Dec 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> _Why_ would motorists be crossing the road ?



Nah, it's funnier with a chicken...

Walking home the other night, I spotted two mobile using drivers in a traffic queue. They no doubt thought it was fine, as they were stationary. I noticed that each one had a longer than normal gap in front of them (so not up bumper to bumper) and wondered if they'd left that deliberately for some dubuious safety reason, or whether the traffic in front had edged forward and they were too wrapped up to do the same.

I wish now I'd gone and banged on their windows, but I was in my fleece and think it would have been more effective if I'd been in my Polite jacket.


----------



## col (7 Dec 2007)

Im always seeing drivers on phones going round roundabouts ,pulling out of junctions,ect,unbelievable.


----------



## yenrod (7 Dec 2007)

Im not of the opinion that the cyclist was in the wrong – much the BLEEDING obvious !



BentMikey said:


> Bit OTT there yenrod, even when you bear in mind that you have a roughly 4 in 5 chance of being right. Only 17% of cyclist/motor vehicle collisions are the fault of the cyclist.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2007)

Yes, but you shouldn't be jumping to the conclusions you are, when there is still a small chance of the cyclist being to blame. Each situation should be judged on its own, because the driver isn't always to blame.


----------



## cupoftea (7 Dec 2007)

It sounds like a left turning lorry situation, and some people will say it's her fault because she shouldn’t have been on the left, even if there was a cycle lane.

I don't know, I just feel that there is a greater responsibility with the person driving 40ton's of killing machine rather than some poor person on a bike, or a ped. 

The story of that lorry driver who was fined £300 for not paying attention when he drove over that woman just sickens me. It’s feels that you can get away with murder as long as you drive.


----------



## col (7 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> It sounds like a left turning lorry situation, and some people will say it's her fault because she shouldn’t have been on the left, even if there was a cycle lane.
> 
> I don't know, I just feel that there is a greater responsibility with the person driving 40ton's of killing machine rather than some poor person on a bike, or a ped.
> 
> The story of that lorry driver who was fined £300 for not paying attention when he drove over that woman just sickens me. It’s feels that you can get away with murder as long as you drive.




Its not murder,its an accident,they happen,mores the pity,but we cant lay blame until the facts are available.


----------



## cupoftea (7 Dec 2007)

When is an accident avoidable? - Always

Who should do the “avoiding”? – Everyone 

When does an accident stop being an accident and just become careless?

When does careless become negligent?

Would people drive the way they do if there was a 6” nail sticking out of there steering wheel?

Would drivers pay more attention if they had there hands cut off it they were done for speeding etc as they used to do in Somalia?

I know its extreme but the reason why most accidents are caused by motorists is that they don’t pay attention, and cyclists are scared regularly into paying attention.

Fear is nature’s way of making you concentrate.


----------



## col (7 Dec 2007)

I do agree with you,but alas,this is reality,and accidents are part of it,even if it neednt happen,it does,and always will.There is nothing thats going to stop these happening,all we can do,is try to make sure its not us that makes that fatal mistake.


----------



## cupoftea (7 Dec 2007)

Maybe if the lorry had been fitted with all round mirrors he would have seen her. The gov vetoed this part of the euro transport laws

I don't know, but something should be done

I feel for her family and friends, my thoughts this weekend are with them


----------



## Arch (7 Dec 2007)

As far as I can see, we don't even know this was a blind spot incident, although that is probably our first reaction, based on what we all know about mixing big lorries and bikes. 

I can certainly say, I've seen people on bikes riding in a way that I would have said they were very much to blame if they'd got squished. Cyclists are capable of 'careless' and 'negligent', like everyone else.

Obviously, I've also seen people drive recklessly. I do also believe that 'accidents' can happen. They shouldn't, in an ideal world, but we don't live in one of those. Yes, maybe if the lorry had had more mirrors (and we don't know how many it didi have), the incident might have been averted, but we also don't know that yet...


----------



## Joe24 (7 Dec 2007)

Lorry fitted with all round mirrors? It would be a good idea, but there will still be blind spots. And even if the lorry did have all round mirrors, would she have been seen?
If the cyclist went down the left side of the lorry, and the driver didnt see her then its partly the cyclists fault for going down the left.
And you realise if the lorry driver didnt see her and hit her, then he probably didnt feel it or know about it until she was on the floor and in his view from the mirrors.
Some of the drivers from over seas with left hand drives have fitted cameras in the stairs going to the cab on the far side of the truck, so they can see down the side of the truck, and have less blind spots. But this costs abit and with most motors on hire, some companies cant be botherd to have them fiftted, because it isnt a requirement, yet.


----------



## User169 (7 Dec 2007)

Arch said:


> As far as I can see, we don't even know this was a blind spot incident, although that is probably our first reaction, based on what we all know about mixing big lorries and bikes.



My first reaction would be that this has nothing whatsover to do with blindspots. In the two cases I have followed most closely (Seb Lukomski and Emma Foa - both killed by left-turning lorries), it was established in court that they were not in a blind-spot; they would both have been seen had the driver taken the time to look. 

As you say, we don't know the full facts regarding this latest death, but I would be very surprised if it had anything at all to do with blind-spots.


----------



## User169 (7 Dec 2007)

Joe24 said:


> If the cyclist went down the left side of the lorry, and the driver didnt see her then its partly the cyclists fault for going down the left.



Rather depends on whether or not the lorry driver bothered to look. 

Sorry to bang on about this, but in Seb Lukomski's case and in Emma Foa's case, it was established in court that the lorry driver that killed them would have seen them had he looked in his mirror. I fail to see how this could be deemed to be the fault of the cyclist.

Sadly, in both cases, the courts didn't seem to find their deaths an especially serious matter.


----------



## yenrod (7 Dec 2007)

One thing that interests me is this: not so long back there was a big moan from the cardrivers about the fact that in certain countries if a cyclist gets hit then the car driver assumes resposibility - wonder why that is (for all you stupid people out there) = the car/s-truck/s etc... are BIGGER BTW a m.bike can travel faster so i dont know where that lies I dont know ?

So, its only logical that the car driver assumes responsibility as they are:

1 - not excerting oneself, increased attention,

2 - sitting, not exerting themselves and technically not speeding,

3 - the car weighs far more than a cycle and cyclist,

I've put this together as things are very pedantic on here !

If a car hits me, as they have in the past, they hurt !

If I hit a car - it doesnt hurt the occupants or the car - the car doesnt feel pain ! 

So, why has the general viewpoint on here been: 'well lets wait for the outcome'.

Everyone on here bleats constantly about not having/getting enough room, no respect, getting pushed on the bike, near-misses, pullouts, abuse...

AND YET WHEN A CYCLIST GETS KILLED - most of you say 'well, lets wait for the outcome'


----------



## Maz (7 Dec 2007)

Delftse Post said:


> ...in Seb Lukomski's case and in Emma Foa's case, it was established in court that the lorry driver that killed them would have seen them had he looked in his mirror. I fail to see how this could be deemed to be the fault of the cyclist...


In the case of Emma Foa (I don't know about the other one) she was to the left of the lorry - clearly a very dangerous place to be. Was it ever determined if she was there first and the lorry pulled up along side her, or was it the other way around?


----------



## Tynan (7 Dec 2007)

truck passing a bike and turning left, yeah their fault of cause

bike running up the inside of a truck as it slows to turn left? bike's fault


----------



## fossyant (7 Dec 2007)

Accident's happen..........

People don't look

People make mistakes

Some folk die - shame .... that's life.....

Don't go too far you lot ... 6 pages...FFS !


----------



## User169 (8 Dec 2007)

Maz said:


> In the case of Emma Foa (I don't know about the other one) she was to the left of the lorry - clearly a very dangerous place to be. Was it ever determined if she was there first and the lorry pulled up along side her, or was it the other way around?



I haven't seen it reported which of Emma Foa and the lorry were there first. In the circumstances, however, I think this is a red-herring since she was along-side the lorry for 40 seconds. Had the driver looked just once during that time he's have sen her.


----------



## Tynan (8 Dec 2007)

if she was alongside a long high sided vehicle for 40 seconds and approaching a junction to boot ...

cars and especially longer vehicles have a blind spot and other road users should know that


----------



## MarkF (8 Dec 2007)

You can't pre-judge!

Earlier in the week a cyclist overtook me going downhill towards a intersection, rush hour. You can (if you want) make quick speed here because as soon as you go though the lights there is a very steep incline. He shot passed me on the inside of the slow moving line of cars, I cringed.

Yep, as soon as he was parallel with a car at the junction and still gaining speed, the car decided to turn left, no indictation. Cue, squeal of brakes, locked tyres and a "thud" as the rider hit the rear door/wing. Yep again, the driver and cylcist immediately blamed each other, frankly I did not give a shoot about either of them.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (8 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> if she was alongside a long high sided vehicle for 40 seconds and approaching a junction to boot ...
> 
> cars and especially longer vehicles have a blind spot and other road users should know that



Yes, but in the Emma Foa case, it was shown in court that she was visible in the driver's mirrors, but he failed to see her because he didn't look.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/more-on-emma-foa


----------



## Dayvo (8 Dec 2007)

yenrod said:


> Some lazy ****er in a car done this - bastard.



A very well-reasoned comment! And made with NO knowledge of the facts or details. 
Are you THE PARAMEDIC in disguise?


----------



## John Ponting (8 Dec 2007)

Dayvo said:


> A very well-reasoned comment! And made with NO knowledge of the facts or details.
> Are you THE PARAMEDIC in disguise?




A bit harsh on THE PARAMEDIC , I thought.


----------



## simon l& and a half (8 Dec 2007)

The crossroads in question is less than half a mile from my front door. I saw the traffic come to a halt and a helicopter hovering overhead - to be honest I thought it might be a prison breakout.

The crossroads is broad - with three lanes on the A23 in each direction, two westward lanes on the South Circular and three eastward lanes. There are right turn intervals in the traffic light sequence. It's poorly lit. There's generally a bit of an overrun, where vehicles that have queued go over the amber light and have to contend with traffic coming off the new green.

I give it a miss - there's an alternative route down New Park Road, but this is a very popular route for commuting cyclists. The point I'd like to make is this - there are at least half a dozen ways to come to grief at this particular junction - and it ill behoves us to rush to judgement. I do think, however, that drivers have to take responsibility for the weight that they're piloting - just as cyclists have to take responsibility for their own kinetic energy when cycling near pedestrians.


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Dec 2007)

John Ponting said:


> A bit harsh on THE PARAMEDIC , I thought.


----------



## Tynan (9 Dec 2007)

Buffalo Bill said:


> Yes, but in the Emma Foa case, it was shown in court that she was visible in the driver's mirrors, but he failed to see her because he didn't look.
> 
> http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/more-on-emma-foa



'had he been paying attention to the road, instead of looking at page 3 or whatever it was.'

nice balanced piece, so did the cycle route run across the junction? in my experience they stop, in an attempt to make the cyclist realise that trundling ahead blindly isn't advised

anyone that drives in London traffic will know how much observation is needed, I reckon driving large vehicles in London rush hour wold be quite an education


----------



## simon l& and a half (9 Dec 2007)

in Emma Foa's case the driver accepted that he was looking at a piece of paper, and didn't check his mirror. What's your problem with that?


----------



## Buffalo Bill (9 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> 'had he been paying attention to the road, instead of looking at page 3 or whatever it was.'
> 
> nice balanced piece, so did the cycle route run across the junction? in my experience they stop, in an attempt to make the cyclist realise that trundling ahead blindly isn't advised
> 
> anyone that drives in London traffic will know how much observation is needed, I reckon driving large vehicles in London rush hour wold be quite an education



I wasn't attempting to be balanced - that was a cheap crack, and I am sure that driver was very upset by it.

Seeing as you asked about the cycle lane and the junction:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/the-junction-where-emma-foa-was-killed


----------



## Tynan (9 Dec 2007)

that link's a well written piece isn't it?

what does it say about getting yourself inside a truck at a junction?

frankly I'd never ever ever be there

for 37 seconds

sorry but it's asking for it to happen, I'm not excusing the driver but there's two parties to that accident


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2007)

Yes, but Tynan, you are this: WRONG.

Why? Because there are two types of accident avoidance here. Defensive riding is exactly what you're talking about, and that's only ever a secondary effort. The person bringing all the danger and IMO driving like an irresponsible 5 year old was the lorry driver. He is the one with no excuse, no looking, and driving without due care and attention. It was his primary responsibility to look out for other road users and he didn't.

All this is of course only speculation and my opinion because I wasn't there.


----------



## Tynan (9 Dec 2007)

why am I wrong?

I posted that I wasn't excusing the driver, yeah?

And others have repeated posted that she was inside that truck for 37 seconds?

Would you do that?

I wouldn't, I've got a healthy scepticism of trucks' field of vision and position myself accordingly

and that cycle lane does stop before the junction starts doesn't it? Suggesting that the happy zone of safety is ended and you're on your tod from now on


----------



## Buffalo Bill (10 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> why am I wrong?
> 
> I posted that I wasn't excusing the driver, yeah?
> 
> ...



You obviously didn't read the piece or look at the photo very carefully.

a. the lane was put in AFTER the collision.

b. the lane now ends in an ASL. If you wait in the ASL on the left, you will be in exactly the spot that drivers cannot see into without the DOBLI mirror ie in front and to the left of the driver's cab.

Asking for it? As a rape victim who was wearing a short skirt after dark was asking for it? Ms Foa was wearing a helmet, and hi-vis vest. Not the actions of someone that was reckless.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (10 Dec 2007)

Blah blah blah about the blame for Emma Foa's demise.

Just sadness for the loss of the latest cyclist to be killed by a motorist.

As Bentmikey points out, it's likely to be the driver that's to blame. I think Yenrod's reaction is understandable.


----------



## Tynan (10 Dec 2007)

the bloke says he doesn't know wether it was put in since doesn't he?

and regardless of ASL, I position myself far enough forward that I'm visible from the cab, it's not rocket science

asking for it? nice use of the rape analogy, jeez


----------



## Buffalo Bill (10 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> the bloke says he doesn't know wether it was put in since doesn't he?
> 
> and regardless of ASL, I position myself far enough forward that I'm visible from the cab, it's not rocket science
> 
> asking for it? nice use of the rape analogy, jeez



It says:

"Updated
According to Camden Cyclists newsletter of Feb 07, the junction has been redesigned to prevent the kind of thing happening again, and the placement of the ASL is part of that."

You said that the lane finishes at a point that lets you know that you are on your own. Now you say that the ASL is irrelevant. Which one is it?

'Asking for it' were your words. Someone is dead, and you suggested that their actions were asking for it. If there is a nice use of words going on here, I would say that it is yours.


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

if you want a row about that phrase, quote it in context

I didn't say the ASL was irrelevant, I did say that if the truck is right up on the stop line, I'd position myself further forward to be in his field of vision, that's simple common sense and I probably do that every single trip at some point, under no circumstances would I leave myself close to a HGV at lights

as for 'asking for it', if I actually wanted to get myself killed by a large vehicle how would I go about it?

I'd position myself inside long/large vehicles at junctions, and inside those vehicles approaching junctions, HGVs, bendy buses etc etc, I reckon I could get myself killed or badly injured inside a month, easy

that's the context I used 'asking for it' in and you know it


----------



## domtyler (11 Dec 2007)

There is nothing to debate here I see it. 

Of course it will turn out to be the motorists fault, we all know that, but until we get the full details you just shouldn't say it. 

As cyclists we go out on the roads in the knowledge that even if we never make a mistake we could still be wiped out by an inattentive motorist. We have to do what we can to counter this by using road positioning, if we don't the risks start to multiply rapidly.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2007)

*shakes head* Failing to ride defensively is not asking for it, especially when cycle lanes and ASL feeder lanes encourage cyclists to ride up the left of HGVs. Tynan, just because you know better doesn't mean a cyclist is asking for it going up the left of a lorry. I think Bill's rape analogy was spot on.


----------



## Maz (11 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I think Bill's rape analogy was spot on.


Interesting. I thought it was way OTT.


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

always silly to escalate debates with emotive and even hysterical language

if you think riding up the inside of hgvs approaching a junction isn't asking to have an accident then fine, we differ, get out there and have fun at junctions

I dare say in the ideal world where everyone drives properly and no-one makes mistakes, cycles can bumble along without a care in the world

In the real world, cyclists that ride into junction without considering whether the vehicle(s) to their right are about to turn left are going to have far more accidents then those that do consider it

And if they do that with HGVs and bendy buses then they're going to have far more serious and even fatal accidents

Surely no-one is arguing with that?

And as such, such cyclists are having more accidents as a direct result of their cycling, she didn't actually ask to be killed, of course she didn't, but her actions put her in harm's way

sad but true in my opinion


----------



## magnatom (11 Dec 2007)

I think this is semantics. Riding up the left of an HGV isn't 'asking' for trouble. It is significantly increasing your risk of trouble. Does that seem fair?


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

yes, it's the point I've been trying to make over and over again

do you lot think it means writing a polite letter to a truck driver to arrange an accident?

and it's still asking for trouble/accident as I understand it


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2007)

Do you think truck drivers should look in their mirrors on both sides before moving off or turning? What do you think about cyclists who use ASL feeder lanes to get to the front of the queue?


----------



## Arch (11 Dec 2007)

Before this argument disappears up it's own... 

<ahem>

Do we have any more info about the unfortunate incident that sparked the thread off?


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Do you think truck drivers should look in their mirrors on both sides before moving off or turning? What do you think about cyclists who use ASL feeder lanes to get to the front of the queue?



Yes, of course, it's the law for all road users, do i think that all do? no

I filter to the front as long as the traffic isn't about to move off and leave me in a compromised position

and both questions are irrelevant imho, I'd never do anything that left me inside a HGV or bendy bus at a junction

I give both vehicles far more space that other vehicles at all times, because even well driven they're far more dangerous than other vehicles, more likely to not see you, harder to get away from in a crisis, more likely to badly hurt you


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2007)

You're right, but that's because you ride defensively. You're wrong in suggesting that the girl was asking for it, because she was riding quite legally and to a degree as encouraged by the road markings and society's current belief that bicycles should stay to the left. You're saying that someone who is not riding defensively, is "asking for it", unless I've misunderstood.


----------



## domtyler (11 Dec 2007)

Come on, let's drop the "asking for it" stuff and concentrate on the real issue(s) shall we?

As a cyclists we have to compensate for others mistakes or we die, end of story.


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

BM, you can stick to what I post if you genuinely want to know what I think

Anyone cycling up the inside of long vehicles at junctions is asking to be killed, yes, I think that

'asking for it' meaning you're doing nothing to prevent and indeed helping something bad and likely to happen to you

in no way whatsoever do I want people to die on the roads, I'm merely expressing the opinion that cyclists have the power to prevent certain sorts of set piece accidents from happening to them, I get annoyed by the assumption by many that the cyclist is automatically free of all blame, responsibility and was helpless to prevent an accident, and worse I think it's unhelpful to promote the idea, inadvertently or not, that shoot just happens, you have no responsibility to protect yourself


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2007)

My problem lies only with you focusing all the blame on the cyclist, when first and foremost in the specific example we're talking about, it's the lorry driver who zarked up. Defensive riding will only ever come second to your responsibility for the safety of others, and is there only to take account of other peoples' mistakes.

Oh, and I'm perhaps the last person on here you should blame for claiming the cyclist is always free from blame.


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

will you do a great favour and read all my posts again before telling me what I'm posting?

I try to post clearly and carefully, the drivers blame has never been an issue, I've been addressing what she could have done to prevent it happening at all

And I haven't accused anyone in particular of claiming others are to blame for cyclists' accidents, certainly not you

'Defensive riding will only ever come second to your responsibility for the safety of others, and is there only to take account of other peoples' mistakes.'

not at all sure what point that's supposed to make


----------



## CotterPin (11 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> BM, you can stick to what I post if you genuinely want to know what I think
> 
> Anyone cycling up the inside of long vehicles at junctions is asking to be killed, yes, I think that
> 
> ...



Tynan,
You're right - the cyclist does have the power to prevent certain types of incidents occurring... if they know that their action is going to cause that incident.

Trouble is, as others have others have pointed out we put bike lanes down the left hand side of the road, positively encouraging cyclists to use them. You sound like you're an experienced cyclist so you know when to avoid these facilities. Somebody has just decided to take up cycling - possibly they have seen new cycle lanes appearing everywhere. They have bought themselves a new bike and jump on it one day.

"This is great," they think, "all this green paint just for me to ride on."

No-one's told them to use cycle facilities with caution. They don't spend their time in fora like this. They've never bought "Cycle Craft" - they've never heard of "Cycle Craft". They haven't had any training. After all, they learned to ride a bike when a kid so it can't be that difficult. Okay, so there's more traffic but so long as they stay on the green paint and over to the left, close to kerb, they'll be okay. 

And you can finish the rest of the story off...


----------



## Tynan (11 Dec 2007)

yes, I know, of course I know

but an adult should be able to at least get an inkling of the hazards, far more would be killed otherwise, and they have to take at least some responsibility for their actions, I respect those that say they wouldn't cycle because of the danger, it's there and it's real, people happy to bumble along are a real danger to themselves and other road users to a lessor degree

anyhow, flicked through the ES just now, female cyclist killed at Streatham Hill, you guessed it, lorry turning left at a junction

there's a quote from another Tesco lorry driver

'I only pray that I am never involved in such a tragic accident while trying to do my job. I must admit it worries you all the time in London, particularly near bus stops, Tubes and traffic lights'


----------



## gambatte (11 Dec 2007)

This is why I hate cycle lanes. New section in Sheffield, which I'd ridden about a dozen times before they opened it. Its got a cycle lane the road becomes 3 lane (4 if you include the cycle lane) with an ASL at the lights. This is where I want to be in the right hand lane.

First time with traffic, felt like the cycle lane 'held' me to the left. wierd


----------



## Bromptonaut (11 Dec 2007)

Arch said:


> Before this argument disappears up it's own...
> 
> <ahem>
> 
> Do we have any more info about the unfortunate incident that sparked the thread off?




Arch:-

Think this is the relevant story. Standard is a sister paper to the Mail so usual disclaimers apply

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...quiry+as+Tesco+lorry+kills+cyclist/article.do


----------



## simon l& and a half (11 Dec 2007)

I don't think that the photograph in thisislondon has anything to do with this particular junction. 

I think that the truck would have been turning left from the A23 on to the South Circular. The design of the A23 southbound isn't great. It broadens to the left just before the junction, but it would be difficult for a large vehicle to go over to the left, and then turn left into the narrower South Circular. There is no cycle lane, nor, really, is there much scope for putting one in. 

This is a dangerous junction, and there are half a dozen ways of getting killed on it. I've been crossing it for about thirtyfive years, and I confess I don't like doing it southbound, and I'm not wild about it eastbound. 

Somebody suggested New Park Road, and I'd go along with that, although the right turn into New Park Road is iffy. New Park Road would have been no use to the victim, who, one presumes, was going on to Leigham Park Road and turning left there. 

At the A23/A205 the lanes curve left and right, and traffic is changing from lane to lane. Cyclists going south stay to the left because they can see the bus lane on the other side of the junction. 

It's easy to say - stick in the traffic, and stay away from the left hand kerb - and easy enough to do if you're practiced and confident. Sadly not every cyclist is practiced and confident, and this is a difficult bit of road to be confident on.

This junction isn't as obviously dangerous as the Pentonville Road junction that saw a cycling fatality earlier this year, but, however belatedly, it does need looking at.


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

I was aware of trucks and buses today and other cyclists

saw a female cyclist start from the curb at a major crossroads, in the left hand turn lane, with a jumbo transit alongside her that had to wait to let her go, she may have clocked him and him her but I don't think so, she looked like she was in a world of her own

And so other cyclists blithely going up the inside of buses and trucks, through gaps so narrow that they had to have their left foot on the pavement

Mind you, I noticed more than usually what a beady eye most of the buses and trucks have out for cyclists, shocking gridlock in several places this morning


----------



## cupoftea (12 Dec 2007)

I think it's time to throw the RLJ debate in (boom)

So if we are obeying traffic signal blindly i.e. cycle lanes we may end up dead.

Someone said that they position themselves in front of a lorry at lights. I assume you cross the mandatory stop line.

So you have in fact just RLJ’ed

This comes around to the trials were they removed all street marking, maybe this would help?

In summary, the roads are dangerous for inexperienced cyclists, street planners are not interested in your safety, just fulfilling quotes and keeping cyclist out of the way.


----------



## vernon (12 Dec 2007)

yenrod said:


> Tynan – if I rode with the ideaology that cyclists have THE god given right on the road I wouldn’t be here now !
> 
> Arch you musnt have much of a pleasureable life if your are ‘consistantly going to niggle at you for it.’
> 
> ...



Remind me not to ride with you 

250,000 miles of motorcycling over 25 years and around 10,000 miles of cycling over the past three years and I've yet to experience the Armageddon that you seem to experience regularly.

Is contributary negligence part of your vocabulary?


----------



## spindrift (12 Dec 2007)

I routinely have to take avoiding action when drivers behave idiotically, it's not rare.


----------



## Pete (12 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> In summary, the roads are dangerous for inexperienced cyclists....


Not entirely true. No road is completely safe for anyone, accidents happen, experienced cyclists die, can't guarantee anything. It is always possible to take a line which is as safe as it can be, at the cost of some inconvenience to the cyclist. A lorry or bus at the head of the queue is not safe to overtake either on the left or the right. Best to hang behind: better to lose a few seconds on your journey, better to breathe in diesel fumes for a few seconds longer, than to end up dead. Indeed, if you don't feel comfortable about undertaking or overtaking any vehicle, anywhere in a queue, then _don't overtake_. Remain behind the last vehicle in primary position (so that a following vehicle can't sideline you) but be prepared to move over to secondary if you can't keep up with the traffic when it does start moving. This is reasonably safe, because the driver behind you, unless a total a***hole, is sure to have seen you. Hardly exciting cycling though. I'm afraid excitement and safety are often mutually exclusive.


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

surely everyone is sick to death of the rlj argument?

but I think those saying rolling a few feet over a stop line for a good reason is the same thing as going through a red light and junction are the same things are being either mischievous or plain stupid, perhaps both

they're not the same thing at all


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> surely everyone is sick to death of the rlj argument?
> 
> but I think those saying rolling a few feet over a stop line for a good reason is the same thing as going through a red light and junction are the same things are being either mischievous or plain stupid, perhaps both
> 
> they're not the same thing at all



No one has said that they're the same thing, other than that they're both illegal and (in all but the most unusual situations) inappropriate.


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

spindrift said:


> I routinely have to take avoiding action when drivers behave idiotically, it's not rare.



Not quite a daily event, but pretty common.


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> No one has said that they're the same thing, other than that they're both illegal and (in all but the most unusual situations) inappropriate.



OP certainly implied it, 'most unusual'?

only when a large vehicle is at the head of the line of traffic, when a car is in the ASL or when there's no ASL and a car is at the head of the traffic and there's no other suitable place to start from

to equate in any way choosing to start from a virtual ASL for obvious and accepted reasons of safety with deliberately ignoring traffic lights is stupid and mostly a deliberate attempt to confuse the the issue

I doubt many people are punished for going a few feet over stop lines, ignoring red lights, yeah and with obvious good reason

there's no advantage or motivation for going a few feet over a stop line other than improved safety

there's plenty for those that chose to ignore red lights

different things entirely


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Dec 2007)

Round my way it is a wonder more cyclists don't get squished, I'm not talking about serious sober cyclists but the local casual cycling brewheads commuting unlit to and from the offy and 'yoof' on their BMX's & MTB's.
I have almost had head on collisions with unlit kids riding the wrong the wrong way up the Old Kent Road!

Any death on the road, cage driver, cyclist or ped is lamentable and the repocussions last long after the road is swept and the emergency services leave the scene.

I've written in other posts that I have noticed in South London 20mph zones, some cage drivers will overtake me using the whole oncoming lane, pulling back in with little room to manouver. I dread the day when someone's rash decision is a head on crash in front of me.

T x


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

them kids really are invulnerable I think, they never seem to get hurt

I do a stretch of 20 at the home end of my journey, generally well observed as it's a decent hill so I'm either well over 20 on the way home or creeping up it on the way out, so I'm happy to hold a tight line

the odd charlie has to tear round me though, me in primary or no


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> OP certainly implied it, 'most unusual'?
> 
> only when a large vehicle is at the head of the line of traffic, when a car is in the ASL or when there's no ASL and a car is at the head of the traffic and there's no other suitable place to start from



...and you've ended up getting to the front without realising that the legal space you were heading for is illegally or foolishly occupied by someone else and dismounting is, for whatever reason, unrealistic.



> to equate in any way choosing to start from a virtual ASL for obvious and accepted reasons of safety with deliberately ignoring traffic lights is stupid and mostly a deliberate attempt to confuse the the issue



To spuriously represent the arguments usually put forward against breaking the law by starting out in front of the white line in such a way is just petty.



> I doubt many people are punished for going a few feet over stop lines, ignoring red lights, yeah and with obvious good reason
> 
> there's no advantage or motivation for going a few feet over a stop line other than improved safety



Rubbish. I see cyclists ignore white lines and wait out in front of ASLS that are clear of motorists every day, they don't gain any safety advantage in doing so, they seek merely to get out in front of other cyclists or to shave seconds from their journey. 



> there's plenty for those that chose to ignore red lights
> 
> different things entirely



Different, but not entirely so. You're seeing virtue where I see none; what I observe in people waiting out in front of the white line is selfish, illegal behaviour, yet for some reason you're reading in to that behaviour that these people are somehow ensuring their own safety. I'd say thats true for less than 1 in 100 instances that I see.


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> I've written in other posts that I have noticed in South London 20mph zones, some cage drivers will overtake me using the whole oncoming lane, pulling back in with little room to manouver. I dread the day when someone's rash decision is a head on crash in front of me.



I was stuck behind a 4x4 for something like half a mile yesterday. He was doing a shade over 20 ish, which would normally be _plenty_ fast enough for me and more, but with the tail wind I would have been tempted to go faster. Still, a decent pace so I couldn't complain. 

A white van was stuck behind me all the way along the road.

4x4 signals left, turns off, I accelerated but not enough for white van, white van guns his engine to overtake, manages to pull up level with my back wheel for about 30 yards before turning right off the road (might have indicated, might not have done, I have no idea). Wanted past me, I'd have let him past too but he simply didn't have a chance. 

The desire to get past the cycle in front is a serious problem with many motorists; a bike out in front of them is like a red rag to a bull.


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

Oh oh! Cab and Tynan are a bad combination! This could be a loooong thread......


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Oh oh! Cab and Tynan are a bad combination! This could be a loooong thread......



Oh, go put some poor sap on you-tube, brain boy


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Oh, go put some poor sap on you-tube, brain boy



I would but the bike's out of commission until next week.  I suppose I could wear the helmet camera whilst driving the car......


----------



## Maz (12 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> I would but the bike's out of commission until next week.


Should've used Cab excuse about not being able to fit your bike in your rucksack, so you didn't bother to use it.


----------



## Maz (12 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> I would but the bike's out of commission until next week.


Should've used Cab excuse about not being able to fit your bike in your rucksack, so you didn't bother to use it.


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

Maz said:


> Should've used Cab excuse about not being able to fit your bike in your rucksack, so you didn't bother to use it.



Ah, but in this case, I REALLY don't think my bike will fit in my rucksack! Now that would be the ultimate folder!


----------



## cupoftea (12 Dec 2007)

So if they highway code was changed so that cylist had to use cycle lanes would you?


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

people starting in front of an empty ASL is no part of my argument

I think the safest place to start from a set of lights is the front, that's common sense and vouched for by the appearance of ASLs, so that's where I'll start unless it obviously impractical to do so

If when I get there, I have to advance my normal position, for the reasons given earlier, I will, to the benefit of every party involved

I really don't see those as in any way contentious positions to take

people jumping red lights and crossing the junction are a danger to others and themselves, it's a serious road offence imho and the first thing regular people say to me when I mention I cycle to work

people starting a few feet over a stop line for good reason is no offence worth mentioning, the two things are incomparable, the only reasons they ever come up is people trying to muddy the water on rlj

I'm never happy with starting anywhere other than the front, I start in traffic when I have to but it relies on some common sense from surrounding vehicles in the second of starting to move, primary is not an option when filtering in very heavy slow moving traffic

Take your ultra conservative line by all means cab but don't try to enforce it on others who might be riding in very different circumstances

I have no idea where 'virtue' came from, not me


----------



## mrben (12 Dec 2007)

ASLs are a tricky one, partly because they are usually paired with a short bicycle lane on the left hand side, which encourages people to filter up the left hand side, and then pull across. If you're turning right, or if you're going straight on but the left hand lane is for turning left only, you could be in an awkward position if the lights change before you hit the ASL. This could probably be solved by an additional cycle lane between each of the lanes, but that has a whole load of problems of it's own. 

Starting from behind a car does mean that the car behind you doesn't feel like he could just zoom off into the distance if you weren't there.....

Having said that, I use ASLs a fair bit, but it depends on the situation, and, ultimately, this is the solution - allow people to use common sense wrt cycle facilities on the road.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (12 Dec 2007)

mrben said:


> Having said that, I use ASLs a fair bit, but it depends on the situation, and, ultimately, this is the solution - *allow people to use common sense wrt cycle facilities on the road.*



The trouble is, there is a large difference between what is common sense to an experienced, dedicated cyclist, and what is common sense to a less experienced cyclist.

M. Experience - "Use the feeder lane into that ASL? I'd much rather wait a car back and cross with the traffic, this is a dangerous junction with lots of vehicles turning left."

M. Under-Experienced - "It is very handy there is a feeder lane into the ASL, this is a dangerous junction with lots of vehicles turning left."

Both cyclists will be using common sense. One will be safer than the other though, through experience and maybe Cyclecraft and/or internet fora where this issue is disscussed constantly.


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> people starting in front of an empty ASL is no part of my argument
> 
> I think the safest place to start from a set of lights is the front, that's common sense and vouched for by the appearance of ASLs, so that's where I'll start unless it obviously impractical to do so




In my opinion and experience the safest place to be is one or two cars back from the front. I think that is common sense. 
ASLs are rarely designed with safety in mind. I have seen many that encourage and direct you to left filter where it is downright dangerous. So I wouldn't read too much into the fact that ASLs exist therefore it is the safest.
But then I have said this before and possible debated this with you Tynan. I don't think we will ever agree on this one


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

mrben said:


> ASLs are a tricky one, partly because they are usually paired with a short bicycle lane on the left hand side, which encourages people to filter up the left hand side, and then pull across. If you're turning right, or if you're going straight on but the left hand lane is for turning left only, you could be in an awkward position if the lights change before you hit the ASL. This could probably be solved by an additional cycle lane between each of the lanes, but that has a whole load of problems of it's own.
> 
> Starting from behind a car does mean that the car behind you doesn't feel like he could just zoom off into the distance if you weren't there.....
> 
> Having said that, I use ASLs a fair bit, but it depends on the situation, and, ultimately, this is the solution - allow people to use common sense wrt cycle facilities on the road.



I hadn't read this before I typed. It seems we agree on this. Where do you cycle in Glasgow MrBen?


----------



## mrben (12 Dec 2007)

"magnatom" said:


> I hadn't read this before I typed. It seems we agree on this. Where do you cycle in Glasgow MrBen?



From Whiteinch into Central Station. Dumbarton Road through into Finnieston, then cut down under the Expressway to Lancefield Quay and then pop up onto Argyle Street just before the station. Way home is basically the same, except I cycle along Argyle Street as far as the Kingston Bridge before turning down to the river. 

Morning run is between 7-7.30am, evening from 5.40pm to 6.10pm. Usually takes me about 20-25 minutes on a borrowed (too small) Raleigh mountain bike with front shocks and knobbly tyres (weighs a tonne  ) and a big laptop rucksack on my back (getting my excuses in early) 

Coming in there's virtually no traffic - worst bit is getting into the right hand lane at the split by Kelvingrove Art Gallery. Coming home the junction at the squinty bridge is a PITA for the same reason - timing the move into the right hand lane.


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> So if they highway code was changed so that cylist had to use cycle lanes would you?



I'd get in touch with my MP and the Ministry of Transport and tell him I'm going to be breaking the law, and I'd tell him where and when too.


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

mrben said:


> From Whiteinch into Central Station. Dumbarton Road through into Finnieston, then cut down under the Expressway to Lancefield Quay and then pop up onto Argyle Street just before the station. Way home is basically the same, except I cycle along Argyle Street as far as the Kingston Bridge before turning down to the river.
> 
> Morning run is between 7-7.30am, evening from 5.40pm to 6.10pm. Usually takes me about 20-25 minutes on a borrowed (too small) Raleigh mountain bike with front shocks and knobbly tyres (weighs a tonne  ) and a big laptop rucksack on my back (getting my excuses in early)
> 
> Coming in there's virtually no traffic - worst bit is getting into the right hand lane at the split by Kelvingrove Art Gallery. Coming home the junction at the squinty bridge is a PITA for the same reason - timing the move into the right hand lane.



We will cross paths a little at Whiteinch. I come down via broomhill to the roundabout under the expressway and then travel along Dumbarton Road to the cycle tunnel entrance. I am later than you in the morning and earlier than you at night . Have a look at my videos (see my signature) you will recognise some of the sites!

Yes I know the Kelvingrove split. There always seem to be a fair amount of buses there to contend with.


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

Waiting in primary, I agree although that's not my preferred position, but again, in proper London rush hour traffic it's rarely an option

If people position themselves to the left of a left hand turn lane and pay no attention to signals of surrounding vehicles then there's no real hope for them is there?

Otherwise, why is an ASL not safe? If it only makes the cyclist visible then it's a good thing, if it allows them to take a primary position when called for then it's a good thing as well, both things are what they're there for after all surely?

Mind you, I'm for bike lanes at the side of the road so what would I know


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> people starting in front of an empty ASL is no part of my argument



Whether I'm in a stop box or not, if I'm waiting at the lights and another cyclist goes out in front of me it isn't for safety reasons. And it happens day in, day out. Cyclists doing this are not thinking 'I know, I'll get out in front of that other chap, I'll be safer', they're thinking 'I'll wait out there because it'll save me a moment'. They know its a law that isn't enforced so they break it, consciously, knowing they can get away with it.



> I think the safest place to start from a set of lights is the front, that's common sense and vouched for by the appearance of ASLs, so that's where I'll start unless it obviously impractical to do so



I think that the safest place is where I'm visible and legal, I don't see any real advantage in winding people up by doing something illegal just for my own convenience. I can be visible by claiming my space on the road in a legal position, I don't find that I need to break the law (except in very odd situations).



> If when I get there, I have to advance my normal position, for the reasons given earlier, I will, to the benefit of every party involved
> 
> I really don't see those as in any way contentious positions to take



You could claim a safe road position in the lane of traffic, you choose instead to break the law.



> people jumping red lights and crossing the junction are a danger to others and themselves, it's a serious road offence imho and the first thing regular people say to me when I mention I cycle to work



They could also claim a safe road postion in the lane of traffic, they choose instead to break the law. Like you do, they just take it a few steps further. 

You could cycle safely within the law, you choose not to because there is an illegal alternative that you see as more convenient. Don't try to wrap it up as a safety thing, because it blatantly is not. Or are you unable to claim primary position for some unknown reason?



> people starting a few feet over a stop line for good reason is no offence worth mentioning, the two things are incomparable, the only reasons they ever come up is people trying to muddy the water on rlj
> 
> I'm never happy with starting anywhere other than the front, I start in traffic when I have to but it relies on some common sense from surrounding vehicles in the second of starting to move, primary is not an option when filtering in very heavy slow moving traffic



Hogwash. Primary is the _only_ option when in very heavy slow moving traffic, take primary and keep it, reclaim it whenever you might be about to lose it, make eye contact with motorists to get back into primary where you've lost it and need to reassert your road space.



> Take your ultra conservative line by all means cab but don't try to enforce it on others who might be riding in very different circumstances
> 
> I have no idea where 'virtue' came from, not me



Very different circumstances to those which I have encountered in every British town and city I've ridden in? Sorry, sounds to me like you're picking an illegal option because you can't maintain an assertive road position, or because you don't see occasionally losing a few seconds while you regain a good road position as an appealing option.

Sorry, I don't see that as much better than those who believe they should be able to speed in their cars because it is inconvenient not to.


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> In my opinion and experience the safest place to be is one or two cars back from the front. I think that is common sense.
> ASLs are rarely designed with safety in mind. I have seen many that encourage and direct you to left filter where it is downright dangerous. So I wouldn't read too much into the fact that ASLs exist therefore it is the safest.



Generally agree with you there; left filtering cycle lanes are great if you're turning left and none of the vehicles you're filtering past are turning the same way. Otherwise, get into the lane and claim a safer position.


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> Otherwise, why is an ASL not safe? If it only makes the cyclist visible then it's a good thing, if it allows them to take a primary position when called for then it's a good thing as well, both things are what they're there for after all surely?



It's not the ASL that is unsafe it is the quest to get to the ASL that is unsafe. More often than not if you are passing a queue it is safer to stop one or two cars back That eliminates any possibility of conflict with the front car/van/lorry/bus if the lights change as you approach, or if a driver decides 'bu**er it I'm not waiting for the lights to change (which I have seen happen!). 

I also find it antagonises drivers less if you hang a car or two back. I'm not sure why. 

Of course if you are first to a junction then an ASL is generally the best place to be. 

I would prefer recessed stop lines that are areas 10m back from the stop line that are designated for cyclists, which would encourage cyclists to hang back from the front. Cars would have to keep out of them. Of course this would fail for a number of practical reasons (differing length of vehicles, being ignored etc)


----------



## Tynan (12 Dec 2007)

ah, I see, all about judging the lights then, these days in London they're red for a real long time

the traffic I see is so slow and ponderous that there's always shags of time to react, yes, arriving at the ASL as the lights change is a bad thing and to be avoided but it happens so rarely that I don't see as a reason to not go for the ASL/Front every time it's feasible

I'd certainly not try it if the left hand lane is a left turn/straight ahead lane and the vehicles on my right are indicating, now and then there's a problem with vehicles that fail to indicate until they see me stop alongside them (when I don't think I'll make the ASL/Front) as the first vehicle that won't be turning left

I'm guessing in that situation they're suddenly remembering why they're supposed to indicate

Left hand turn lane then get in the right lane early, natch


----------



## magnatom (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> ah, I see, all about judging the lights then, these days in London they're red for a real long time



Almost, however, as I said you can never be sure that drivers will always wait until the lights change! (I know it is rare but it does happen). Light phases have also known to change from time to time. 

I just don't see why I should go to the front when it is safer and easier to hang back a couple of cars. It won't slow you down and reduces the risk of conflict IMO of course!


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (12 Dec 2007)

Tynan, something you have kept saying has tweaked my interest - you have said a few times that you prefer to be out in front in the ASL, and not have to keep up with traffic accross the junction in the traffic flow. Primary is very hard to keep in London traffic.

Just wondering what your acceleration is like?

I know you ride an old mtb at the moment, whilst waiting for the interminable process of insurance settlement, so I'm guessing you aren't as fast off the line or when moving as you were previously.

I only mention this because having ridden around town a bit with my gf, I find it so much harder to claim a good road position and manage the cars around me when travelling at her speeds. On my own on my roadbike I can outaccelerate everything but scooters and motorbikes, and in London find it easy enough to ride at around the 25mph mark. 

This means I am able to take a very wide lane position if I want, and can accelerate with traffic up to around 25mph so feel happy sitting in the RH wheel track, especially in heavy traffic.

Dunno, maybe I've got it wrong, but I think bike + rider performance has a lot to do with how they interract with traffic and how they use cycle farcilities.


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Dec 2007)

I'm hear you Cab,

the subject of the highway code change, although I believe they would like us to use as many 'dedicted cycle facilities' in the course of our journeys, this does include bus lanes. Thankfully New Cross Gate in London, where I live is surrounded by bus lanes and no stopping red routes, these and my selection of rat runs keep me and my daughter off the main roads as much as possible.

It's not a change they will have much luck Policing. I once asked a Police woman(who had flagged me down and warned me that I needed a fixed front light and faced a £20 on the spot for not having one), wether she had seen my flashing LED light as I had come up the road. She said she had seen me and that's how she flagged me down in time. She had a little think and sharply sent me on my way.

The only way I can see these laws being enforced is with a tazer and impounding or distroying peoples rides.

T x


----------



## cupoftea (12 Dec 2007)

I would have thought sitting in a queue of traffic is possibly one of the most dangerous things you could do, you're trusting that all of the cars around you have seen you and that they don't view you as a convenient gap. 

Moreover if there is more than one lane you’ll anger the drivers behind you as they see the lane next to them “speed” off and a gap appear in front of you, even if it’s only for 30 yards.

This might be ok in some places but not all. Surely the safest thing would be to move to the very back of the queue?

So Cabs you feel that if the resent amendment to the Highway Code had gone through it would have been sensible to break that law? Why?


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> I would have thought sitting in a queue of traffic is possibly one of the most dangerous things you could do, you're trusting that all of the cars around you have seen you and that they don't view you as a convenient gap.



If you're in the traffic then the cars around you will see you; put yourself right in front of one car and right behind another, be visible, and you'll usually be seen. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.



> Moreover if there is more than one lane you’ll anger the drivers behind you as they see the lane next to them “speed” off and a gap appear in front of you, even if it’s only for 30 yards.



The usefulness of maintaining primary position is well established; its almost a cliche to say it, but you really _must_ procure for yourself a copy of 'Cyclecraft', and read all about _why_ this is usually the safest road position.




> This might be ok in some places but not all. Surely the safest thing would be to move to the very back of the queue?



There are some places where primary position isn't safest. In the situation raised though (in traffic), its usually the best place to be, unless you're intent on filtering outside or inside of the traffic, but I reccomend that unless you're competent at making eye contact with people on the road and getting back in to primary, you shouldn't do this.



> So Cabs you feel that if the resent amendment to the Highway Code had gone through it would have been sensible to break that law? Why?



I gave details for an organised, thought out campaign of civil disobedience; its a way of breaking the law while acknowledging what the law actually is. It is breaking the law and making it plain that you're doing so. It is challinging those who have implemented a bad law to change it. It is _not_ breaking the law for your own convenienve. More to the point, in such a scenario I'm suggesting breaking the law to improve overall safety, which is entirely unanalogous with (for example), red light jumping.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Dec 2007)

*eyes glaze over* at long posts like that.


----------



## cupoftea (12 Dec 2007)

I'm sorry cab but I've not spent much time in Cambridge but do you have any major roads?

You see in London where most people drive like idiots and try to ignore cyclists, we have quiet a number of major roads where sitting in the middle of the traffic would be suicide, in any position, carrying a lighthouse and an uzi.

I'm undoubtedly wrong but you’re advice is not sensible or practical in multilane traffic systems. I negotiate a number of 3 and 4 lane roundabouts, not to mention the Stratford one way system. 

Hoping that the traffic is going to see you, is like a cyclist riding up the inside and expecting the lorry to see them.


----------



## Cab (12 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> I'm sorry cab but I've not spent much time in Cambridge but do you have any major roads?



Plenty. Plenty more in other cities I've lived and worked in too.



> You see in London where most people drive like idiots and try to ignore cyclists, we have quiet a number of major roads where *sitting in the middle of the traffic* would be suicide, in any position, carrying a lighthouse and an uzi.



(emphasis added)

In the middle of the traffic? 

Get Cyclecraft. Read it.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Dec 2007)

I'd second that. Contrary to cupoftea, the more busy and complex the junction, the more likely I'll be right out and part of the traffic. To hide at the side around Vauxhall would be foolish.


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Dec 2007)

In London there a lovely green coloured boxes at traffic lights, the width of the road and with a cycle symbol on them just so we know where we should be. Mostly, at school run and rush hour, cagers take no notice of them and use them as their ASL's. Unless the roads are gridlocked I tend to hang back when I see lights ahead go red and stay in the traffic, then once past the junction I move as far left as is poss and let the traffic filter past me.
On the trike I just ride like I'm in a small car and if I'm first away at an ASL I signal and hold that lane until such time as I can edge over safely to let traffic pass or it chooses to overtake me. If I didn't hold the lane my journey would be spent hopping in and out of spaces between parked cars and getting nowhere fast. Trikes get a bit sh*te to handle if the camber of the road is too steep so staying in place avoids this also. No matter the principles of road etiquette, ASL's, Highway Code, etc, being visible(in dress and positioning)is, to me, the the single most important part of urban riding.

T x


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Dec 2007)

oh and self adhesive punture patches.


----------



## gambatte (12 Dec 2007)

I wonder how many often a drivers actually ticketed for passing the ASL?
I don't know of 1 that has been. Maybe if a few drivers got the potential 3 points the ASLs would get a bit more respect?


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Dec 2007)

Mrs. Tdr1nka got a sneaky camera ticket for being in a box junction when the cage in front stalled, no way of knowing if the cage in front got a ticket but it's a bit snide when the powers that be can milk every penny from a camera at a box junction but don't have yet, as far as I know, cameras for spotting abuses of ASLs, otherwise why have ASLs in the first place?

T x


----------



## mrben (13 Dec 2007)

IIRC, it's a little bit tricky to get a ticket for stopping in an ASL, because it's not strictly illegal. The idea being that if you're approaching the lights, and they turn red, and you're not going to stop in time for the ASL, but will stop before the lights, then it's "ok" to use the ASL.


----------



## Tynan (13 Dec 2007)

BM, I like to start from the front because I like to start from the front, easier for me and maximum presence as a bonus

Hear what you say about acceleration and I agree, the faster I go the smoother it is, I can do primary in traffic with no problems at all and on quite a lot of my route but your 25mph wouldn;t cut it on quite a lot of my route and the traffic's 5mph on much of the rest of the route doesn't either, so I do a mish mash of primary, secondary, and filtering

my preferred start position is from the front, simple as that

and it's a fairly roadie hybrid but it's very old and worn and it's carrying a very heavy pannier


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

The major prob in London is the single minded impatience of some cage drivers and works vans, who will always roll as far forward at lights as they can in order to be first away. I've been sat on the trike in lane at many ASLs only to find a cage rolling up beside, me into the box.

In most cases they are happy to be able to get the staggering 2 meters head start on the rest of the traffic to zoom off when the lights change just to join the back of the soild line of traffic 10 yards ahead.

On the odd occasion a cage driver will want that position in order to pick the lane ahead that suits them best when the lights change.
It's noticeable that the more impatient the cage driver, the less they actually pay attention. I'm invariably quicker away from the lights than they are, which then earns me lots of horn sounding, gesticulating, etc. Just for holding my position on the road.

My biggest despondency tho has to be RLJs on velos who frankly let the cycling argument down. It's precicely this kind of rider that has brought about the Governments suggested changes to the Highway Code.

This summer I had a row with another cyclist, on the rather scarey and tricky Goldsmith Collage one-way system at New Cross, he was on his mobile, talking loudly paying no attention in traffic moving at 20mph+ and moving slowly over an entire lane.

As I drew close I calmly suggested he might want to get off the road to take his call and took a hail of abuse in reply.
It was as if I had stormed into his office unannounced!

He wasn't, as I call them, a Catalouge rider(occasional rider of a cheap but flashy looking di-cast hybrid from Argos, no more than 250 miles p/a ), he rode a fixed wheel European racer, Animal shades and a designer courier bag. So one might not have been wrong in suspecting that he was a serious, dedicated cyclist.

This untoucable air of perfect right is as knucleheaded as it is in a cage driver. Coming from a velo rider this says to cage drivers,
'I am far more important than you, I am above the laws and courtesies of the road'.

In turn this enforces the same attitude in the cage driver who in some cases will then make a point of trying to trump you.
Once a cage driver has had a few experiences like this, they will automatically lump this opinion on all cyclists, the truth being that the majority of cage drivers, like the majority of riders, do not drive and take liberties like this.

Grrr.

I was amused to think that fixed wheels are really a totally universal bike as you don't need opposable thumbs to ride one!!

It's a joke, not a dig.

T x


----------



## Tynan (13 Dec 2007)

yep, the car that rolls forward is often the one that's in the wrong lane and needs to get out fast to get over, sometimes a good idea to let them go first


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> The major prob in London is the single minded impatience of some cage drivers and works vans, who will always roll as far forward at lights as they can in order to be first away. I've been sat on the trike in lane at many ASLs only to find a cage rolling up beside, me into the box.



Never happens to me unless I'm in a two-lane stop box. If I'm in a single lane stop box then I'm right in the middle, and no one is pulling up in a car next to me.


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

I hear ya Tynan,

My age, responsabilities, size and speed of the trike all dictate that I always let these drivers go first!

T x


----------



## gambatte (13 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Never happens to me unless I'm in a two-lane stop box. If I'm in a single lane stop box then I'm right in the middle, and no one is pulling up in a car next to me.



Tried that, got the bonnet of a L200 next to me....


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

The fundamental problem with all these traffic measures, in Greater London at least, is that these measures would work if there were only less cages on the road rather than more every week.

In my area the A2, London SE14, from the end of the Old Kent Road at New Cross Gate to Lewisham or Deptford, the roads are simply not big enough to accomodate the volume of traffic and at peak hours it often gridlocks.

Throw in the bus garage with busses turning left and right across all 4 lanes, local fire and ambulance stations, it's also the main coach and haulage route to Kent & Dover, from Belmarsh Prison to the Law Courts in London(with Prisoner carriers, Police Land Rovers, Out-Riders all at high speed and sirens wailing)this route has become a totaly mismanaged nightmare.

I've used this route by bike, 5 days a week at least for years and for all the red routes and ASL's it's only the sheer volume of traffic that stops it working.

The most fun I can expect round here is getting to slow down to 10mph and sit wide in the bus lane to slow some cage driver who thought they would use the last 200 yards of bus lane to beat the traffic to the next lights, the bus lane ending at the last 5 yards just before.

For all my moaning, I am genuinely planning to leave London before the Olympics in 2012, to somewhere rural where I can ride in just a tinsy bit more peace!

T x


----------



## biking_fox (13 Dec 2007)

"The most fun I can expect round here is getting to slow down to 10mph and sit wide in the bus lane to slow some cage driver who thought they would use the last 200 yards of bus lane to beat the traffic to the next lights, the bus lane ending at the last 5 yards just before.
"

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is fun. I fully acknowledge it's totally irresponsible, but I'm legal while doing so, cagedriver isn't.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (13 Dec 2007)

Haha, I think its rather fun too!


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

Cyclechat, home of guiltless pleasures!


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

Irresponsable, I don't think so.
Foolhardy more like.

When measured, my trike is not that much wider than my MTB handlebars, but cages are far less inclined to attempt to overtake me, which is nice.

T x


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Tried that, got the bonnet of a L200 next to me....



Then when they start sneaking forward move over and block them.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (13 Dec 2007)

L200 in London means one of two things - if it is gree it is a tree surgeon, if it is black it is a drug dealer. Would you risk it?


----------



## cupoftea (13 Dec 2007)

Cab as I've said, I really don't know how to ride a bike, but have you noticed how many incidents you have?

Take a look back over the last few pages, it could just be me, or maybe you should try reading cyclecraft, and if you’re not a member of the CTC you should join?

I only ride 6000 odd miles through London and I can't remember the last time I had a major issue, I guess I don't cycle enough and it must be that I ride in the quiet London rush hour, I’m glad I don’t cycle in Cambridge it sounds really dangerous.

Anyway I look forward to reading about your next incident, and good luck.


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> Cab as I've said, I really don't know how to ride a bike, but have you noticed how many incidents you have?
> 
> Take a look back over the last few pages, it could just be me, or maybe you should try reading cyclecraft, and if you’re not a member of the CTC you should join?
> 
> ...




Or maybe your like the chap in this video 
who was completely oblivious to the danger he was in...........  (Note the double wink indicating I say this in jest!!)


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

cupoftea said:


> Cab as I've said, I really don't know how to ride a bike, but have you noticed how many incidents you have?
> 
> Take a look back over the last few pages, it could just be me, or maybe you should try reading cyclecraft, and if you’re not a member of the CTC you should join?
> 
> ...



Given the choice between riding in London, Cambridge, Nottingham, Lancaster, Gateshead or Newcastle (the cities I'm most familiar with cycling in), I rate Cambridge as the worst. Comfortably. Give me London over Cambridge any day; the volume of traffic is sufficient to make it a nightmare, and motorists here are comfortably less patient than they are in the capital. But still, the same rules apply; pick an assertive, safe, visible road position _as well advised in cyclecraft_ and accept that occasionally you'll get lip from motorists.

Do otherwise and you're roadkill fodder, whether (like me) you're a member of the CTC or not.

Smarten up, make yourself a safer cyclist by riding that way.


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> L200 in London means one of two things - if it is gree it is a tree surgeon, if it is black it is a drug dealer. Would you risk it?



Yes. Thats what stop boxes are for. Odds are that someone crawling in to one that you're occupying isn't the kind of motorist to understand what 'indicators' are, you're better off stopping them than allowing them to come alongside.


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

My guess is that Cambridge being an old town was not built to accomodate the scale of modern traffic.

London has only started really getting like this in the last 10 years and is bigger than Cambridge, giving it some room for road changes that Cambridge itself can't accomodate.

T x


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> My guess is that Cambridge being an old town was not built to accomodate the scale of modern traffic.



Thats only a small part of the problem. A bigger factor is that it has many, many, _many_ more bikes on the road than in other cities in the UK, and for the most part cyclists here are terrible (gutter crawlers, red light jumpers, no lights, etc.). Motorists here are extremely bad tempered because of it, and they tend to be very careless around cyclists. 

But the same rules apply here as everywhere else; your default road position (where you would normally be) should be assertive and visible, anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong.


----------



## gambatte (13 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Then when they start sneaking forward move over and block them.


But I was checking the lights and the traffic on and approaching the junction. Moving over would also means moving forward (unless I lift the bike and physically move sideways) 

You aren't advocating I should have technically RLJed?


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> But I was checking the lights and the traffic on and approaching the junction. Moving over would also means moving forward (unless I lift the bike and physically move sideways)
> 
> You aren't advocating I should have technically RLJed?



No. I usually wait right slap bang in the middle of a stop box. If the motorist behind looks like moving forward I can step the bike backwards or sideways, dead easy.


----------

