# Coroner wants cyclists to be educated about danger of HGV's



## Beebo (17 Oct 2013)

I know about the danger of HGV's but maybe some cyclists dont yet know. However me knowing about the dangers wont help me if one runs me over from behind.

Some of what she says makes sense, but surely the change and eductaion has to be with the lorry drivers too.
It would be like educating people about the danger of guns, without actually dealing with the removal of guns.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ch-cyclists-about-danger-of-hgvs-8885729.html


----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

The number of cyclists I see on a regular basis undertaking vehicles at junctions and corners makes me think that many either don't know the dangers or simply just don't care.


----------



## Koga (17 Oct 2013)

You must be brave or completely oblivious to the dangers to under or over take anything if you are not 100% sure you will be in front of it before the traffic starts moving again. Just reading ianrauk 's response I think some education is needed.


----------



## Leodis (17 Oct 2013)

I have to agree, when you talk about educating cyclists you get shot down as "anti-cyclist" yet a lot of deaths could be avoided.


----------



## Bromptonaut (17 Oct 2013)

Koga said:


> You must be brave or completely oblivious to the dangers to under or over take anything if you are not 100% sure you will be in front of it before the traffic starts moving again. Just reading ianrauk 's response I think some education is needed.



You or I would certainly recognise the danger but as Ian says it's very clear that many do not. The practical question is how to design and deliver the training to the target audience. The main target audience is I think the annual influx of undergraduate students and the stream of new office workers. Mademoiselle de Ricard was a case in point.


----------



## Koga (17 Oct 2013)

Perhaps we should introduce a cycle license !


----------



## ohnovino (17 Oct 2013)

It's not just cyclists that don't get it: twice this week I've seen car drivers try to squeeze up the inside of a turning HGV.


----------



## Hill Wimp (17 Oct 2013)

The Met Police in London have been doing this for several years now at various points . They have an HGV parked up and ask cyclists to sit in the cab whilst their bike is wheeled up the side of the lorry and various other things.

I have to agree with Ian that many cyclists just don't know or even care. When i used to cycle commute in London I saw more cyclists behaving like **** and putting themselves in danger than i did HGV drivers not considering cyclists.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Oct 2013)

The problem is with the use of the word cyclist.

A cyclist is sometimes obvious. He has a shiny helmet, is dressed up like a highlighter pen and has a gobsmackingly expensive bicycle. He rides 20 miles to work and back every day and does a hundred at the weekend on his even more gobsmackingly expensive bike. You would hope this cyclist knows not to go up the inside of an HGV.

Or, it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. He's just done bikeability so he knows he can't ride on the pavement (it's illegal). Obviously he hasn't passed his driving test yet, so he not an expert road user like an HGV driver is. There's a thin part of road with a bike painted on it next to the kerb, Surely that's where he's meant to ride? The local authority wouldn't paint a bike there if it wasn't safe to ride there would they?

Cyclists can be very experienced or very novice. And they're all legally obliged to use the terrible, life threatening infrastructure. Whats needed is proper, safe segregated cyclist friendly infrastructure that everyone who is physically capable of operating a bicycle from age 5 - 95 can use. Cyclists should not be same roads as HGV's.


----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> The problem is with the use of the word cyclist.
> 
> A cyclist is sometimes obvious. He has a shiny helmet, is dressed up like a highlighter pen and has a gobsmackingly expensive bicycle. He rides 20 miles to work and back every day and does a hundred at the weekend on his even more gobsmackingly expensive bike. You would hope this cyclist knows not to go up the inside of an HGV.



In all my years of cycle commuting, the cyclist you describe above seem to be the some of the worse offenders.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> I have to agree, when you talk about educating cyclists you get shot down as "anti-cyclist" yet a lot of deaths could be avoided.



Pot and kettle to my thread on this post @Leodis...talk about ironic


----------



## Leodis (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Pot and kettle to my thread on this post @Leodis...talk about ironic



Its because this is a serious thread and you are not the OP, nice saddle bag though.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> Its because this is a serious thread and you are not the OP, nice saddle bag though.



And there is a difference getting hit off by a HGV which can't see you because their vision is obscured by a blind spot is somehow different from a vehicle running over a cyclist because their vision is obscured by low sun and dark shadows on the road. Sorry, I'm struggling with the logic. The exact same people who slagged me off and called me a troll are saying pretty much the same thing about being seen by HGVs as I was saying about riding in shadows with the sun in other drivers eyes. 


The saddle bag is a very nice one.. made by Topeak and cost about £20 from Halfords. Big enough for a spare tube, CO2 inflator, allen keys and tyre levers..oh, and a couple of energy bars as I'm Diabetic. It even has a tab to clip my poundland tail light on it


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

A few weeks ago I was passed and then almost immediately left-hooked by one of those cardboard-crushing recycling trucks (looks like a refuse truck). The driver must have seen me (he moved out to pass) and yet swung left right in front of me... bizarre, scary and potentially fatal.

This happened to me and happens to others. There are some HGV drivers who need to be educated.

I have also waited at traffic signals in London and seen cyclists of all ages, on all types of bicycle and of both sexes who seem completely unaware of the danger that lurks to the nearside of a bus or HGV. I've never seen one get swiped or smudged, but I've seen tons of near things, as has any cyclist in London.

I write this as someone who rides up the nearside of HGVs myself, which might smack of hypocrisy... but there are situations where I think it OK to do so and situations which scream DANGER at me. I make a judgement and make a choice.

But for all my hypocrisy I see cyclists who appear not to discern, not to have made a choice and not to see the danger in which they put themselves.

I am with the coroner. Many, many cyclists would benefit from training on how to ride in traffic. I wouldn't make it mandatory, but it would certainly help.

Many cyclists alive and well today will be less alive or less well in times to be because they insist on taking risks around HGVs. Sometimes the balance of guilt will point to the driver, sometimes the cyclist will the the architect of their own demise.

Training (like the Swisss flag) would be a big plus.


----------



## mr_cellophane (17 Oct 2013)

> She called on TfL for an “innovative” redesign of the junction, and added that *cyclists also should be taught to “dominate” a lane when there was insufficient space for bikes alongside vehicles*.


How about also educating drivers as to why we do that !


----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> How about also educating drivers as to why we do that !




Indeed.
I am happy to 'dominate' and 'take control of a lane' as I am a very experienced, bullish cyclist. However being that, doesn't stop arsey drivers trying to make a point. For less experienced and less bullish cyclists I can imagine it's very hard to have the courage to take charge of the road when needed and can be quite frightening, so continue to be bullied into the gutters.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Oct 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Indeed.
> I am happy to 'dominate' and 'take control of a lane' as I am a very experienced, bullish cyclist. However being that, doesn't stop arsey drivers trying to make a point. For less experienced and less bullish cyclists I can imagine it's very hard to have the courage to take charge of the road when needed and can be quite frightening, so continue to be bullied into the gutters.


Only the other day I got a looooooong beep from the horn of a driver behind me who obviously had no idea why I was in primary. Wouldn't mind, but I'd just signalled right and was going to be out of his way in approximately five seconds!


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Oct 2013)

education all round has got to be a good thing... even if it's just a little (inaccurate) image like my avatar . 

Sarah_h's statement "_it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. *He's just done bikeability *so he knows he can't ride on the pavement_" Does bikeability not inform of the potential dangers on the inside of large vehicles? If not, why not?

I also agree that people should be educated as to why cyclists these days don't always ride in the gutter. 

Bring back public information films I say. There used to be one with a mini nipping up the inside of a HGV and getting mashed up between truck and barrier.. if the advice was good enough for drivers, it's good enough for cyclists.


----------



## Koga (17 Oct 2013)

2715665 said:


> Sorry but this has to be said. It is the source of the danger that needs addressing first and foremost.


 
What is the source of the danger in your opinion ?


----------



## mr_cellophane (17 Oct 2013)

> Sarah_h's statement "_it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. *He's just done bikeability *so he knows he can't ride on the pavement_" Does bikeability not inform of the potential dangers on the inside of large vehicles? If not, why not?


No it doesn't - Filtering is Level 3 which most schools don't do. I don't even think it is covered by Council's free training sessions.


----------



## Koga (17 Oct 2013)

2715673 said:


> I might have mentioned this once or twice before in other threads on the same subject. I reckon that it is the lorries.


OK, I do not follow all forums.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

2715673 said:


> I might have mentioned this once or twice before in other threads on the same subject. I reckon that it is the lorries.


 
This is a perfectly reasonable point of view. It is often the lorries (and the obstructions to the driver's field of vision that their design entails) which are the primary cause of the person-squidging behaviour that brings so much tragedy.

Nonetheless, we all see on an almost daily basis cyclists who appear quite unaware of the dangers of riding up the nearside of a slow or stationary truck.

Many years ago I (a civilian, but in an uncivil place) was taught how to avoid minefields and snipers and so on. There is no doubt that the risk was entirely a function of the presence of mines and tripwires and claymores and snipers and bad people, but I didn't just say "Look, tell them to stop being horrid."

I thought the training worthwhile and it may have benefitted me. I do not liken lorries to landmines, but there is a similarity between the situations. Similarly, rabbits fear the shadow of the buzzard, they do not lobby for more door mirrors on buzzards.

Cyclists have choices about how they act and how they prepare themselves for the highway. Many, it seems to me, do not prepare themselves.

That doesn't mean that lorries are lovely, but we do have a degree of responsibility for our own safety.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Oct 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> education all round has got to be a good thing... even if it's just a little (inaccurate) image like my avatar .
> 
> Sarah_h's statement "_it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. *He's just done bikeability *so he knows he can't ride on the pavement_" Does bikeability not inform of the potential dangers on the inside of large vehicles? If not, why not?
> 
> ...


No it doesn't. I've just done level 2 myself. It's the basics of pulling out and left and right turns in and out. It's very basic.
And my point is, I guess that anyone, bikeability or not, can ride on the road, and after the age of 10 are legally obliged to. Training is not required, and often not provided. And this is as it should be. 
But requiring untrained cyclists to share roads with HGV's is madness. Segregated infrastructure.


----------



## Cycling Dan (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> I have to agree, when you talk about educating cyclists you get shot down as "anti-cyclist" yet a lot of deaths could be avoided.


Immigration is the same. It seems regardless of what you say these days you are branded as something.


----------



## Davidc (17 Oct 2013)

There's a need for education all round. I don't have a problem with cyclists needing educating about not undertaking, and not just lorries. The reality is that many serious and fatal collisions with cyclists are a result of this. At the same time action needs to be taken to educate drivers, and to find ways to remove blind zones around vehicles. 

It's of concern that the issue of undertaking large vehicles isn't in level 2 bikeability, when it was a part of cycling proficiency in the 1950s (when I took it).

The UK version of segregated infrastructure is near to useless and often actively dangerous. Education of our road designers is also needed, complete with school outings for them to Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany.

Like ianrauk I've been cycling for a very long time and have little hesitation in taking the lane. It does require confidence though and does run a small risk of being deliberately rammed by members of the moronic fringe of drivers. Better educated and more aware drivers would lessen the risk to those cyclists without that confidence, who stay in the gutter.


----------



## MarkF (17 Oct 2013)

As I said on another thread, I see cyclists deliberately putting themselves in danger every rush hour, morning and night. I didn't used to see this but there has been a large increase in commuters in the past 3 years, good. But they haven't a clue how to go about keeping out of danger, not the faintest idea, a gap down the inside of an HGV is positive thing, an "opportunity" to them.


----------



## MarkF (17 Oct 2013)

Davidc said:


> At the same time action needs to be taken to educate drivers, and *to find ways to remove blind zones around vehicles*.



Shouldn't this be easy today with such cheap cameras and displays?


----------



## Davidc (17 Oct 2013)

MarkF said:


> Shouldn't this be easy today with such cheap cameras and displays?


Yes it should.

It's not just cyclists that suffer, pedestrians, motor cyclists, and car occupants all get killed and injured too because of these blind zones. It's not a minor problem and it's not difficult to do something, but as ever deaths and injuries on the roads are just accepted as inevitable.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Oct 2013)

Davidc said:


> The reality is that many serious and fatal collisions with cyclists are a result of this.



Any actual evidence for this? Undertaking by cyclists is not a significant causal factor in RTCs. Usually the cyclist is hit from behind or sideswiped.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

2715784 said:


> You are comparing people going about their daily life with conditions in a war zone where, unpleasant though it is, the intent to wound, maim, or kill is a given.A sense of proportion maybe?


 
No, not at all. I am comparing the responsibility of the more endangered parties in an interaction to take some sort of action to optimise their own chances of survival rather than just saying the other lot bear the responsibility:

Cyclists in urban traffic, monitors and observers in conflicts, rabbits in meadows. 

I thought that was quite clear in my post and apologise if it wasn't. I thought the rabbit/buzzard gag made the same point.

I will try to find a simpler or clearer way to express it.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> No, not at all. I am comparing the responsibility of the more endangered parties in an interaction to take some sort of action to optimise their own chances of survival rather than just saying the other lot bear the responsibility:
> 
> Cyclists in urban traffic, monitors and observers in conflicts, rabbits in meadows.
> 
> ...



Don't bother. You will be deliberately misunderstood whatever you say...


----------



## glenn forger (17 Oct 2013)

We've all seen cyclists undertake, which makes it even more surprising that the practice doesn't hurt or kill many people. In London, every lorry driver should expect a cyclist on their nearside.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Oct 2013)

Where Mr Dorling died:







Boris and TFL should face corporate manslaughter charges.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

2715866 said:


> Where is the handbag smiley?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2013)

ianrauk said:


> The number of cyclists I see on a regular basis undertaking vehicles at junctions and corners makes me think that many either don't know the dangers or simply just don't care.


Drivers on bikes. "Must get in front!", "MUST get in front!" "Must get in front NOW!" It's a mindset thing. They can't help themselves. 

When the dangers start to dawn on them they become CEGB supporters and start campaigning for dedicated separate 'roads' for their vehicles.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2013)

Koga said:


> What is the source of the danger in your opinion ?


I'll take a guess that it is the rapid transfer of kinetic energy from an object of great mass made largely of steel to one with much less mass and made of flesh and blood?

But I am not a physicist. One will be along in a minute to advise us all.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Cyclists can be very experienced or very novice. And they're all legally obliged to use the terrible, life threatening infrastructure. *Whats needed is proper, safe segregated cyclist friendly infrastructure* that everyone who is physically capable of operating a bicycle from age 5 - 95 can use. *Cyclists should not be same roads as HGV's.*



This is a bad idea...it tells car drivers that cyclists have no place on the roads, and then they in turn think that is a sound and logical argument for us to not be there, and in turn treat us with contempt.
Also that 'cycling friendly infrastructure' will be taken from pedestrians (as it is already), and then we will get complaints from pedestrian groups of inconsiderate cyclists bullying dog walkers, people with small kids etc, etc

Go on...tell me I'm trolling for sharing my thoughts on this issue


----------



## Sara_H (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> This is a bad idea...it tells car drivers that cyclists have no place on the roads, and then they in turn think that is a sound and logical argument for us to not be there, and in turn treat us with contempt.
> Also that 'cycling friendly infrastructure' will be taken from pedestrians (as it is already), and then we will get complaints from pedestrian groups of inconsiderate cyclists bullying dog walkers, people with small kids etc, etc
> 
> Go on...tell me I'm trolling for sharing my thoughts on this issue


Not so much trolling as utterly wrong.Other countries manage to have high numbers of cyclists without high numbers of fatalities because they have high quality infrastructure tha can be used by the vast majority of people - old and young alike.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Not so much trolling as utterly wrong.Other countries manage to have high numbers of cyclists without high numbers of fatalities because they have high quality infrastructure tha can be used by the vast majority of people - old and young alike.



The biggest shame about my 45mph descent in a 50 limit yesterday when about a dozen cars overtook me on solid while lines is that I didn't catch it on camera. I have no doubt that each and every one of them thought I should not have been there, and that is why they all chose to overtake me illegally. Would you like to suggest instead where I cycle in the countryside if not on the roads as the verges are rather crowded with hedges and ditches?


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2013)

2715863 said:


> Yes it is quite right that we each and every one of us should be armed with the knowledge to look after ourselves as best we can and, preferably to act accordingly. That is the pragmatic point.
> That doesn't detract from the much more important consideration here. The coroner has reinforced the idea that thevictims of danger need to take responsibility for it. The reasonable point of view is that those who cause the danger should be made to take responsibilty for it. If this situation were anywhere other than on our roads we wouldn't need to talk about it because that would be the case already.



Don't agree Adrian.

The coroner was giving pragmatic advice to vulnerable road users.

Words can help to change behaviour immediately for cyclists. Less likely to do so for HGV drivers.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Where Mr Dorling died:
> 
> Boris and TFL should face corporate manslaughter charges.



Does Boris work for a company?


----------



## glenn forger (17 Oct 2013)

TFL should face corporate manslaughter charges, Boris should just be taken outside and shot.


----------



## gbb (17 Oct 2013)

ianrauk said:


> The number of cyclists I see on a regular basis undertaking vehicles at junctions and corners makes me think that many either don't know the dangers or simply just don't care.


Having spoken to my son, I think for many, they really just don't realise the danger.
He's just passed his CBT and rides a 100cc scooter. He came home one evening and was telling me he nearly got closed right down by some idiot lorry driver at a l/h turn at traffic lights.
Christ I said, you didn't try to get down the side of him did you ?
Yes...he was stopped, there was plenty of room
He cant see you in a lot of cases I explained. He's left room down the side because he's got to swing round, he needs the room. Its suicidal to get down the side of them.
I really hadn't thought about it, he said thoughtfully.
Unfortunately, he's not the idiot, you were, I explained tactfully.

It makes you realise, they sit in the car for years but don't absorb a fraction of whats happening around them, why would they ?
In the case of motorcycles, it also makes you realise how little training they get before they're out on the road. His naivety has been exposed so quickly. Half a day with an instructor and bobs your uncle, its a simple as that...but the lack of experience soon shows.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Oct 2013)

2716252 said:


> No he isn't. Every bit of seperate provision is a bit where drivers get more used to an absence of cyclists. In turn this makes the bits where they encounter cyclists more dangerous. It also reinforces the feeling that we do not belong on the road.
> Now if you could achieve universal segregation suitable for all types of cyclist, I might be pursuaded to see it differently.


That argument doesn't hold water in countries with high quality segregation. Possibly because most people cycle they remain courteous to cyclists where they do share the road and drive carefully around them.
I know the vehicular cyclists are worried about losing their right to the road, but the kind of high quality cycling infrastructure that's in place in Copenhagen for example would have massive benefits for the majority of society, not just the testosterone fueled agressive vehicular cyclists.
At the minute, our children and elderly cant ride safely in this country. A massive seachange needs to happen, and arguing that an elite few wont be able to ride on the road at 45mph anymore is not a good argument against change.


----------



## buggi (17 Oct 2013)

EVERYONE needs educating!!! (except the ones who have already been educated)


----------



## Davidc (17 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Any actual evidence for this? Undertaking by cyclists is not a significant causal factor in RTCs. Usually the cyclist is hit from behind or sideswiped.


Yes. Just have a look at reports on accidents in London in particular.


----------



## growingvegetables (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> ... because most people cycle they remain courteous to cyclists where they do share the road and drive carefully around them.


Kinda think that's the key.
And segregation/not is a diversion? Just a tuppenyworth.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> That argument doesn't hold water in countries with high quality segregation. Possibly because most people cycle they remain courteous to cyclists where they do share the road and drive carefully around them.
> I know the vehicular cyclists are worried about losing their right to the road, but the kind of high quality cycling infrastructure that's in place in Copenhagen for example would have massive benefits for the majority of society, not just the testosterone fueled agressive vehicular cyclists.
> At the minute, our children and elderly cant ride safely in this country. A massive seachange needs to happen, and arguing that an elite few wont be able to ride on the road at 45mph anymore is not a good argument against change.



Bicycles are vehicles. Their users have an equal right enshrined in law to use the highways in the same way that other vehicles which are licensed do (in accordance with the highway code)

Bicycles don't belong on the footpaths unless their riders have dismounted and are walking with them...they are called footpaths for a reason. Your reasoning draws the same conclusion as that of drivers who give punishment passes or shout obscenities for slowing them down by 10 seconds..that bicycles have no place on the road with other vehicles.


----------



## slowmotion (17 Oct 2013)

I stumbled on an American website recently that shows how classic bike incidents happen. You have to flip all the diagrams mentally because they drive on the right but I thought the whole site was rather good. Here it is...
http://bicyclesafe.com/


----------



## glenn forger (17 Oct 2013)

Davidc said:


> Yes. Just have a look at reports on accidents in London in particular.



Any actual evidence?


----------



## slowmotion (17 Oct 2013)

Here's a TRL document on the causes of cycle incidents/accidents or whatever.

http://www.worthingrevolutions.org.uk/sites/worthingrevolutions.org.uk/files/PPR445.pdf

EDIT: That link is a bit wonky. Try the download here...

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...n_britains_roads:_establishing_the_causes.htm

EDIT: The executive summary makes an interesting and rather grim read.


----------



## Koga (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Where Mr Dorling died:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unbelievable what a road layout


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

Koga said:


> Unbelievable what a road layout




What's wrong with it ?


----------



## Koga (18 Oct 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I'll take a guess that it is the rapid transfer of kinetic energy from an object of great mass made largely of steel to one with much less mass and made of flesh and blood?
> 
> But I am not a physicist. One will be along in a minute to advise us all.


Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Koga (18 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> What's wrong with it ?


 Yes, silly me !


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> The problem is with the use of the word cyclist.
> 
> A cyclist is sometimes obvious. He has a shiny helmet, is dressed up like a highlighter pen and has a gobsmackingly expensive bicycle. He rides 20 miles to work and back every day and does a hundred at the weekend on his even more gobsmackingly expensive bike. You would hope this cyclist knows not to go up the inside of an HGV.
> 
> ...


 
Your post gets a 'like' although I disagree with your views on segregation. The point about the 10-year-old is a very good one. There are novices of all ages on all roads and many other road users seem to expect them all to be experts ands to know how to deal with traffic.

Although I'm not too sure how many unaccompanied 10-year-olsds there are... Mine were riding accompanied very young and were out on A-Roads with me at seven or eight. But none of them ventured out alone (even in this tiddly market town) much under eleven. Even among keen cycling families, I know of no 10-year-olds who popped to footie by bike alone at the age of ten. 

But that's not the point... Your observation about novices and youngsters is spot on in terms of a driver's need to accept that riders may fall into those categories.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

Koga said:


> Yes, silly me !




Erm, no...it is a serious question. What is wrong with it in your eyes ?


----------



## Sara_H (18 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Your post gets a 'like' although I disagree with your views on segregation. The point about the 10-year-old is a very good one. There are novices of all ages on all roads and many other road users seem to expect them all to be experts ands to know how to deal with traffic.
> 
> Although I'm not too sure how many unaccompanied 10-year-olsds there are... Mine were riding accompanied very young and were out on A-Roads with me at seven or eight. But none of them ventured out alone (even in this tiddly market town) much under eleven. Even among keen cycling families, I know of no 10-year-olds who popped to footie by bike alone at the age of ten.
> 
> But that's not the point... Your observation about novices and youngsters is spot on in terms of a driver's need to accept that riders may fall into those categories.


There aren't as many as there should be, is my view.

Going back 30 years, my ex-husband tells me that at our sons age (10y) he went everywhere by bike, independantly, his parents were very happy for him to go out on his bike in the morning and return home at teatime. This is as it should be.

This is not a risk I'm prepared to take with my son. He has magnificent bike handling skills, thanks to his cycle speedway training, but I don't consider it safe for him to ride alone on our roads. Whats changed in this time? Traffic. Both the volume and speed. And sadly the attitude that anyone who ventures onto our roads if they're not inside a car can be considered collateral damage.
Sadly, the culture for driving fast, inconsiderately without care for others has gone too far.Planning roads for cars/buses/lorries has gone too far. We're not going to change this overnight.
I'd much prefer to cycle on roads where drivers respect me and my safety , drive courteously around me. But it's not going to happen. I see high quality, segregated infrastructure the only safe option, if we're to get back to a culture where the vast majority can safely hop on to a bike and ride confidently.

We don't expect people to walk in the road with cars, buses, HGV's etc and think it safe.Rightly, segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is provided. Why do we expect people to cycle there? They're equally as vulnerable as if they were on foot.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> There aren't as many as there should be, is my view.
> 
> Going back 30 years, my ex-husband tells me that at our sons age (10y) he went everywhere by bike, independantly, his parents were very happy for him to go out on his bike in the morning and return home at teatime. This is as it should be.
> 
> ...


 
I am 100% with you on the change that's happened. I was like your husband. Initially shepherded on the road by an elder sibling and then (from eight) allowed out but not allowed to turn right - which meant the pool was off limits!

I was cycling to school through SE1 at twelve (possibly eleven, but I may be imagining that). I'd love my kids to have done the same, but I didn't have the courage or the faith in other road users.

However, they did ride and ride quite young and even though my heart spends a while in my mouth when they're out, I am much happier for them to be riding than not. And so are they. Our eldest is now at university and out cycling a lot. Sometimes her emails about rides make me nervous, but that seems to be the lot of a parent.

I disagree with you about segregated infrastructure, but not in a shouty-shouty FFS way. It makes sense to me, but I am slow to accept change. I quite like things as they are - but can I please have a guarantee that none of my offspring will be clobbered by a bus.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> There aren't as many as there should be, is my view.
> 
> Going back 30 years, my ex-husband tells me that at our sons age (10y) he went everywhere by bike, independantly, his parents were very happy for him to go out on his bike in the morning and return home at teatime. This is as it should be.
> 
> ...



People are not vehicles though, and they/we already have their/our own footpaths for this purpose. Can you give us an indication of where this segregated infrastructure will go as the roads in the UK are already fairly crowded, and there isn't enough space on most paths to share with cyclists?


----------



## Koga (18 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Erm, no...it is a serious question. What is wrong with it in your eyes ?


 Seriously serious ? Easiest answer, it would be safer without the blue line at least no additional traffic rule interpretation required by anybody.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> TFL should face corporate manslaughter charges, Boris should just be taken outside and shot.



You mean that the driver should be absolved of responsibility and instead go after the line painters ??


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

Koga said:


> Seriously serious ? Easiest answer, it would be safer without the blue line at least no additional traffic rule interpretation required by anybody.



How many times have we seen 'this stupid cycle lane terminates before the junction' on here ?

Can you see the problem with the mindset...damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The biggest problem is lack of training all round, and too much emphasis on people using the lines painted on the roads to replace their requirement to think.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Do you think that's a "lane"?


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

> There are no positives in these deaths and it is hard not to reflect on the senselessness.
> 
> In both cases HGV blind spots played a part and it is hard to see how vehicles that have such glaring endemic safety flaws are allowed in busy streets.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24568710


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> TFL should face corporate manslaughter charges, *Boris should just be taken outside and shot*.


 
A bad person tried that once (I was in a stationary car, but it still counts). His bangstick just went 'click' and he looked at the cocking mechanism in some disappointment. I have no idea whether he was trying to frighten me or shoot me... 

But I'd appreciate it if you didn't propose a re-enactment. Or do you mean some other Boris?


----------



## Koga (18 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> How many times have we seen 'this stupid cycle lane terminates before the junction' on here ?
> 
> Can you see the problem with the mindset...damned if they do, damned if they don't.
> The biggest problem is lack of training all round, and too much emphasis on people using the lines painted on the roads to replace their requirement to think.


 
You know my view, don't do it if you can't do it right. Awareness / training is very relevant, and I agree entirely with you.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Mr Dorling could have taken the lane but then he'd have to cut back to the segregated bit. The lorry is 2.4m, a boris bike is 67cm wide, the whole nearside lane altogether is just 3m. It won't fit. That blue paint is splashed about slap bang in the danger zone.


----------



## vernon (18 Oct 2013)

Beebo said:


> I know about the danger of HGV's but maybe some cyclists dont yet know. However me knowing about the dangers wont help me if one runs me over from behind.
> 
> Some of what she says makes sense, but surely the change and eductaion has to be with the lorry drivers too.
> It would be like educating people about the danger of guns, without actually dealing with the removal of guns.
> ...



I reckon that there are more lorry drivers who are trained/briefed to look out for cyclists than there are cyclists who are trained to look out for lorries turning left and the dangers of filtering on the inside of them.



Boris Bajic said:


> A few weeks ago I was passed and then almost immediately left-hooked by one of those cardboard-crushing recycling trucks (looks like a refuse truck). The driver must have seen me (he moved out to pass) and yet swung left right in front of me... bizarre, scary and potentially fatal.



You don't have to be on a bike to be a victim of such poor driving. I used to use a route to work where I was habitually overtaken by cars and lorries alike who then had to break sharply to turn left directly in front of me. It's not as if I was going slowly in my Nissan Micra. I could never figure out what the rush was to gain ten or so metres on me.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Do you think that's a "lane"?



I'd be grateful if you address my question with an answer, and not another question please


----------



## Markymark (18 Oct 2013)

I, unfortunately, have to drive in central London on ocassion and it's a nightmare with many cyclists. I cycle commute most days and drive rarely. 

The problem is not managing around various cycling styles. Vehicles should bear the repsonsibility of making sure their manouvers are safe from cyclists who may be in primary, secondary, filtering etc etc.

However, what I find difficult if sometimes havng to deal with cyclists riding badly. I have had to make emergency manouvers to avoid cyclists rlj, swerving across lanes without looking, jumping off pavements infront of me. Any of these would not be seen as my fault in most circumstances, but I would hate to be the one to injure someone's son/daughter/wife/husband etc etc etc. I can easily see how a driver who drives all day would find this extrmely difficult and would really get annoyed with some cyclists. I only drive around once a month in/out of London, but I see enough to know that it would be a problem.

Education is need on all sides.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

vernon said:


> I reckon that there are more lorry drivers who are trained/briefed to look out for cyclists than there are cyclists who are trained to look out for lorries turning left and the dangers of filtering on the inside of them.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be on a bike to be a victim of such poor driving. I used to use a route to work where I was habitually overtaken by cars and lorries alike who then had to break sharply to turn left directly in front of me. It's not as if I was going slowly in my Nissan Micra. I could never figure out what the rush was to gain ten or so metres on me.



When I was driving my daughters Corsa a few years ago (when she was learning to drive, we shared it) I was amazed at the number of cars which would cut me up or force their way in front of it in a filter


----------



## booze and cake (18 Oct 2013)

I agree with Boris (not the bumbling blond buffoon but the Boris above) regarding segregation and have my reservations about current campaigns demanding segregation. A totally segregated national cycle network is not going to happen so there needs to be a recognition that cyclists and motor traffic have to co-exist on the road.

I would like to see a combination of segregation at certain badly designed roads and junctions, combined with training and education, for cyclists and drivers. Training seems to be getting a lot of criticism as its seen as a having a required skillset to cycle on the road and is seen as a barrier to non cyclists taking to the bicycle. Whilst I can understand where they are coming from this is not a justification for stopping cycle training. Something that gives cyclists extra confidence and equips them with skills to navigate the existing road environment has to be beneficial.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> What's wrong with it ?


At that point, you need to be owning the lane rather than on the left-hand side (where the paint leads cyclists) where you are in danger of left-turning vehicles. Either use traffic light phasing to avoid the conflict, give the blue paint an unbroken white line and legal status or hold your hands up and say ''cyclists, you're on your own here.''


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

vernon said:


> I reckon that there are more lorry drivers who are trained/briefed to look out for cyclists than there are cyclists who are trained to look out for lorries turning left and the dangers of filtering on the inside of them.
> 
> me.




bus drivers get similar training, yet buses pose nowhere near the risk posed by HGVs. So, are cyclists more careless near lorries than buses, or is there another explanation?


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> bus drivers get similar training, yet buses pose nowhere near the risk posed by HGVs. So, are cyclists more careless near lorries than buses, or is there another explanation?



Most buses are not articulated


----------



## Markymark (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> bus drivers get similar training, yet buses pose nowhere near the risk posed by HGVs. So, are cyclists more careless near lorries than buses, or is there another explanation?


 
I've had far more run-ins with buses than lorries (more than would be expetced by the increased occurance of buses) in London


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

the stats show that HGVs are involved in a disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities. unless we accept that cyclists must be more careless near lorries there must be another explanation.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

The appalling driving of the other driver wasn't even dealt with by the legal system

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/annivers...to-improve-driving-standards-and-lorry-safety

What’s perhaps not so well known is that Svitlana might still be alive if the poor-quality of the junction design at Bow hadn’t been combined with what we consider to be careless driving and a lorry that fell short of the highest safety standards.

This is an opinon shared by many, including her family, and a message in her memorial book says:

_“Today is one year from the day you were taken from us by careless driver in an old lorry without proper mirrors.”_

The lorry driver who ran over Svitlana is called Gurpreet Shergil, and there's widespread disappointment that the authorities decided not to prosecute him.

At the time of crash, Shergil, while driving his 32-tonne tipper truck, had been talking on his hands-free mobile phone for around seven minutes.

According to his own evidence, while on the phone to his father, Shergil did notice in his side mirror someone walking along the pavement from the back of his lorry towards the front.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> bus drivers get similar training, yet buses pose nowhere near the risk posed by HGVs. So, are cyclists more careless near lorries than buses, or is there another explanation?


 
There are many possible explanations

Bus drivers are usually positioned low and ahead of the front wheels. HGV drivers are usually positioned over the front wheels.

Buses usually have clear glass doors to the nearside of the driver, to facilitate passenger entry and exit. HGVs do not.

The bodywork of buses is usually only inches from the road, making it less likely that a cyclist will fall between axles as can happen with HGVs.

There are probably other reasons too, but this is not my specialist subject.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> There are many possible explanations
> 
> Bus drivers are usually positioned low and ahead of the front wheels. HGV drivers are usually positioned over the front wheels.
> 
> ...



Makes a lot of sense


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

there was even a trixie mirror at that junction, and the driver had used that route to the Olympic Park many times so would have known about the CSH2. On the phone, not indicating, in a vehicle he hadn't bothered to fit mirrors too, at a junction with a trixie mirror he didn't use.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> there was even a trixie mirror at that junction, and the driver had used that route to the Olympic Park many times so would have known about the CSH2. On the phone, not indicating, in a vehicle he hadn't bothered to fit mirrors too, at a junction with a trixie mirror he didn't use.


 
I'm not clear what you would have had this chap prosecuted for. Any death in traffic is a tragedy, but I'm not sure this driver was breaking the law.

Most of the members of these pages would not dismount and walk along the pavement to get in front of an HGV at a junction. If they did, few would re-mount to the front nearside of that HGV. It may be that that was the safe and sensible thing to do in the circumstances. I was not there and I do not know.

I know that I would not do it and would advise anyone I cared for not to do it. I do not blame the deceased in this accident, but the nearside and immediate front-nearside of a stationary HGV is a deadly place.

I'm all in favour of changes to HGV design to make it less dangerous. In the meantime, I do not think it a bad idea to train cyclists to treat the nearside and the space immediately to the front of an HGV as a deadly place.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Breaching the Highway code is not a criminal offence: using those breaches would have found that the liability was firmly at the door of the driver, for failing to indicate, whether or not he was on a phone. Otherwise why bother with the Highway Code? The driver was liable, he chose to introduce the danger, was distracted and failed to notice another road user, killing them.



> Speaking afterwards to the Evening Standard's Ross Lydall, Ms Tereschenko's mother Mariia Vorobei who had travelled from the Ukraine along her elder daughter Oksana to attend the inquest compared the approach taken to the incident in this country with what would have happened in her native Ukraine:
> 
> “My daughter was in love with this country. We respect the conditions of this country.
> 
> ...



http://road.cc/content/news/57677-b...ath-cyclist-svitlana-tereschenko-says-coroner


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

It is a tragedy that Ms Tereschenko died as she did. I've now read the coroner's comments in his narrative verdict and the comment of the officer who investigated the incident.

The driver had been arrested and was later released. The narrative verdict of the inquest id quite clear.

A tragedy for the mother to have to come to London and experience all that she did, but I find her wish for Ukranian justice in the UK slightly odd.

Understandable in the circumstances, but slightly odd. There is no justice in Ukraine. In terms of its police, judiciary and legislature it is one of the most corrupt and wicked regimes in the Northern hemisphere.

It is not clear from what I have read that the driver was not indicating, but there seems to be strong circumstantial evidence that he was not. Nonetheless, he was not prosecuted and the coroner found that the cyclist could have positioned herself better.

A preventable tragedy.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Section 3:



> Level 3 – This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be
> characterised by:
> • Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
> OR
> ...



http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

It's not as serious as causing a death whilst racing or being on drugs, but it's there, (sentence range 2-5 years). The driver was avoidably distracted, he put the importance of his chat with his dad over the safety of other road users,.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

Quoted from road.cc:


“There is every likelihood he didn’t see her,” PC Thorne told the inquest. “That is the crux of the matter.
“As he turned, she would have been progressively deeper and deeper into his area of restricted vision.”
CCTV footage viewed at the inquest showed Ms Tereschenko positioning her bike in front of the lorry seemingly unaware of the danger of the situation; witnesses to the incident, passengers in a car behind the lorry, also* said that they could see the danger that Ms Tereschenko had placed herself in and that it had seemed to them clear that the driver of the tipper lorry intended to turn left.*
Accepting the police findings in a narrative verdict Deputy coroner Dr Shirley Radcliffe ruled that Ms Tereschenko's died "as a result of traumatic road death". While acknowledging that if the lorry had been indicating it might have given Ms Tereschenko some warning and the chance to consider her movement and position on the road Dr Radcliffe went on to conclude "that nobody is to blame".
In her verdict Dr Radcliffe also stressed the importance of constantly reminding cyclists of the dangers posed by such lorries and "the positions where they are very vulnerable and which they should avoid at all costs."


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

> At Bow roundabout Transport for London ignored their own consultant's report (Jacob's) which said the site was so dangerous that traffic signals and separated lanes for cyclists should be installed. The London Cycling Campaign were so worried about the design proposals for Bow that they wrote in the strongest possible terms; "*the apparent deficiencies in CS2 are so significant *that it may be better to re-consider this route". Their concerns were also ignored.
> 
> This comes after previous revelations that Transport for London told consultants to "ignore cyclists" at a dangerous junction in Kings Cross where a report stated vulnerable road user deaths were "inevitable". Student Min Joo Lee would later be killed at this spot whilst cycling to college, in a collision with a construction lorry.
> This week's inquest exposed that Transport for London also ignored warnings from the Met Police that CS2's design could potentially put cyclists in danger. PC Simon Wickenden from the Traffic Management unit said "The advantage is that it [blue paint] highlights the potential presence of cyclists to drivers... The disadvantage is quite clear. One; it places cyclists in a position on the roundabout where they may come in to conflict with traffic. Two; it may give cyclists a false sense of security." Revealing that a list of 21 concerns about cyclist's safety at Aldgate gyratory issued by the Met in 2008 had also been brushed aside by TfL, he said "In my view it would be safer not to have these markings at all on the roundabout."



http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/

This is what it looks like at Aldgate:






tfl ignored 21 warnings from the police. The implications are pretty big, this could effect future csh plans:



> When quizzed on the Coroner's findings, Boris Johnson stated he believed that his blue cycle superhighways were "the right solution for London" and that he was determined to press on with the installation of another 12 over the next 2 years.
> However, with the Metropolitan Police making their concerns about superhighway designs so public, and with the findings of the Coroner so damning, there is now massive pressure on Transport for London to re-asses their plans.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

The above pictures look like an excellent reason for cyclists to be very aware of HGVs.

Training can only help to lessen the likelihood of unplanned contact between rider and vehicle.

Pointing at HGVs and TfL and shouting 'foul!' will only take the story forward so far.

If big, scary lorries are widely perceived as mobile mincers, then there is a case for cyclists (all of us) to take steps to ensure that we all know what happens when mincer meets flesh and how to avoid such contact. There is (clearly) a* serious* job for drivers, vehicle manufacturers, road planners and haulage firms too...

But we are not they. We are cyclists. Anyone who cycles in London regularly sees riders who do not know enough or are not aware enough to save their own necks if things get tight by the kerb. I do not blame those riders for their bizarre approach to road safety. But I do think they need to learn pretty quickly what they ought and ought not to do.

Utterly plank-stupid and unaware riders might go for decades without as much as a scrape and a fully trained, fully aware expert might get hit and hurt after two days... but the probability is otherwise. All the pictures in the world of HGVs encroaching and of poorly planned cycle routes do not tell me there is no need to train cyclists. Quite the reverse.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Training can only help to lessen the likelihood of unplanned contact between rider and vehicle.
> 
> .



Can you find an example where cycle training has reduced road deaths, anywhere in the world, ever? You're posting the same victim-blaming rubbish you posted on the Dr Helen Measures thread where you made up lies about a dead young woman cyclist. You're doing the same on this thread, not one single post of mine was addressed to you but you keep spamming with the same, repetitive, predictable and boring victim-blaming. Write to Svitlana's parents with your hilarious "Utterly plank-stupid and unaware riders" remark if you like, just stop spamming yet another thread about yet another dead young woman with your unpleasant sneering and contempt for a life lost.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Can you find an example where cycle training has reduced road deaths, anywhere in the world, ever? You're posting the same victim-blaming rubbish you posted on the Dr Helen Measures thread where you made up lies about a dead young woman cyclist. You're doing the same on this thread, not one single post of mine was addressed to you but you keep spamming with the same, repetitive, predictable and boring victim-blaming. Write to Svitlana's parents with your hilarious "Utterly plank-stupid and unaware riders" remark if you like, just stop spamming yet another thread about yet another dead young woman with your unpleasant sneering and contempt for a life lost.



If you are implying that training doesn't work, then I take it you never got potty trained, and regularly fill your knickers


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

If tfl received twenty one warnings, and are as far as we know pressing ahead with Boris's expansion, it makes it legally interesting. The same thing happened at Kings Cross:

http://road.cc/content/news/46409-c...laughter-prosecution-over-kings-cross-cyclist

Do it. Charge them. Charge tfl.

1. They are the Transport Authority in charge
2. They encouraged people to ride on defective facilities
3. They were warned about the defects by professionals
4. They did not fix the defects because Boris Johnson had told TfL to prioritise "smoothing traffic flow" over the safety of vulnerable road users.

How more evidence do you need?


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> If you are implying that training doesn't work, then I take it you never got potty trained, and regularly fill your knickers



I'm not implying anything, I'm asking if there is any evidence that cycle training reduces rtcs. Anywhere. In the world. Ever. If we're discussing a case where a driver killed someone whilst having a good old natter on the phone it's also irrelevant.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Can you find an example where cycle training has reduced road deaths, anywhere in the world, ever? You're posting the same victim-blaming rubbish you posted on the Dr Helen Measures thread where you made up lies about a dead young woman cyclist. You're doing the same on this thread, not one single post of mine was addressed to you but you keep spamming with the same, repetitive, predictable and boring victim-blaming. Write to Svitlana's parents with your hilarious "Utterly plank-stupid and unaware riders" remark if you like, just stop spamming yet another thread about yet another dead young woman with your unpleasant sneering and contempt for a life lost.



These are difficult data with which to furnish you, as it is hard to identify who is alive but would be the inverse had they not been trained. We may identify trends, but specific cases you will not find - for reasons that should be obvious. Nonetheless, I will give some examples of helpful training:

1. Me, Cycling Proficiency at primary school, circa 1972.
2. My two elder children, Bikeability circa 2003 and 2005.
3. All my children - road rides with me when they were very young, on tag-along and on bikes.

None of my children would cycle up the nearside of an HGV in traffic. None of them would position themselves to the immediate front nearside of an HGV at a junction. They were trained (all of them by me and two of them also through their school).

I do not blame the victim, Miss Pereschenko. Perhaps she was trained. Perhaps in the circumstances she made a judgement that it was safe to place her bicycle on the road as she did and to re-mount it. I will never know. Like you, I was not there.

I believe that many CC members with cycling children would speak very highly of the safety benefits offered by training. Many of them (like me) will have enjoyed its benefits while children themselves.

Others will have spotted that I accept the need for haulage firms, road planners and others to address the issue too. But this does not lessen the obligation of all cyclists to make sure they know how to ride safely in the company of HGVs if they want to optimise their chances of drawing a pension. It is common sense. Others contributing to this thread seem to be able to read my whitterings without getting all Attack Dog. I seem to flick a switch in you. Might I suggest putting me on 'ignore'. You might sleep better.


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> These are difficult data with which to furnish you, as it is hard to identify who is alive but would be the inverse had they not been trained. We may identify trends, but specific cases you will not find - for reasons that should be obvious. Nonetheless, I will give some examples of helpful training:
> 
> 1. Me, Cycling Proficiency at primary school, circa 1972.
> 2. My two elder children, Bikeability circa 2003 and 2005.
> ...




Waits for someone to trot out the often used 'But anecdotal evidence is only real life' (or valid)


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

What? Are there some words missing there? It's a straightforward question, is there any evidence that cycle training has ever reduced accidents. And how relevant is cycle training when cyclists share the roads with vehicles that have blind spots the owner doesn't bother to address, and who is on the phone?


----------



## 400bhp (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> What? Are there some words missing there? *It's a straightforward question, is there any evidence that cycle training has ever reduced accidents*. And how relevant is cycle training when cyclists share the roads with vehicles that have blind spots the owner doesn't bother to address, and who is on the phone?



:sigh:


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

In other words, were the chances of the lorry driver noticing the cyclist improved or worsened by him chatting to his dad on a mobile phone?


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> What? Are there some words missing there? It's a straightforward question, is there any evidence that cycle training has ever reduced accidents. And how relevant is cycle training when cyclists share the roads with vehicles that have blind spots the owner doesn't bother to address, and who is on the phone?




Well.... I am trained. I share the highway with motorists who use mobile telephones. Indeed I did so myself when it was legal, bicycle and car.

Partly because I am trained and partly because I give some thought to my own longevity, I do not place my bicycle to the immediate nearside front of HGVs at majot London junctions. Nor (I hope) do my children, who are also trained.

I see people do it, but they ride as if they have never been in the same county as a cycle training session. That is their choice. Usually it is not a life-prolonging choice, but it is their choice.

I have (as I explained above) no data on how training has saved lives or prevented RTAs. I simply do not know the answer to your question.

The narrative verdict of Miss Terschenko's inquest suggested that her bicycle was placed where it and she were invisible to the driver. She might have been trained to a degree I cannot even fathom and She may have had an extremely good reason for placing herself and her bicycle where she did. I was not there. I do not know. This thread is about training cyclists to ride on roads they share with HGVs. I think there is a case for doing so. I do not cite Miss Pereschenko as evidence. I did not witness her accident or her death. 

You disagree with me. Or at least I am forming the impression that you do not agree with me completely. Insofar as our views differ, you seem to be focussing on my bein a victim-blaming, lying, filth-spewing merchant of evil with he blood of innocen children dripping from my teeth and claws. This is an accurate picture, quite unaffected by any detectable mental imablance. I am exactly as I describe what I suggest is your vision of me. You win.

But there is a strong case for cyclists to learn how to ride around HGVs. There are people alive today who do not understand the risks presented bt riding in the blind spots of HGVs. I wish them well. But I would not sell them life cover.

I'm out of this thread now. I fear you may explode.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> :sigh:



He meant to type "isn't", I think, the sentence makes no sense as it is.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Oct 2013)




----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

What do you think _'But anecdotal evidence is real life' (or valid)" _means?


----------



## 400bhp (18 Oct 2013)

> *It's a straightforward question, is there any evidence that cycle training has ever reduced accidents*



Come on


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

It's worth reading Tom Edwards' feed from the court.

"TfL’s lawyer suggested to Mrs De Gerin-Ricard that it had been the lack of high-visibility clothing that had led to her daughter’s death."

Coroner: "But it was daylight".


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Oct 2013)

If HGVs didn't exist and someone now came up with the idea of allowing enormous partially-sighted multi-tonne vehicles with murderous drag sweeps onto our roads, and particularly our city roads, with side guard exemptions for the construction trade, abandonment of adequate vehicle safety checks and tipper truck drivers on piece rates, then we'd all know about their dangers. And they simply wouldn't be allowed. 

Those that were allowed would have to have more than only front wheel steering so that the rear axle would not blindly wipe out whoever the driver happened not to see, the lines of sight for drivers would be improved and transparent side view panels would be standard, plus there would be severe restrictions on their use in urban areas, and safety checking would be carried out systematically with extra severe sentences for infractions.

The current situation is simply unacceptable. The people who end up paying with their lives, their relatives who suffer the losses, even the drivers who end up uninjured but traumatised are the ones who suffer. 

They would not be allowed as they are. They are the elephant on the road who nobody (well, few) are prepared to mention.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> It's worth reading Tom Edwards' feed from the court.
> 
> "TfL’s lawyer suggested to Mrs De Gerin-Ricard that it had been the lack of high-visibility clothing that had led to her daughter’s death."
> 
> Coroner: "But it was daylight".


I know, I saw that and it's the most disgusting thing that anybody representing TfL has ever suggested on behalf of TfL when, after all, she was on a TfL bike on a TfL paint strip wearing TfL recommended safety wear. Mrs de Gerin-Ricard reacted unbelievably well under the circumstances.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

That was TFL's lawyer, of course.


----------



## booze and cake (18 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not implying anything, I'm asking if there is any evidence that cycle training reduces rtcs. Anywhere. In the world. Ever. If we're discussing a case where a driver killed someone whilst having a good old natter on the phone it's also irrelevant.



Have you asked anyone who has done cycle training what they thought of it? Have you asked if its made them aware of hazards *on the roads as they are now, *and given them skills to minimise the risk that they might not have known before? Surely thats whats its all about isn't it?

How many of the cyclists on the road have had cycle training? I've not got any figures but I guess its a comparatively low number. That does not mean its ineffective, if people who do cycle training have a positive experience of it, to me it indicates more people should have it. And I think there needs to be better training and awareness of cyclsts for drivers too. For the record I've not done cycle training but I know total novice cyclists who have and found it very beneficial. You seem to be vehemently against it for reasons I can't understand and I find it tiresome to hear you and the LCC bang on about segregation instead of training when the more obvious answer is to have a combination of the two.

And just to return to this bit, you say *'Can you find an example where cycle training has reduced road deaths, anywhere in the world, ever?'* Can't you see this is a bit of a daft question? Its like saying how many people have'nt been killed as a result of receiving Health & Safety training. 

Do they ask victims in cycle incidents if they've had cycle training? If they did we'd have some more insight into this maybe, but as has has been outlined already you can be the most experienced cyclist in the world and still be ploughed into from behind and killed. 

And in relation the this bit of the quote *If we're discussing a case where a driver killed someone whilst having a good old natter on the phone it's also irrelevant.[/quote]*

This is not strictly true is it. Firstly let me say it was a tragedy this poor girl was killed and in my view the driver has been negligent. However I understand the driver was talking on his hands free phone which is not illegal. A driver on hands free can be prosecuted if the user is deemed to have been significantly distracted by it, but this does'nt seem to have happened. I'm not a legal expert but it seems as though they reached the verdict they did based on the fact that the lorry was an older one with large blind spots and poor mirrors, driving on a poorly designed bit of road and the cyclist put themselves in a high risk position. Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course, with better lorries with better mirrors, better infrastructure and better cyclist positioning this tragedy
could have been avoided. Thats what us cyclists, here on a cycle forum, want isn't it? So lets try and discuss it without getting all shouty.

Right I'm off to bed as I'm up early to cycle around every single London borough tomorrow, good night and ride safe people


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Oct 2013)

booze and cake said:


> Right I'm off to bed as I'm up early to cycle around every single London borough tomorrow, good night and ride safe people


That sounds intriguing. How many miles?


----------



## Linford (18 Oct 2013)

No chance of London CM coming out in force to demand free cycle training for all living inside the M25 ?


----------



## glenn forger (18 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> No chance of London CM coming out in force to demand free cycle training for all living inside the M25 ?



Not much point, it's not lack of training that's killing cyclists. And there's whiff of sock puppets around here, check out the likes booze and cake (after 16 posts ) and boris have shared among themselves.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Not much point, it's not lack of training that's killing cyclists. And there's whiff of sock puppets around here, check out the likes booze and cake (after 16 posts ) and boris have shared among themselves.


Glen, I really doubt that there's anybody who's done a statistical analysis on the survival rate of untrained cyclists versus trained cyclists so I wouldn't question the validity of training on that basis. I actually would be happier to know that HGV drivers were cycle-trained as an essential part of being licensed. And I'm certain a few relatives would have been spared a whole lot of grief too, if that were the case. 

No idea about B&C, but BB's been around for a while, and while BB admits to a permanent ''persona'' (in his own words) he would have wasted an awful amount of unproductive time just to be a troll. (Though, I confess, the thought that BB had a more straight-forward character on here did occur to me a couple of days ago)


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Not much point, it's not lack of training that's killing cyclists. And there's whiff of sock puppets around here, check out the likes booze and cake (after 16 posts ) and boris have shared among themselves.


You mean that if every young woman cycling in London were given and observed specific instructions to not filter up the side of lorries, it would not make a scrap of difference to the most common scenario ?

You are forgetting that Boris Johnson was nearly killed a few years ago by a skip lorry, so to imply that the man doesn't consider the safety implications of these vehicles is a nonsense IMO 

http://news.sky.com/story/695510/boris-johnson-narrowly-escapes-lorry-crash


----------



## BigonaBianchi (19 Oct 2013)

The single biggest danger is the attitude of hgv drivers who believe cyclists have no right on their roads. It's not all hgv drivers but it is a very large percentage. They consistently pass dangerously close at speed often in the face of on coming traffic. They seem to be on some kind of campaign to scare cyclists off uk roads. They are impatiant, unsafe, and often just plain aggressive. It is those hgv drivers they need educating and taking down a peg or two.


----------



## Profpointy (19 Oct 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> The single biggest danger is the attitude of hgv drivers who believe cyclists have no right on their roads. It's not all hgv drivers but it is a very large percentage. They consistently pass dangerously close at speed often in the face of on coming traffic. They seem to be on some kind of campaign to scare cyclists off uk roads. They are impatiant, unsafe, and often just plain aggressive. It is those hgv drivers they need educating and taking down a peg or two.


 
frankly that's bollocks. I commute daily in Bristol, and HGVs as a class, are largely better driven than other classes of vehicle, pass wide, and really do anything stupid or agressive. That's not to say they never make a mistake, and I have been beeped at merely for being in the lane, but dangerous - not seen it, though it must happen on occasion. To claim "most" HGVs are driven badly is lazy.

For the record, I'm a shiny arsed office worker, so don't drive a truck for a living.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (19 Oct 2013)

Profpointy said:


> frankly that's bollocks. I commute daily in Bristol, and HGVs as a class, are largely better driven than other classes of vehicle, pass wide, and really do anything stupid or agressive. That's not to say they never make a mistake, and I have been beeped at merely for being in the lane, but dangerous - not seen it, though it must happen on occasion. To claim "most" HGVs are driven badly is lazy.
> 
> For the record, I'm a shiny arsed office worker, so don't drive a truck for a living.


Frankly that is my genuine experience or I wouldn't have said it.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Oct 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> The single biggest danger is the attitude of hgv drivers who believe cyclists have no right on their roads. It's not all hgv drivers but it is *a very large percentage*. They consistently pass dangerously close at speed often in the face of on coming traffic. They seem to be on some kind of campaign to scare cyclists off uk roads. They are impatiant, unsafe, and often just plain aggressive. It is those hgv drivers they need educating and taking down a peg or two.


 
What is a large percentage? If it's even five percent of HGV drivers who close-pass you at speed in the face of oncoming traffic, then I imagine your experiences are out of kilter with those of most cyclists I know. My percentage for close passes would be lower, but I might be lucky. My percentage for HGV close passes into oncoming traffic would be almost zero. Cars do that to me a fair bit. HGVs seldom.

But the mention of training in this thread has tendedto focus on riding at low speed on urban routes. I'd agree that cyclist training for riding among HGVs on fast,open NSL roads would have a negligible beneficial effect, or even none at all. 

However, cyclsts can be trained, persuaded, enveigled and otherwise taught not to creep up the inside of HGVs and plonk themselves at the front nearside while waiting at junctions. Those who know this can lead to unhappiness do not do it. If people are still doing it, there is a case to be made for increasing rider awareness. This does not release the planners, the haulage firms and the drivers themselves from responsibility. But a cyclist who does not see the nearside and the front blindspots of an HGV as a death zone would benefit from learning otherwise through training rather than experience.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2013)

In lorry driving circles, the drivers of the rigid aggregate lorries are known to be aggressive, so worth taking extra care near those.


----------



## User6179 (19 Oct 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> In lorry driving circles, the drivers of the rigid aggregate lorries are known to be aggressive, so worth taking extra care near those.


 
I agree!!!!!!


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

When a pedestrian gets knocked over in similar circumstances, we don't get calls for peds to have training around traffic do we? How do you deliver that training formally to the entire nation, evaluate it's effectiveness and then organise redelivery when you find it hasn't worked.And remember it's a rolling programme, because loads new future pedestrians are born every day.

Well, a cyclist is no different to a ped in that we have to anticipate that anyone, trained or not, can legally hop on a bike and ride it. Which is as it should be, because the more restrictions you place on riding a bike, the fewer people who will do it which is bad in many ways for society as whole.

The problem is that after the age of ten we are legally obliged to ride on the roads with the horrible traffic. We wouldn't put our ten year old kids or any other pedestrian on the road walking in amongst the flow traffic, so why do we expect them to cycle there?

The laws about cycling in traffic haven't really altered since the massive boom in car ownership. Laws are pretty much the same as they were when private car ownership was relatively rare. Roads were not built for cars as Carlton rightly points out, but for decades now, they been designed for the convenience of drivers only in mind. 
Something needs to change. People need an option that isn't forcing them to share the roads with lethal heavy machinery, operated with little care or attention.

If the road bikers want to mix it up with the traffic, then let them. For me, my family, I want something different. I want it to be safe, I want to be separate from the danger presented, and where I can't be separate, I want it to be explicit that I have priority (eg don't the dutch have some traffic rule about it being illegal for a driver overtake a cyclist on ordinary residential streets with no segregation? I may have made that one up).

Someone mentioned riding at 45mph on their bike. Well I live in a very hilly city (the last mile of my ride home I gain 400ft) My avarage speed is about 7.5mph. I can see why car drivers may get frustrated when they're stuck behind me. Give me a cycle path, everyones happy.

It's a sad fact that our children can't travel independently safely. Then you have the other end of the scale, my would be mother in law who used to be a keen cyclist, now at the age of 72 doesn't feel safe among the traffic on a bike, so she drives a skoda estate instead. My Mum, has some orthapaedic problems and finds walking painful, riding would be more comfortable, but as someone who's never passed a driving test she is too scared to go on the road. I know she'll be in a benidorm wagon soon, which is legal on the footpath. A bike would be so much more beneficial.

All these problems would be solved to very large extent by proper, high quality, segregated infrastructure. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. It's already been done and been shown to be effective by the dutch and in Copenhagen.

We can wait to change attitudes in drivers, but realistically we all know that with the dangerous infrastructure we have today, it's not going to happen.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

http://www.experientia.com/blog/the-design-of-copenhagen-as-a-bicycle-friendly-city/
Prioratise bicycles.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> You mean that if every young woman cycling in London were given and observed specific instructions to not filter up the side of lorries, it would not make a scrap of difference to the most common scenario ?



I've already told you it's nowhere near the most common scenario. can you name the cyclists killed in the way you describe?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> You are forgetting that Boris Johnson was nearly killed a few years ago by a skip lorry, so to imply that the man doesn't consider the safety implications of these vehicles is a nonsense IMO



Boris makes up statistics about cyclists, and the driver in that incident wasn't even charged with anything, despite nearly killing several people cos he'd secured a heavy steel door with a wire coat hanger. Not the best example you could have chosen.

I would suggest an aware, careful cyclist wouldn't jump six reds on their commute, like Boris was filmed doing. Boris and TFL ignored 21 warnings and two people died, to suggest Boris has cyclist's interests forefront is naive.

I cannot repeat often enough that the linking of cyclists' lawbreaking to casualties is utterly misleading. The mayor's refusal to apologise tends to support those drivers who blame innocent cyclists rather than admit to their own carelessness.


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> When a pedestrian gets knocked over in similar circumstances, we don't get calls for peds to have training around traffic do we? How do you deliver that training formally to the entire nation, evaluate it's effectiveness and then organise redelivery when you find it hasn't worked.And remember it's a rolling programme, because loads new future pedestrians are born every day.
> 
> Well, a cyclist is no different to a ped in that we have to anticipate that anyone, trained or not, can legally hop on a bike and ride it. Which is as it should be, because the more restrictions you place on riding a bike, the fewer people who will do it which is bad in many ways for society as whole.
> 
> ...



All of this is just wrong...and I was the one who mentioned being passed at 45mph on my bike...it was coming down off the Cotswold escarpment which involved about 800ft of climbing to get up there in the first place at.....wait for it......about 7mph average....less I'm sure in places as it is so steep.
Your mum doesn't feel safe on the roads because she is 72....this is quite normal for people when their eyesight, hearing (and their 'compus mentis') begins to fail them. It has already happened to my parents who are now in their 80's...It's called life!

Jeez, you talk about wanting to change the landscape of Britain because you don't feel that your kids are safe on the roads.....well I'm sorry, but I grew up cycling in the 70's and there were far more roads deaths, and far less cars on the roads back then...the standards of driver training were far lower then, and the policing was very hit and miss in comparison to today's force equipped with live ANPR patrol car systems to identify illegal drivers as they are passed by on the roads.
The hill I hit 45+ on I was also riding at speed when I was 12 years of age on my Grifter...I'm still here to tell the tale.

I think my kids have looked back and thanked me a lot more for allowing them to do this (yes, that was mine taken at the age of 15)







than if I had instead treated them like this


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> There is certainly evidence of a drop in the numbers of deaths



Really? Care to post it?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> .the standards of driver training were far lower then, and the policing was very hit and miss in comparison to today's force equipped with live ANPR patrol car systems to identify illegal drivers as they are passed by on the roads.




How many trafpol were there per thousand drivers? Policing numbers on the roads have been slashed, prosecution rates are plummeting:

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2234.html

You are factually incorrect.


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Really? Care to post it?



You need to read the ROSPA article in the link



> "Children and Cycling: The Effects of the NCPS in the County of Hereford and Worcester", County of Hereford and Worcester, 1976
> A parental questionnaire survey concerning children's cycling accident involvement and exposure to traffic. A control group of children who had not been trained had 3 to 4 times as many casualties as the trained group. Those who had been trained tended to:
> 1. cycle more
> 2. cycle on roads more than before training
> 3. cycle to school more than those in the control group.



http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cyclist_training_effectiveness.pdf


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

That's the best you can find? 25 schoolkids from twelve years ago? That doesn't even mention collisions with other vehicles?

Did you read to the end?



> The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course
> results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have
> taken a course face a higher risk, possibly because some parents believed
> the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks.



Again, not the best example you could have chosen.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> All of this is just wrong...and I was the one who mentioned being passed at 45mph on my bike...it was coming down off the Cotswold escarpment which involved about 800ft of climbing to get up there in the first place at.....wait for it......about 7mph average....less I'm sure in places as it is so steep.
> Your mum doesn't feel safe on the roads because she is 72....this is quite normal for people when their eyesight, hearing (and their 'compus mentis') begins to fail them. It has already happened to my parents who are now in their 80's...It's called life!
> 
> Jeez, you talk about wanting to change the landscape of Britain because you don't feel that your kids are safe on the roads.....well I'm sorry, but I grew up cycling in the 70's and there were far more roads deaths, and far less cars on the roads back then...the standards of driver training were far lower then, and the policing was very hit and miss in comparison to today's force equipped with live ANPR patrol car systems to identify illegal drivers as they are passed by on the roads.
> ...


You're wrong of course, my mother in law is afraid of traffic. She wishes to continue cycling, it's the traffic that stops he. In countries with high quality cycling, the elderly carry on cycling whilst physically able to. This of course has many health and financial benefits, both personal and societal.

It may well be true that less folk are killed in RTC's than in the 70's, though I think this is highly likely to the massive advances in trauma care. Unfortunately the down side of this is that many people end up living with the devastating effects of serious head injury.

And in that nice picture of your daughter on a horse, I can't see her dodging many articulated lorries.


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> How many trafpol were there per thousand drivers? Policing numbers on the roads have been slashed, prosecution rates are plummeting:
> 
> http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2234.html
> 
> You are factually incorrect.



I would say that people by and large were driving less over that period due to the recession biting


----------



## theclaud (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> *I would say that* people by and large were driving less over that period due to the recession biting


Rigorous stuff, Linfy!


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> That's the best you can find? 25 schoolkids from twelve years ago? That doesn't even mention collisions with other vehicles?
> 
> Did you read to the end?
> 
> ...



You are cherry picking to suit your argument...have you ever undertaken any sort of road training as you appear willfully ignorant ?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> You are cherry picking to suit your argument...have you ever undertaken any sort of road training as you appear willfully ignorant ?



What? Cherry picking? It was your report, you posted the link, doofus. You claimed your link proved training made things safer for cyclists. The report that you posted concludes:



> The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course
> results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have
> taken a course face a higher risk, possibly because some parents believed
> the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks.



which is the exact opposite of what you claimed. That's not "cherry picking", it's pointing out you're a doofus!


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> You're wrong of course, my mother in law is afraid of traffic. She wishes to continue cycling, it's the traffic that stops he. In countries with high quality cycling, the elderly carry on cycling whilst physically able to. This of course has many health and financial benefits, both personal and societal.
> 
> It may well be true that less folk are killed in RTC's than in the 70's, though I think this is highly likely to the massive advances in trauma care. Unfortunately the down side of this is that many people end up living with the devastating effects of serious head injury.
> 
> And in that nice picture of your daughter on a horse, I can't see her dodging many articulated lorries.



Err, that is a half tonne animal she is on which is jumping a metre high cross country fence made out of telegraph poles. I would say that there is significant risk in that action if it went wrong.Christopher Reeve was injured doing a similar thing, and so I'd say it is far more risky than riding on the average road in the UK.

Anyway, far be it from me to tell you how to bring your kids up, but there has to be a balance, and a bit of realism to what is being asked. Why not teach your son that he needs to plan his routes with care when cycling, and needs to be aware of how others might expect him to behave when sharing that space with them, than just that it is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs ?


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> What? Cherry picking? It was your report, you posted the link, doofus. You claimed your link proved training made things safer for cyclists. The report that you posted concludes:
> 
> 
> 
> which is the exact opposite of what you claimed. That's not "cherry picking", it's pointing out you're a doofus!



You muppet  . .try quoting in context...the bit you quoted on is in direct contradiction of the often vaunted claim here in that the more cyclists on the roads, the safer it becomes for all cyclist...you want to make up your mind what you want.

This is ACTUALLY the REAL conclusion of the report I linked to which was commissioned by ROSPA 



> THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS
> “THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CYCLIST TRAINING”
> 2001
> 8
> ...


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> You muppet  . .try quoting in context...the bit you quoted on is in direct contradiction of the often vaunted claim here in that the more cyclists on the roads, the safer it becomes for all cyclist.




How? (doofus)


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> How? (doofus)



If you can't figure it out for yourself...I'm not going to waste my time trying to do it for you...


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Oct 2013)

Let me be clear. I am an everyday cyclist! But I have say that HGV drivers are very highly trained and it's not an easy test to pass by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> The problem is with the use of the word cyclist.
> 
> A cyclist is sometimes obvious. He has a shiny helmet, is dressed up like a highlighter pen and has a gobsmackingly expensive bicycle. He rides 20 miles to work and back every day and does a hundred at the weekend on his even more gobsmackingly expensive bike. You would hope this cyclist knows not to go up the inside of an HGV.
> 
> ...


Good post!


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> If you can't figure it out for yourself...I'm not going to waste my time trying to do it for you...



The fact some children have accidents and training makes no difference to the accident rate doesn't come anywhere near disproving the truism that accident rates decrease when cycling rates increase, since the vast majority of child accidents on bikes don't involve other vehicles. (Doofus)


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> The fact some children have accidents and training makes no difference to the accident rate doesn't come anywhere near disproving the truism that accident rates decrease when cycling rates increase, since the vast majority of child accidents on bikes don't involve other vehicles. (Doofus)



Jeez...how old are you?

If you can''t move past playground taunts, then I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you.


----------



## theclaud (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> .Christopher Reeve was injured doing a similar thing, and so I'd say it is far more risky than riding on the average road in the UK.



Ah, Linf's relentless logic sweeps all before it, as ever.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Jeez...how old are you?
> 
> If you can''t move past playground taunts, then I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you.



You've said that already, when you refused to explain why you think your ROSPA report disproves something.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

> *KenningtonPplOnBikes*‏@KenningtonPOB
> I've cycle trained 100s of lorry drivers; none would want their 20yr old daughter using CS2 Aldgate


----------



## MarkF (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> You're wrong of course, my mother in law is afraid of traffic. She wishes to continue cycling, it's the traffic that stops her.



But it's not 100% the traffic's fault is it? My mother (75) went on a (useless) cycling course in the summer, she now rides on the roads using my old Dahon folder, I am not saying she likes the busy roads, but she got bored of the towpath..............the traffic is not going to disappear.

Regarding HGV's, I've been put in danger by all sorts of vehicles and drivers, but rarely by professional drivers, that is HGV/Bus/Taxi guys.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

MarkF said:


> But it's not 100% the traffic's fault is it? My mother (75) went on a (useless) cycling course in the summer, she now rides on the roads using my old Dahon folder, I am not saying she likes the busy roads, but she got bored of the towpath..............the traffic is not going to disappear.
> 
> Regarding HGV's, I've been put in danger by all sorts of vehicles and drivers, but rarely by professional drivers, that is HGV/Bus/Taxi guys.


Generally people getting squashed is the fault of traffic. And that's what people are afraid of, and what stops them from cycling. Even with all the training in the world, people still get hurt by drivers, because drivers don't pay enough attention, their vehicles have blind spots, the sun was in their eyes etc etc. But take the cyclists off the road and provide them with a safer alternative and you've negated a large part of the risk.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

MarkF said:


> Regarding HGV's, I've been put in danger by all sorts of vehicles and drivers, but rarely by professional drivers, that is HGV/Bus/Taxi guys.



Then how come lorries are just 4% of traffic in London but involved in 53% of cyclist fatalities? (2011)


----------



## MarkF (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Generally people getting squashed is the fault of traffic. And that's what people are afraid of, and what stops them from cycling. Even with all the training in the world, people still get hurt by drivers, because drivers don't pay enough attention, their vehicles have blind spots, the sun was in their eyes etc etc. But take the cyclists off the road and provide them with a safer alternative and you've negated a large part of the risk.



I am glad I encouraged her to go on the cycling course as crap as it was, and, I was delighted that she decided to not give up, but to ride again. When do you suppose the "safer alternative" might be available to her? My mother is 75!  Right now the shared roads are available to her and she is going for it, I don't worry because the chances are her coming to harm are pretty much infinitesimal. Explain that to your MIL, take her out, show her, help her, encourage her.


----------



## MarkF (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Then how come lorries are just 4% of traffic in London but involved in 53% of cyclist fatalities? (2011)



I don't know Glenn, I commute between Bradford & Leeds.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Of the nine cyclist deaths involving HGVs in 2011, seven involved construction lorries. Sub-contractors, like the driver that killed Svitlana. The big firms have strict safety regimes, mirrors on lorries, extra training, the sub contractors couldn't care less, will refuse to update their vehicles and even rudimentary checks on drivers aren't bothered with.


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

theclaud said:


> Ah, Linf's relentless logic sweeps all before it, as ever.



This is what happens when it goes wrong..the rider was lucky they were wearing an airbag safety jacket or else they would have either been killed or paralysed for life.

Not that you really ever acknowledge the value of lessons in life or that safety aids will ever help.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

2719779 said:


> It might work but it is still the wrong solution because it is negative. Address the causes of the danger and the need to worry about apportioning limited space in our towns and cities evaporates.


Why is it negative? Offering high quality segregated infrastructure would be fantastically positive. Wide paths that allow companions to cycle along and chat? Brilliant. I do ride with my son, but I find it unpleasant, scary and stressful.I have to ride behind him in primary, shouting instructions watching out for the safety of both of us How lovely if we could ride along relaxed, chatting away to each other.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

MarkF said:


> I am glad I encouraged her to go on the cycling course as crap as it was, and, I was delighted that she decided to not give up, but to ride again. When do you suppose the "safer alternative" might be available to her? My mother is 75!  Right now the shared roads are available to her and she is going for it, I don't worry because the chances are her coming to harm are pretty much infinitesimal. Explain that to your MIL, take her out, show her, help her, encourage her.


I've long since realised that we wont achieve decent standards of cycling infrastructure in the UK in my lifetime. Doesn't mean I'm going to give up hope for it for future generations.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Why is it negative?.



Realistically, it's not going to happen. And could lead to resentment on unsegregated bits. Target the danger, focus on where the danger comes from, crappy driving.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Realistically, it's not going to happen. And could lead to resentment on unsegregated bits. Target the danger, focus on where the danger comes from, crappy driving.


Realistically it can happen with the right political will.


----------



## theclaud (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Realistically it can happen with the right political will.


And this is not true of removing the extraordinary risks currently posed by HGVs?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

There is precisely zero political will behind introducing segregated cycle lanes over the entire road network, the cost would be immense, the tabloids would go crazy. It's not going to happen. Cyclists are growing in numbers but we're up against the media, motor vehicle and oil industries.


----------



## ShipHill (19 Oct 2013)

@ sara_H I understand where you are coming from in wanting segregated cycle lanes and provision but how would it work on - say - my route to work which is 1.1 miles down a rural B-road from a silly wee village to the edge of a moderate size town? I cannot see how anyone is going to install such provision. It would only be installed on major routes/roads in large conurbations.

So car drivers see less cyclists on the road than they do now.

So when they come across me on the way to work, instead of driving past quite nicely like they do every day, they may think "what's this saft pratt doing here" or "how do I negotiate this tiresome oaf" instead of the current arrangement (which could be improved with better training for all) where they encounter cycles frequently and cope well most of the time.

Regards
Shippy


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Oct 2013)

My only reason for supporting segregation is the belief that the more that people use the safer tracks, the higher the likelihood that the driver on the highway will have cycled and will understand the dangers they pose.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

ShipHill said:


> @ sara_H I understand where you are coming from in wanting segregated cycle lanes and provision but how would it work on - say - my route to work which is 1.1 miles down a rural B-road from a silly wee village to the edge of a moderate size town? I cannot see how anyone is going to install such provision. It would only be installed on major routes/roads in large conurbations.
> 
> So car drivers see less cyclists on the road than they do now.
> 
> ...


I don't know, how do they do it in other places? I'm no planning expert, but I the magic of the internet is telling me that this happens in other places, that it works well and as a result there are massive numbers of cyclists with massive benefits for those countries/regions.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2013)

I'd say segregation is way down the list of reasons cycling's safer elsewhere in Europe. Presumed Liability would have a larger effect, I think.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I'd say segregation is way down the list of reasons cycling's safer elsewhere in Europe. Presumed Liability would have a larger effect, I think.


True, but that won't happen before Pickles explodes. But it's got to happen, sooner or later.


----------



## booze and cake (20 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> That sounds intriguing. How many miles?



Pretty epic, finished at 10.30 tonight. Ride was in a spiral, visiting all 33 London Boroughs and the City of London, visiting each borough only once, starting in Sidcup and ending in Trafalgar Square. Including the ride from mine out to Sidcup and back home again afterwards it was about 130 miles. Group of about 20 of us, arranged through another forum, ssshhhhh. Only 2 punctures between us and less traffic lights than you might think and we took the Woolwich ferry. Top ride.


----------



## Shaun (20 Oct 2013)

I'm temporarily closing this thread because I simply haven't got time right now to review the last few pages and decide who's picking at other people and who is discussing the topic at hand.

I'll try to do that later this evening when I get back home, but if not it'll be tomorrow. When I do re-open it, please stick to the topic and stop with the personal remarks or I'll start excluding people from the thread altogether.

Shaun


----------



## Shaun (22 Oct 2013)

*Coroner wants cyclists to be educated about danger of HGV's**
*


Beebo said:


> I know about the danger of HGV's but maybe some cyclists dont yet know. However me knowing about the dangers wont help me if one runs me over from behind.
> 
> Some of what she says makes sense, but surely the change and eductaion has to be with the lorry drivers too.
> It would be like educating people about the danger of guns, without actually dealing with the removal of guns.
> ...



This is a reminder of what the thread is about.

Please respond to the *content* posted and _not_ the poster - and keep on-topic.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Lockring (23 Oct 2013)

Hgv is a truck? I think it is anyway maybe just a big truck or bus or trollejbus or tram. But a big thing. Tjese are dangerose and must show a care for a bicycle. For me they are too dangerose. I think they cannot see me, also i must stay careful
when they are near. Best if all drivers must look for bicycles and and bycycles must look for trucks. I am afraid Hgvs,but who rides close to them and does not see danger is dumb. Train driver of Hgv. Very important. Even harder because you are on the left road here and most people are on the right road in Europa america and so. For us it is mpre dangerose because of left side. Train HGv drivers!!


----------



## Tcr4x4 (23 Oct 2013)

HGV drivers are some of the most highly trained on the roads. You have to sit at least two practical tests, two theory tests, complete a medical exam and complete 35 hours of additional CPC training every 5 years. Some drivers, myself included of dangerous/hazardous goods, must also complete a further 35 hours every 5 years for the ADR qulification. The argument could be made to train cyclists, who currently have no training at all, but that seems to hit a nerve with people on this forum.
The answer is EVERBODY, should take care, be sensible and be considerate. Sadly though, you always get idiots who dont follow those, be it in a car, HGV or on a bike.


----------



## GrasB (23 Oct 2013)

Today I came across a mini that had been munched by a HGV going round a tight left hander. The it was clear that the HGV had swung wide to the right to make it round the corner & the mini driver had gone up the inside.


----------



## Tcr4x4 (23 Oct 2013)

2726727 said:


> I don't think that anyone is disputing that, as drivers go, HGV drivers are highly trained. They should be though because they bring relatively high risk to our roads.



Guy above was disputing that, or at least questioning it, just letting him know exactly how the training works.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Oct 2013)

Tcr4x4 said:


> Guy above was disputing that, or at least questioning it, just letting him know exactly how the training works.



If the extreme vigilance and scrupulous checks run on lorry drivers in London are so rigorous, how come a lorry driver who had been banned from driving thirteen times got a job driving lorries in London? Who insured him? What questions did his employers ask?

To me, it looks like any drunk neanderthal can apply for a job as a lorry driver in the capital and gain employment. Because that's what happened.


----------



## Shaun (23 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> If the extreme vigilance and scrupulous checks run on lorry drivers in London are so rigorous, how come a lorry driver who had been banned from driving thirteen times got a job driving lorries in London? Who insured him? What questions did his employers ask?
> 
> To me, it looks like any drunk neanderthal can apply for a job as a lorry driver in the capital and gain employment. Because that's what happened.



You can't write-off an entire group of professional HGV drivers because of the actions of _one_ selfish and careless individual. If that were the case all of us on here would be ninja's who RLJ, ride on pavements, never signal, <insert cyclist sterotype>.



Tcr4x4 said:


> The answer is *EVERBODY, should take care, be sensible and be considerate. * Sadly though, you always get idiots who dont follow those, be it in a car, HGV or on a bike.



This is what I mostly got from Tcr4x4's post!


----------



## glenn forger (23 Oct 2013)

Shaun said:


> You can't write-off an entire group of professional HGV drivers because of the actions of _one_ selfish and careless individual.



But is cyclists filtering on the inside a significant factor in fatalities? It seems most deaths were caused because the lorry driver rammed the cyclist from behind and killed them, or overtook then immediately turned left, crushing them.

That's what happened to Mary Bowers and Svitlana Tereschenko and Catriona Patel and all three lorry drivers were chatting on a mobile phone at the time.

You get an idiot on a bike, they may collide with a pedestrian, possibly causing a bruise. Maybe a barked shin. Bit of a scab. Rich picking.

You get a knuckle dragger in a skip lorry who doesn't know how to overtake or turn left without checking whether a cyclist is ENTIRELY predictably on the in or offside, they end up dead. It's a Cycling Super Highway. It's where cyclists are guaranteed to be. And they're getting killed. By lorry drivers.



> The evidence from Operation Mermaid, which has been going on for years and years, suggests that hauliers routinely send out onto the roads vehicles which are not compliant with current legislation. Is this pattern of behaviour, of sending out poorly managed heavy machinery to interact with the public, consistent with claims of professionalism? Obviously, I don't think so.



http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/tag/operation-mermaid/

Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way.* Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. *The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).


----------



## Lockring (24 Oct 2013)

This guy @glenn forger is the right one. When he says he find me and drive at me he is joking and I am laughing, not afraid. He is funny. He is right. Hgv are the dangerose ones. They are the killing ones. They are maybee 30tona, maybe 40 tona and they will kill a person like a fly.

I do not understand all of the posting my english is not better. but he is right. HGV are a problem, a bigger problem. of course some people on a bicycle are dumb and do not see that trucks are dangerose, so they die, but the dangerose one is the truck not the stupid bycyclista who does not see a danger. One day or all HGV will be good with training or all stupid bycycliste will be dead. Or one or other. I am the careful one always.


----------

