# Lambeth Bridge tipper truck fatality



## glasgowcyclist (9 Apr 2015)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-hit-by-lorry-on-lambeth-bridge-10164447.html

_"A woman cyclist has died after she was hit by a lorry in central London this morning. 
Police said the woman died after the crash with a truck at the junction of Millbank and Lambeth Bridge near Westminster. "
_
GC

[_*Shaun edit:* I have copied this campaign thread from the original report / condolences thread in the Cyclist Down forum - so the first few pages should be read in the context of it originally being in that forum._

_Please be respectful and remember that someone has died and that CycleChat is an open and public Internet forum._]


----------



## Drago (9 Apr 2015)

Terrible news. 

And why always tipper trucks? Horrible coincidence, or some inherent failing with the vehicles or the people who drive them?


----------



## Hitchington (9 Apr 2015)

Drago said:


> Terrible news.
> 
> And why always tipper trucks? Horrible coincidence, or some inherent failing with the vehicles or the people who drive them?


There's a lot of building work going on esp. Victoria area which is were this lorry was probably going/returning from. They're not designed for inner city streets - they should be banned until all the cabs are redesigned to meet recommended standards - driver lower down to the road, better cab design to give view of inside of vehicle etc.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

I expect who the driver was working for will be fully explained, sarcasm.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Apr 2015)

*Mod Edit:* Referenced quote has been deleted.

Seriously, are you blaming the victim here? Can we wait until we know the story?

Edit: Read the comments here to see many people blaming the cyclist, and going on about insurance, and tests and rules, when the poor victim was killed by someone unlicensed, running a red light, obscured dashboard and not even looking.


----------



## Arrowfoot (9 Apr 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Seriously, are you blaming the victim here? Can we wait until we know the story?



I am not blaming the victim but folks like yourself who avoid the obvious or deflect the issue because it is politically not pleasant and want to be popular. Similar to what happened to the authorities in the various coucils and servces in the towns that was impacted by child exploitation cases on a massive scale.

Besides pressuring the transport industry and the Govt to introduce safey measures, we also need to educate our cyclists not be next to big vehicles at junctions. Point out demographics of the victims. So if they are in that group and they can address it and be prepared. We need a robust and active camapigns to save our own


----------



## Hitchington (9 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I am not blaming the victim but folks like yourself who avoid the obvious or deflect the issue because it is politically not pleasant and want to be popular. Similar to what happened to the authorities in the various coucils and servces in the towns that was impacted by child exploitation cases on a massive scale.
> 
> Besides pressuring the transport industry and the Govt to introduce safey measures, we also need to educate our cyclists not be next to big vehicles at junctions. Point out demographics of the victims. So if they are in that group and they can address it and be prepared. We need a robust and active camapigns to save our own


This thread is 7 posts old and you're turned it into a conspiracy. Well done.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I am not blaming the victim but folks like yourself who avoid the obvious or deflect the issue because it is politically not pleasant and want to be popular. Similar to what happened to the authorities in the various coucils and servces in the towns that was impacted by child exploitation cases on a massive scale.
> 
> Besides pressuring the transport industry and the Govt to introduce safey measures, we also need to educate our cyclists not be next to big vehicles at junctions. Point out demographics of the victims. So if they are in that group and they can address it and be prepared. We need a robust and active camapigns to save our own


Yeah, this is a thread about a specific fatality. It's quite possible her relatives and friends will find this thread, and may use it to discuss what happened. On the balance of probability it was not her fault (as most fatalities are found to be the driver's fault). If you want to discuss public policy, do it somewhere else.


----------



## Markymark (9 Apr 2015)

Witness said the lorry cut across her.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I am not blaming the victim but folks like yourself who avoid the obvious or deflect the issue because it is politically not pleasant and want to be popular. Similar to what happened to the authorities in the various coucils and servces in the towns that was impacted by child exploitation cases on a massive scale.
> 
> Besides pressuring the transport industry and the Govt to introduce safey measures, we also need to educate our cyclists not be next to big vehicles at junctions. Point out demographics of the victims. So if they are in that group and they can address it and be prepared. We need a robust and active camapigns to save our own


The construction industry need to be forced to assume responsibility for the people, of either gender, they kill. That is why their ''off site, out of mind'' approach to the public's safety is so murderous.


----------



## Dan B (9 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I expect who the driver was working for will be fully explained, sarcasm.


That would be http://www.jsmgroup.com/contact-us/, guessing by the logo on the truck


----------



## mjr (9 Apr 2015)

*Mod Edit:* Referenced quote has been deleted.


I don't care about political correctness, but the bike appears to have ended up under the *front* wheel this time, which suggests it was in front of the truck at some point.

Anyway, I've written elsewhere that I feel motorists (myself included) should pay attention to the leading edges of their vehicles at all times. Any errors other road users commit do not excuse us in a collision.


----------



## simonsch (9 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Witness said the lorry cut across her.



Awful. I have seen this quite a few times at nearby intersections - a tipper truck cutting across 1, 2 or 3 lanes of traffic, at high speed, assuming that whoever/whatever is underfoot will be able to get out of the way in time. Well obviously she didn't manage. The biggest problem is the drivers of these things. There may be one or two decent ones, but there are certainly plenty of would-be killers. The company should have their right to work in London revoked for a year every time one of their trucks does this. At the very least that would cost them the amount to paint new livery.


----------



## Dan B (9 Apr 2015)

http://www.jsmgroup.com/british-safety-council-award-2015/ Perhaps someone should contact the British Safety Council and tell them to ask for their award back


----------



## Racing roadkill (9 Apr 2015)

It's not the tipper trucks or the drivers. They are an odd shaped vehicle, they take odd lines through junctions / corners / roundabouts, because they have to. Cyclists need to learn to stay the hell away from them, don't go near them, give them a wide berth.


----------



## simonsch (9 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> It's not the tipper trucks or the drivers. They are an odd shaped vehicle, they take odd lines through junctions / corners / roundabouts, because they have to. Cyclists need to learn to stay the hell away from them, don't go near them, give them a wide berth.



Seriously, it is the drivers. The other week I was on Parliament Square roundabout and a tipper truck driver, seeing a gap in the (car) traffic, careened across 3 lines of traffic and nearly took me out. I was two lanes over and well ahead of it. I have seen (from a safe distance) several other similar instances. If the truck cut across the poor lady today, there was very likely nothing she could do.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> It's not the tipper trucks or the drivers. They are an odd shaped vehicle, they take odd lines through junctions / corners / roundabouts, because they have to. Cyclists need to learn to stay the hell away from them, don't go near them, give them a wide berth.





Simon Schultz said:


> Seriously, it is the drivers. The other week I was on Parliament Square roundabout and a tipper truck driver, seeing a gap in the (car) traffic, careened across 3 lines of traffic and nearly took me out. I was two lanes over and well ahead of it. I have seen (from a safe distance) several other similar instances. If the truck cut across the poor lady today, there was very likely nothing she could do.



I agree with both, keep well clear of tipper trucks, but if the ruddy thing makes a dart towards you there's not much you can do.

As a slow cyclist, I am content to slow even more or stop for a few seconds to keep well behind a tipper truck.

Works to a degree, but being slow reduces my ability to get out of the way if I am about to be wiped out from the side at a roundabout or from behind.


----------



## simonsch (9 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> As a slow cyclist, I am content to slow even more or stop for a few seconds to keep well behind a tipper truck.



As a moderately fast cyclist, me too.


----------



## mjr (9 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> Cyclists need to learn to stay the hell away from them, don't go near them, give them a wide berth.


We have learned this - on pain of deaths - and campaign for them to be restricted until such time they can be replaced with ones that are safe for use on modern urban streets.


----------



## Sittingduck (9 Apr 2015)

Poor woman. 

About to leave the office and my route home takes me right through where it happened. The road is open and traffic returning to normal again now but not relishing riding through there, really. 

Tippers shouldn't be on urban roads and some of the drivers are right _see you next tuesdays,_ in my experience_. _ Always give them a massively wide berth but it would be nice if we didn't have them anywhere near us. RIP to this morning's rider.


----------



## J1888 (9 Apr 2015)

Some of those roundabouts on to bridges in town are very hairy - the other side of Lambeth bridge is a bit of a 'mare IMO, so much so that having used it to get to work when I first started commuting, I've now found a way not to negotiate it.

Poor woman and her family though, awful. Really spooks me to see the damaged bike.


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Apr 2015)

TD posts a lot of videos of that roundabout. Sometimes it's cyclists, but mostly it's drivers at fault.
It is odd that a witness said the lorry cut across, but the driver wan't arrested.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

mr_cellophane said:


> It is odd that a witness said the lorry cut across, but the driver wan't arrested.



Doesn't mean a thing.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

mr_cellophane said:


> TD posts a lot of videos of that roundabout. Sometimes it's cyclists, but mostly it's drivers at fault.
> It is odd that a witness said the lorry cut across, but the driver wan't arrested.



I agree no arrest is odd, although there's nothing to stop the coppers nicking him/her later if they find evidence of an offence.

Also, automatic arrest when there's no evidence - at the time - of an offence is a controversial and complicated topic in policing.

The notion of an 'arrestable offence' appears to have been replaced by something which only a serving copper could understand.

Oh, and different police forces seem to use their power of arrest differently.

Hope that's clear.


----------



## Drago (9 Apr 2015)

Strewth, it was easy when there were arrestable offences and Section 25 offences. Now there's Socap, and anything, such as scratching your arse, is arrestable on a Thursday in July, but only if the Inspector had toast for breakfast. Only Labour could simplify something by making it more complicated.

But Paley is right, if they're confident of the identity of the driver there are numerous legal and procedural reasons why they might not get nicked at the first opportunity.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

Drago said:


> Strewth, it was easy when there were arrestable offences and Section 25 offences. Now there's Socap, and anything, such as scratching your arse, is arrestable on a Thursday in July, but only if the Inspector had toast for breakfast. Only Labour could simplify something by making it more complicated.
> 
> But Paley is right, if they're confident of the identity of the driver there are numerous legal and procedural reasons why they might not get nicked at the first opportunity.



I'm bound to 'like' this post, but what I like more is the way you put it over.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

How could any collision take place with such world-class facilities?


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Apr 2015)

My blood runs cold... I cycle this way every morning and was in this exact spot 10 mins before the accident. The huge and very sad irony is that this morning there were police standing at various points round here making sure drivers and cyclists were behaving!! Every morning, when I'm on this roundabout, I have to be wary of coaches and lorries pulling out of Horseferry Road, some of them look right at me and still pull out, but because I know they're likely to do this, I'm able to stop in time (touch wood).

This junction where this poor woman died was where I was rear-ended whilst stopped waiting to go on to the roundabout on my way home by a car driver 18 months ago.

I'm really very sick of all this now, I know many cyclists do many stupid things but honestly this was a question of WHEN it will happen and not IF at this junction There are SO many huge trucks going through the area constantly at the moment.

Another irony was that a couple of years ago, TFL underwent consultation for proposals to change this roundabout. The proposals seemed halfway decent (certainly a lot better than the current situation) but they were scrapped and no alternative solutions offered...


----------



## jdtate101 (9 Apr 2015)

Given it's location outside of one of Britain's security services there's bound to be plenty of CCTV around there to ascertain exactly what happened. I thought Boris was going to Ban tippers from rush hour or something like that???


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Apr 2015)

jdtate101 said:


> I thought Boris was going to Ban tippers from rush hour or something like that???



According to Stop Killing Cyclists, quoted in road.cc, :

Stop Killing Cyclists co-founder Donnachadh McCarthy called for the resignation of Martin Low, City Commissioner of Transportation at Westminster City Council, the borough in which the junction is located.​
McCarthy said: "[Transport for London] proposed some very modest and not even adequate safety improvements to this awful roundabout junction in October 2012.​
"Westminster City Council opposed even these safety improvements."​
Following consultation on the proposed changes, Transport for London said: "Having considered responses to consultation, and following concerns voiced by Westminster City Council, we have decided not to proceed with these planned initial improvements at Lambeth Bridge northern roundabout."​
McCarthy said: "What is actually needed is the total abolition of the roundabout, replacement with a traditional traffic light junction and the installation of protected left hand turns on each corner to ensure safety of pedestrians and cyclists.​


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (10 Apr 2015)

As requested by @glasgowcyclist 

The name of the dead cyclist has now been released as London arts visionary Moira Gemmill.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ile-cycling-near-lambeth-bridge-10167161.html


----------



## Shaun (11 Apr 2015)

I have left the original reports / condolences thread in the Cyclist Down forum and moved the side "tipper" discussion here as it is a more appropriate place for it.

As always though, please remember that someone has died and as a public Internet forum we need to be respectful and considerate of family, friends or colleagues who may read it or be directed towards it (now or in the future); we also need to do the same with regards to each other's posts and opinions.

I have instructed the moderator team to thread-ban anyone who wilfully ignores this request!

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Arrowfoot (11 Apr 2015)

From the report it appears to be a known hot spot and there were previous engagements with council with at least one cycling group recommending fixes.


----------



## Racing roadkill (11 Apr 2015)

Davidsw8 said:


> My blood runs cold... I cycle this way every morning and was in this exact spot 10 mins before the accident. The huge and very sad irony is that this morning there were police standing at various points round here making sure drivers and cyclists were behaving!! Every morning, when I'm on this roundabout, I have to be wary of coaches and lorries pulling out of Horseferry Road, some of them look right at me and still pull out, but because I know they're likely to do this, I'm able to stop in time (touch wood).
> 
> This junction where this poor woman died was where I was rear-ended whilst stopped waiting to go on to the roundabout on my way home by a car driver 18 months ago.
> 
> ...





glenn forger said:


> How could any collision take place with such world-class facilities?


it's an offset roundabout with a constricted entry. Just about the worst combination for a tipper truck / cyclist.


----------



## Wobblers (11 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> It's not the tipper trucks or the drivers. They are an odd shaped vehicle, they take odd lines through junctions / corners / roundabouts, because they have to. Cyclists need to learn to stay the hell away from them, don't go near them, give them a wide berth.



No. It's the drivers. They may use "odd lines" but that in no way absolves them from their legal responsibility of ensuring that the path they choose will not endanger other road users. They bring the risk to the roads, it is therefore their responsibility to behave in such a way that the risk to everyone else is minimised. And that should not even be controversial.


----------



## Arrowfoot (11 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> it's an offset roundabout with a constricted entry. Just about the worst combination for a tipper truck / cyclist.



Never ever try a toe to toe with any vehicle on such a roundabout. Best is to immediately drop back. The drivers eyes is on the right waiting for an opening and it can be dicey. 

By now with cyclists coming up in numbers, the design of such roundabouts should accommodate a cycle cut-off at each left corner. I have seen it done before but can't recall where.


----------



## glenn forger (11 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> it's an offset roundabout with a constricted entry. Just about the worst combination for a tipper truck / cyclist.



I agree, that's a meat grinder, plus setting off and circling the rb is a slight downhill, so you could be neck and neck with a lorry that came up behind you and then the lorry uses the rb to change lanes. 

Eighty five per cent of the motor traffic crossing London's bridges break the speed limit.


----------



## simonsch (12 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> That would be http://www.jsmgroup.com/contact-us/, guessing by the logo on the truck



I emailed JSM group the other day (via the contact details on their website), asking whether they were going to hand their Safety award back. Strangely, no reply.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Apr 2015)

I once got shouted at by a driver of a large lorry on Richmond Bridge. I didn't understand what he was talking about, accused me of crossing in front of him. 

I worked it out when I got home: we were both turning right across the bridge here, and he attempted to overtake me as we went onto the two lane bridge that was solid with traffic. Apparently he nearly killed me. He would have accused (dead) me of cycling dangerously - I indicated - and some a*sehole on here would have said "another female cyclist..."


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 Apr 2015)

Not moving way or dropping back from something that is too big and dangerous even if you have right of way is not an intelligent move. Putting words into someone's mouth is also disingenuous and dishonest. Using profanities in any serious argument shows lack of substance and upbringing. 



jefmcg said:


> I once got shouted at by a driver of a large lorry on Richmond Bridge. I didn't understand what he was talking about, accused me of crossing in front of him.
> 
> I worked it out when I got home: we were both turning right across the bridge here, and he attempted to overtake me as we went onto the two lane bridge that was solid with traffic. Apparently he nearly killed me. He would have accused (dead) me of cycling dangerously - I indicated - and some a*sehole on here would have said "another female cyclist..."


----------



## snorri (12 Apr 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> It's not the tipper trucks or the drivers. They are an odd shaped vehicle, they take odd lines through junctions / corners / roundabouts, because they have to. .


You appear to be saying the lorry design is incompatible with the road design.
Any vehicle type which cannot navigate the road design in relative safety should be banned until it is redesigned, or the road design is modified to suit the vehicle type, IMO.


----------



## summerdays (12 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Not moving way or dropping back from something that is too big and dangerous even if you have right of way is not an intelligent move. Putting words into someone's mouth is also disingenuous and dishonest. Using profanities in any serious argument shows lack of substance and upbringing.


You can't drop back from something behind you. If you've been in that situation believe me you shout .... And no you don't think shall I ask him politely to stay back!


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 Apr 2015)

summerdays said:


> You can't drop back from something behind you. If you've been in that situation believe me you shout .... And no you don't think shall I ask him politely to stay back!



Agree on the shouting but sometimes its not going to work. I mentioned this before in another thread. I have had to get out of my bike and raise it to the kerb when I realised this beast came in from behind and was just too close at a junction while waiting for the lights to change. Looked uncool but my safety was more important. Sometimes I take the primary to avoid being hit by their sides . 

Frankly all HGVs should be banned from high traffic areas during peak period and all HGV drivers must undergo 6 hours of mandatory cycle awareness training before entering high traffic area. While we pressurise the folks in authority to do something, best to avoid such situation if we can.


----------



## Racing roadkill (12 Apr 2015)

snorri said:


> You appear to be saying the lorry design is incompatible with the road design.
> Any vehicle type which cannot navigate the road design in relative safety should be banned until it is redesigned, or the road design is modified to suit the vehicle type, IMO.


Correct. I concur one hundred percent.


----------



## summerdays (12 Apr 2015)

jefmcg said:


> I once got shouted at by a driver of a large lorry on Richmond Bridge. I didn't understand what he was talking about, accused me of crossing in front of him.
> 
> I worked it out when I got home: we were both turning right across the bridge here, and he attempted to overtake me as we went onto the two lane bridge that was solid with traffic. Apparently he nearly killed me. He would have accused (dead) me of cycling dangerously - I indicated - and some a*sehole on here would have said "another female cyclist..."





Arrowfoot said:


> Agree on the shouting but sometimes its not going to work. I mentioned this before in another thread. I have had to get out of my bike and raise it to the kerb when I realised this beast came in from behind and was just too close at a junction while waiting for the lights to change. Looked uncool but my safety was more important. Sometimes I take the primary to avoid being hit by their sides .
> 
> Frankly all HGVs should be banned from high traffic areas during peak period and all HGV drivers must undergo 6 hours of mandatory cycle awareness training before entering high traffic area. While we pressurise the folks in authority to do something, best to avoid such situation if we can.


I was thinking about your reply to @jefmcg where it doesn't sound as if she was waiting at the lights. And as she was turning right she would be a reasonable way from the pavement.


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 Apr 2015)

summerdays said:


> I was thinking about your reply to @jefmcg where it doesn't sound as if she was waiting at the lights. And as she was turning right she would be a reasonable way from the pavement.



The point I was making is if you see a HGV too close whether moving or not, best is to move away or fall back even if you have right of way. Very similar to pacing. Sorry if I was not clear or misinterpreted what Jeff said. 

ps. I hope the Lambeth Tipper case finally forces a ban for these types of vehicles during peak period. Her stature would be immensely helpful.


----------



## subaqua (12 Apr 2015)

coupe of issues with banning 

1 ) Define morning peak - 07.00 to 09.30 ? 06.00 to 10.00 defining evening peak gets harder
2) what about those of us who by neccesity of your ban will have to ride in early or late. do we not matter as much as the peak hour riders ?
3) you want to put a defined amount of work into a shorter timespace - whats that going to do for pressures on delivering , and i don't mean tippers .

although i await the " Paris does it" comments . 
here is a better suggestion

Properly prosecute offenders and make the punishments harsh to drivers and companies so they don't drive like tw@ts . because they will be prevented from earning.


----------



## summerdays (12 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> The point I was making is if you see a HGV too close whether moving or not, best is to move away or fall back even if you have right of way. Very similar to pacing. Sorry if I was not clear or misinterpreted what Jeff said.
> 
> ps. I hope the Lambeth Tipper case finally forces a ban for these types of vehicles during peak period. Her stature would be immensely helpful.


You make it sound calm and easy, in a real situation it happens fairly fast.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Apr 2015)

summerdays said:


> You make it sound calm and easy, in a real situation it happens fairly fast.



Its never easy. More a miss and a go at times. But in my mind I know if I have the opportunity to pull back or pull away I will. Sometimes you get stuck and you go for it. 

I have seen others still attempt when they have the opportunity to pull back and I suspect sometimes it is the feeling that they have right of way which by law they do. I have also seen others who ease behind such vehicles and take primary. I not sure if you are aware but many buses, lorries and even vans actually have a sticker on the left rear asking cyclist not to go to their left inside.


----------



## summerdays (13 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Its never easy. More a miss and a go at times. But in my mind I know if I have the opportunity to pull back or pull away I will. Sometimes you get stuck and you go for it.
> 
> I have seen others still attempt when they have the opportunity to pull back and I suspect sometimes it is the feeling that they have right of way which by law they do. I have also seen others who ease behind such vehicles and take primary. I not sure if you are aware but many buses, lorries and even vans actually have a sticker on the left rear asking cyclist not to go to their left inside.


Err... Let's think, I cycle, I post on this forum, I think I might just have seen those stickers hundreds of times so I don't actually notice them even if stuck behind them.

I assume you raised the point because some cyclists go down the left hand side of large vehicles. Yes that may contribute to some fatalities, but the fact is that many more do not and are put into a dangerous position by the lorry manoeuvres not by theirs.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Apr 2015)

summerdays said:


> Err... Let's think, I cycle, I post on this forum, I think I might just have seen those stickers hundreds of times so I don't actually notice them even if stuck behind them.
> 
> I assume you raised the point because some cyclists go down the left hand side of large vehicles. Yes that may contribute to some fatalities, but the fact is that many more do not and are put into a dangerous position by the lorry manoeuvres not by theirs.



The poor conduct and dangerous manoeuvres by lorry drivers are a given. The intention is to minimise one's risk even if one has right of way. I see the poor conduct of lorry drivers escalating and thus the fatalities.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (13 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> The poor conduct and dangerous manoeuvres by lorry drivers are a given. The intention is to minimise one's risk even if one has right of way. I see the poor conduct of lorry drivers escalating and thus the fatalities.


It might be worthwhile thinking about why and how the conduct of lorry drivers is deteriorating. Work conditions, time pressure, traffic delays, road (and cycling infrastructure) design, accountability, safety checking and inadequate driver training might be a starting list. There are no doubt other factors.

While no one is suggesting that cyclists should ride recklessly, you have to remember that 5 tipper-type lorries have already taken the lives of cyclists in London since the start of the year. And it will continue like this until the causes are removed from the streets.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Apr 2015)

User said:


> That's just it - they shouldn't be. What you're advocating is effectively letting them get away with careless and dangerous behaviour rather than addressing it. That make you part of the problem.



It's victim blaming the same as we see in many other cases, it's the attitude that dangerous driving and vehicles are like an environmental condition we just have to accept and mitigate, and whilst on an individual personal level we as experienced cyclists do this every day it can never be accepted at any level.

I was staying in London recently by Aldgate East, I saw an incredible number of tipper trucks and concrete mixers and the manner in which they were driven, (2 concrete mixers pretty much racing side by side down Commercial Road) was pretty terrifying as a pedestrian let alone a cyclist sharing the road with them


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Apr 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It might be worthwhile thinking about why and how the conduct of lorry drivers is deteriorating. Work conditions, time pressure, traffic delays, road (and cycling infrastructure) design, accountability, safety checking and inadequate driver training might be a starting list. There are no doubt other factors.
> 
> While no one is suggesting that cyclists should ride recklessly, you have to remember that 5 tipper-type lorries have already taken the lives of cyclists in London since the start of the year. And it will continue like this until the causes are removed from the streets.




Agree completely. No arguments there. I have no faith in their industry doing anything as time has shown. While we push for punitive and deterrent measures that forces corrective action we also have to make our cyclists aware that keeping to the rules would not reduce the risk. They must be conscious that they would come out second best in any encounter.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> The poor conduct and dangerous manoeuvres by lorry drivers are a given. The intention is to minimise one's risk even if one has right of way. I see the poor conduct of lorry drivers escalating and thus the fatalities.



You've referred to "right of way" three times. There is no such thing. You seem to be spamming this thread with irrelevant nonsense, patronising advice and platitudes.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Apr 2015)

User said:


> That's just it - they shouldn't be. What you're advocating is effectively letting them get away with careless and dangerous behaviour rather than addressing it. That make you part of the problem.



I am advocating that we do this in parallel. Force the authorities and their industry to correct their behaviour and make it aware to the cycling community that these guys are not playing by the rules.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Apr 2015)

User said:


> That's just it - they shouldn't be. What you're advocating is effectively letting them get away with careless and dangerous behaviour rather than addressing it. That make you part of the problem.



I am advocating that we do this in parallel. Force the authorities and their industry to correct their behaviour and make it aware to the cycling community that these guys are not playing by the rules.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Apr 2015)

jarlrmai said:


> I was staying in London recently by Aldgate East, I saw an incredible number of tipper trucks and concrete mixers and the manner in which they were driven, (2 concrete mixers pretty much racing side by side down Commercial Road) was pretty terrifying as a pedestrian let alone a cyclist sharing the road with them



I think the cops have some questions to answer too, remember they stopped riders using the bus lane because they said, with bitter irony "it's not safe".


----------



## glenn forger (13 Apr 2015)

> It’s believed that Alan Neve had previously used the bus lane. “But only a few days ago police had been ticketing cyclists who went into the bus lane, and many had been taken down into the gyratory,” said Casalotti.



http://road.cc/content/news/88851-transport-chiefs-pledge-fix-holborn-junction-wake-alan-neve-death


----------



## BalkanExpress (13 Apr 2015)

A piece by the ECF on the dangers of lorries v buses. http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-fatalities-much-higher-risk-of-getting-killed-by-a-lorry-than-a-bus-in-london/ 

Notable, for it's use of @redfalo 's statistical breakdown of accidents in London.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Apr 2015)

BalkanExpress said:


> A piece by the ECF on the dangers of lorries v buses. http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-fatalities-much-higher-risk-of-getting-killed-by-a-lorry-than-a-bus-in-london/
> 
> Notable, for it's use of @redfalo 's statistical breakdown of accidents in London.





> As a result of this lack of communication, the incident in July 2013 where a driver killed 2 cyclists, driving and also working as a mechanic for a haulage company, did not trigger any disciplinary action on the haulage company for their gross failure in management. It should have been no surprise as the haulage company was a resurrection of a previous company run by the same family from the same base, which had been closed down and the original director banned from being in charge of any HGV operations - the new licence specifically required that this man had nothing to do with the operations. I note now that the company altered their operating base, applying less than 2 months after the fatal crash (August 2013), and recently was called in again for a disciplinary hearing - but allowed to continue with conditions applied.
> 
> A further example was Denis Putz when the Judge expressed horror that a driver with 20 driving bans and a dreadful record of other convictions still had a Class C licence - on the week of his sentencing another driver for the same company killed a motorist with a similar truck on the M4, also I believe under the influence of drink.



That was a lorry owned by Thames materials, the driver was arrested for being under the influence of drugs but since then..nothing.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I think the cops have some questions to answer too, remember they stopped riders using the bus lane because they said, with bitter irony "it's not safe".



Is there any laws barring cyclists from using bus lanes? I find it ridiculous.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Apr 2015)

There are "bus only" lanes which exclude cyclists.


----------



## Tankengine (13 Apr 2015)

subaqua said:


> 2) what about those of us who by neccesity of your ban will have to ride in early or late. do we not matter as much as the peak hour riders ?



Something that seems to be completely overlooked. I guess on the grounds it's less likely to be congested at those times but not sure a lack of congestion will help prevent collisions caused by crap driving or poor vehicle / road design. 
Interestingly the recent police "safety drive" at key junctions (ok sure) was also never there in the early hours either, even 6-7 am which is already busy in central. But sure, large vehicles and no police presence for those most likely to be riding in the dark....great plan


----------



## redfalo (13 Apr 2015)

BalkanExpress said:


> A piece by the ECF on the dangers of lorries v buses. http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-fatalities-much-higher-risk-of-getting-killed-by-a-lorry-than-a-bus-in-london/
> 
> Notable, for it's use of @redfalo 's statistical breakdown of accidents in London.


interesting, thanks for the pointer!


----------



## Pete Owens (14 Apr 2015)

BalkanExpress said:


> A piece by the ECF on the dangers of lorries v buses. http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-fatalities-much-higher-risk-of-getting-killed-by-a-lorry-than-a-bus-in-london/
> 
> Notable, for it's use of @redfalo 's statistical breakdown of accidents in London.


What is notable is that a high percentage of cyclists killed by trucks seems to be an indicator of an overall good road safety record. Note the countries quoted with higher or similar levels to the UK (compared to an EU average of 22%) This figure is 43 percent in Belgium, 38 percent in the Netherlands, 33 percent in the UK and 33 percent in Denmark. What is probably behind this is that it is relatively easy to make cars non-lethal by cutting speeds in urban areas - tackling trucks is a harder problem.

Within the UK, central London (which is probably one of the safest places to cycle) has a very high proportion of truck fatalities. It is not that trucks are getting more lethal it is that it is that at low speeds cars are unlikely to kill.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Apr 2015)

It's the drivers, and the way the drivers are managed, and that's down to management and a complete lack of concern on the part of the HSE by those designing the works for off-site safety. I can write risk assessments all day long about working at height, and know that people will read them and act on them. If I write to the Contractor and say 'ensure that those delivering to the site are FORS registered there's blank incomprehension.


----------



## Arrowfoot (14 Apr 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> It's the drivers, and the way the drivers are managed, and that's down to management and a complete lack of concern on the part of the HSE by those designing the works for off-site safety. I can write risk assessments all day long about working at height, and know that people will read them and act on them. If I write to the Contractor and say 'ensure that those delivering to the site are FORS registered there's blank incomprehension.



Thats stating the obvious. Its not a revelation. No will argue where the liability sits overwhelmingly.


----------



## Drago (14 Apr 2015)

Strangely enough, it is sad but true that some cyclists get into trouble as a consequence of their own actions.


----------



## totallyfixed (14 Apr 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> What is notable is that a high percentage of cyclists killed by trucks seems to be an indicator of an overall good road safety record. Note the countries quoted with higher or similar levels to the UK (compared to an EU average of 22%) This figure is 43 percent in Belgium, 38 percent in the Netherlands, 33 percent in the UK and 33 percent in Denmark. What is probably behind this is that it is relatively easy to make cars non-lethal by cutting speeds in urban areas - tackling trucks is a harder problem.
> 
> Within the UK, central London (which is probably one of the safest places to cycle) has a very high proportion of truck fatalities. It is not that trucks are getting more lethal it is that it is that at low speeds cars are unlikely to kill.


I have no idea where you have got these figures from, but I am reasonably sure they do not take into account the number of miles cycled, for instance in the Netherlands compared to the UK when these figures are taken into account the UK suddenly begins to look like a third world country. Irrespective of this, what everyone seems to be missing is the response of the government to these completely unnecessary cycling fatalities. Please take a look at this from the Netherlands, about a third of the way down titled:
*Cycling fatalities in blind spot crashes* 
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf
We all share the roads, yet some folk appear to grow horns when they get behind a wheel, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to solve this problem by just for once taking a long hard look at how our neighbours in Europe are dealing with this situation.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Apr 2015)

Even the roads minister made that mistake, the old roads minister I should say. He claimed that London was safer than Amsterdam cos we had fewer accidents! Statistical innumeracy.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Not moving way or dropping back from something that is too big and dangerous even if you have right of way is not an intelligent move. Putting words into someone's mouth is also disingenuous and dishonest. Using profanities in any serious argument shows lack of substance and upbringing.


finally thought I'd get back to this.

The google maps link is my POV during this "incident". I was heading up Hill St, before turning right on to Richmond Bridge. I would have indicated right approaching the roundabout, but then had both hands on my handlebars. This is a busy intersection, with cars commonly coming off the bridge turning right cutting across the mini roundabout to beat a cyclist, and of course the cars opposite may not be aware you are turning so you have to keep an eye on them too. There is also a lot of pedestrians and there are not good facilities for them, so you have to watch out for them stepping out too.

The truck was completely behind me. With all that happening in front of me, I was not thinking about him at all. There is always something behind you on that roundabout. 

Apparently, he decided that I had eyes in the back of my head, and tried to overtake me on the roundabout and expected me to keep out of his way. There only way that would be possible would be for him to drive over the painted roundabout. But this was all behind me as I concentrated on what was in front of me. 

When he started shouting at me about nearly running me down a few metres down the road, I had literally no idea what he was talking about. I had assumed he had some interaction with a cyclist a while back and somehow thought it was me. Because on the short journey I had just begun, there was no place for such an incident to occur. When I got home, I worked out that he must be talking about.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Apr 2015)

Found it


Penning stepped in to quote from a supposed table showing the UK well above the Netherlands in European bike safety rates. He added, not without some smugness: "I think the Netherlands may want to come and see us, to see how we are making sure so few people are getting killed cycling."

Baffled – it's more or less universally known that cycling in the Netherlands is considerably safer than here – I called the DfT press office. The response was amazing. Baker and Penning were quoting casualty rates per 100,000 people. That's right, a statistic which takes no account of the fact that the average Dutch national cycles around 10 times further per year than the average Briton.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/25/cycling-governed-dimwits

Mike Penning. Idiot.


----------



## totallyfixed (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> What strikes me about that report is the way that 'blind spot' incidents are described: "Blind spot crashes happen when a truck turns off and fails to notice or is unable to see the cyclist who is positioned immediately beside or in front of the truck." So different from the often victim-blaming approach taken in the UK.


Indeed, speaking as someone who lived in Germany for over 10 years and has cycled extensively in the Netherlands [we have many friends who live there], the attitude to a cycling fatality is dramatically different. A driver is automatically at fault unless it can be proven that the cyclist was acting unlawfully, even then the driver is still liable for 50% damages.
More importantly, and I have said this many times before, everyone in the Netherlands owns / rides a bike so there is automatic empathy between vehicle drivers and cyclists, even where the vehicle has right of way, more often than not the cars would stop and wave us across a junction. This is the real difference.


----------



## Arrowfoot (14 Apr 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> I have no idea where you have got these figures from, but I am reasonably sure they do not take into account the number of miles cycled, for instance in the Netherlands compared to the UK when these figures are taken into account the UK suddenly begins to look like a third world country. Irrespective of this, what everyone seems to be missing is the response of the government to these completely unnecessary cycling fatalities. Please take a look at this from the Netherlands, about a third of the way down titled:
> *Cycling fatalities in blind spot crashes*
> https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf
> We all share the roads, yet some folk appear to grow horns when they get behind a wheel, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to solve this problem by just for once taking a long hard look at how our neighbours in Europe are dealing with this situation.



Thanks, a good and balanced report. I like their long term solution on separating truck and cycling infrastructure.


----------



## Glow worm (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> I keep trying to explain this to the CEGB and Hembrow acoltyes... *facilities aren't the key factor *- attitude is. And presumption of liability is a key factor in changing attitudes (as is being a cyclist as well as a driver).



They are *a* factor. A small example - If it weren't for the cycle path linking my village to Cambridge, I'd definately drive to work there, as would plenty of others I know hereabouts. I'm not suggesting they are the answer to everything, but they have their place in the mix (as long as they're good of course). I Agree on presumed liability- can't happen soon enough.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Even the roads minister made that mistake, the old roads minister I should say. He claimed that London was safer than Amsterdam cos we had fewer accidents! Statistical innumeracy.



In the same way that Lichtenstein is safer than Australia for shark attacks.


----------



## subaqua (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> I agree - they are a factor - but a minor one. If people felt safe cycling on the roads, because of a changed attitude amongst drivers, then most facilities would be irrelevant.


and the utter chaos caused by building them .

CS2 between Aldgate and Bow is now a very horrible place to ride, sadly I have to ride that as the project I am currently visiting is bang on that bit no way round it .

mainly due to the crap construction of a crap facility that will no doubt be as badly built as the bow- stratford section and less likely to be cleared of debris/snow/ice .


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

I completely disagree with the assertion that Dutch drivers are better behaved round cyclists regardless of the road design and infrastructure.


> All the familiar problems that people cycling in Britain encounter – close passes, squeezing through at pinch points, left hooks, and so on – would undoubtedly occur in the Netherlands too, on a large scale, if their roads were not designed to eliminate those kinds of problems from occurring in the first place


 from http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/dutch-attitudes/ which I agree with.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> You might disagree, but as someone who cycles extensively on Dutch and Belgian roads (one of the benefits of being in the area covered by the Dutch Flyer scheme) I notice a very different attitude from Dutch drivers. I note that the blog you link to is that of a CEGB acolyte - so hardly surprising the the author is bigging up the role of facilities and trying to diminish the role of attitude and presumed liability.
> 
> Are you Hush Legs then?



Yes. Personally, and no offence, but you're talking nonsense.

If cycling doesn't feel safe then mass cycling will never take off.
I'd say that good quality infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
Presumed liability is a good idea, but humans will still make mistakes, and we need to, as far as possible, remove the opportunity for the mistakes of drivers to result in injury to others. That means segregation.


----------



## summerdays (14 Apr 2015)

benb said:


> Yes. Personally, and no offence, but you're talking nonsense.
> 
> If cycling doesn't feel safe then mass cycling will never take off.
> I'd say that good quality infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.
> Presumed liability is a good idea, but humans will still make mistakes, and we need to, as far as possible, remove the opportunity for the mistakes of drivers to result in injury to others. That means segregation.


I think we need some segregation especially near schools. Also good paths that can avoid problem areas whether they be hills or major junctions or roads. We don't need segregation everywhere if we had a change in driver attitude.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

Also, read this: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/w...ity-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice
Particularly 


> Strict liability only came into force in The Netherlands in 1992, years after the majority of the current cycle infrastructure was put into place and after the resurgence in cycling had already been firmly established
> 
> The Netherlands and Denmark are not the only jurisdictions to have strict liability. Many European countries have the same law, but do not have the same safe cycling conditions or high cycling rates that are said to result. Even Ontario, Canada, has a law equivalent to strict liability; it has had no obvious effect on the high road danger or low cycling rates in the province


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Once again, we do not have the space for a complete segregated network. Token segregation only increases the degree to which drivers believe we shouldn't be on their roads.



So you're quite happy for the majority of potential cyclists to be effectively banned from the roads due to its hostility, whilst you continue with your "vehicular cycling" utopia?


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Apr 2015)

benb said:


> I'd say that good quality infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling.



To which I would add: "Mass cycling will never take off until we have good quality infrastructure."

Thus we are stuck in a situation popularly known as Catch 22.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

@User I don't think your comment "Nice of Hush Legs to quote my post elsewhere. If s/he thinks it’s nonsense, perhaps they’d have the good manners to debate it openly rather than leaving snide posts on this blog?" was very constructive, do you?


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> But they're not banned from the roads, are they? It's those who are demanding segregation who are whipping up hysteria about the dangers of cycling (in order to justify the expense of providing the infrastructure) and making people feel as though they can't cycle on the roads.



Haha, really? Yes, they are effectively banned from the roads, because most people find it unpleasant, intimidating, and hostile.
Unless roads are safe enough for anyone to use, from 8-98, they are not fit for purpose. Would you let a child cycle on a busy A road? On many UK roads at all?


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Really? How come the huge increase in cycling in places like London and Cambridge occurred despite a lack of infrastructure?



An increase in cycling is not the same as mass cycling.



> I'm afraid that this quote shows the complete capitulation stance of the segregationist agenda.



I don't have any agenda, except wanting cycling to be a viable choice for those who want to do it, but currently feel unable due to the hostile road environment.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> What 'not constructive' about it?
> 
> Why did you feel that posting " And yet you still get anti-infrastructure people spouting nonsense like this: "If people felt safe cycling on the roads, because of a changed attitude amongst drivers, then most facilities would be irrelevant." and adding a link to this thread was constructive or appropriate? Were you hoping some of your segregationist buddies would hop on over here and have a go?



Not at all. You said I had posted a snide comment without debating it here, which was flat wrong, as I did comment here immediately after posting.

I don't understand why you need to be quite so unpleasant about it, that's all.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> No they're not... but your post is a perfect example of the "whipping up hysteria about the dangers of cycling" that I refer to above.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd let a child cycle on a bust A road - lots of them do around here. There are very few UK roads where I;d suggest they don't cycle.



Then you're the one who is capitulating - giving up on ever having cycling at Dutch levels.


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Don't talk bollocks.





User said:


> Why was it necessary to quote part of my post over there at all and refer to it as 'nonsense'?
> 
> I wasn't the one being unpleasant.





User said:


> Don't talk bollocks.



You couldn't make it up.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Don't talk bollocks.



Goodbye.


----------



## benb (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Are you saying we do have the room, or that token segregation is not damaging?



We do have the room.
I'm not sure what you mean by "token segregation". I think some roads would need full segregation, others only at junctions. Also make side roads closed to through traffic "filtered permeability" 

That's what they do in NL - not every road has a protected cycle lane.


----------



## Drago (14 Apr 2015)

Give it up Ben. You can't train dumb.


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Apr 2015)

The Dutch towns and cities are little different to ours in terms of layout.

The difference is they still have a big culture of utility cycling, so the cyclist has some of the political clout the motorist has over here.

One example, two lane residential street, cars parked either side, just enough room for two cars to pass in opposite directions.

We have many similar streets over here.

In Holland, a nice, wide cycle lane is established by the simple and cheap expedient of making the street one way for cars.

Won't happen here because the motorist rules.


----------



## Drago (14 Apr 2015)

Wouldn't be dumb if they could be trained. Duh.


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Apr 2015)

I've no idea what 'north laine' is, and Cambridge is supposed to be a cycling town.

No such roads in the north that I've come across.

Whatever, Holland's cycling infrastructure has been installed without the need for widespread demolition.

The 'lack of space' argument doesn't hold up over here.

It could be done as the Dutch have done, but there is no political will to do it.

That's hardly surprising given the tiny, tiny, number of cyclists in this country, apart from a couple of hot spots - and even those are not as hot as they are in Holland.


----------



## subaqua (14 Apr 2015)

benb said:


> Haha, really? Yes, they are effectively banned from the roads, because most people find it unpleasant, intimidating, and hostile.
> Unless roads are safe enough for anyone to use, from 8-98, they are not fit for purpose. *Would you let a child cycle on a busy A road?* On many UK roads at all?



Yes - my 2 do with me fairly often. I won't let them out on their own too far not because the roads are dangerous but because of other reasons


----------



## Arrowfoot (14 Apr 2015)

jefmcg said:


> finally thought I'd get back to this.
> 
> The google maps link is my POV during this "incident". I was heading up Hill St, before turning right on to Richmond Bridge. I would have indicated right approaching the roundabout, but then had both hands on my handlebars. This is a busy intersection, with cars commonly coming off the bridge turning right cutting across the mini roundabout to beat a cyclist, and of course the cars opposite may not be aware you are turning so you have to keep an eye on them too. There is also a lot of pedestrians and there are not good facilities for them, so you have to watch out for them stepping out too.
> 
> ...



Thanks Jef, got you now. The fact that he was behind and it was such a narrow street with a roundabout and what he did was absolutely unacceptable. Looks like you are riding primary and thats the way it should be on these streets. Better to be in front and bold. I dread when I see fellow cyclists riding close to the gutter along such places.


----------



## Dan B (14 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Once again, we do not have the space for a complete segregated network. Token segregation only increases the degree to which drivers believe we shouldn't be on their roads.


Sure we do, we have roads. All we need do is segregate dangerous drivers/drivers of dangerous vehicles from them. Start with anything that has "cyclists stay back" and "pedestrians do not approach this vehicle" stickers, because clearly even their operators agree they're not suitable for use in public places


----------



## subaqua (14 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Sure we do, we have roads. All we need do is segregate dangerous drivers/drivers of dangerous vehicles from them. Start with anything that has "cyclists stay back" and "pedestrians do not approach this vehicle" stickers, because clearly even their operators agree they're not suitable for use in public places


no, they have the stickers as some tossblob in city hall decided they should have them . to meet some farkin obblox scheme called FORS . which means shoot . just like CLOCS. 

buses , FFS buses who have sides that go to the floor. 

at the risk of repeating myself. it isn't the vehicle its the cocking driver. and not all drivers are cockwombles . i manage to not hit cyclists when driving a 7.5 tonner , even before i got back on the bike and my awareness went off the scale


----------



## Pete Owens (15 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Sure we do, we have roads. All we need do is segregate dangerous drivers/drivers of dangerous vehicles from them. Start with anything that has "cyclists stay back" and "pedestrians do not approach this vehicle" stickers, because clearly even their operators agree they're not suitable for use in public places



Stay back stickers are merely sensible advice. They are there because some idiots on bikes do pull stupid stunts such as attempting to squeeze themselves through the space a truck driver needs to make a turn. Some are even so unaware of their stupidity that they post videos of themselves getting knocked off after racing through the blind spot to the left of a truck heading twoards a narrowing lane and expect our sympathy when the inevitable happens.

I'm sure all the 2-wheels-good-4-wheels-bad brigade who moan about these stickers would be the first to condemn any motorist that overtook them while they were stopped waiting to turn right or tried to squeeze past leaving an inadequate space or if they had pulled out to make a tight left hand turn only to find a stream of motorcycles flying past on the left - yet will take the side of cyclists who attempt the very same manouevres. Really they are just the mirror image of petrolheads who dismiss all cyclists as scofflaw lycra louts.

Now at this point I'm sure the tribalists will accuse me of treachery to their cause. In their simplistic black-and-white world view all cyclists are perfectly behaved angels and all motorists evil physochpaths trying to kill us, thus every single collision involving a cycle and motor vehicle must therefore be the fault of the driver. The only other PoV in this world view is to take the motorists side in every single case. 

Just to make sure this is absolutely clear to such people, I need to state the following unambigously:
1. I do think it is the case that cyclists in general tend to be more careful and that drivers are very much more likely to be at fault in any collision.
2. I do believe that drivers have a much greater duty of care due to their greater capacity to do harm.
3. For these reasons I do support changing the law for presumed liability.
4. I do belive that the design of trucks needs to change to give drivers much better direct vision of their imedieate surroundings.
5. I do think that technology - cyclist detection systems - side guards should be regulated for.

However, this does not mean that there is nothing we can do to help ourselves - and educating cyclists to avoid putting themselves in dangerous positions is a good thing. If you are serious about safety (rather than simply playing a blame game) you have to start with the fact that we as a species are equipped with forwards pointing eyes and will be very much more aware of what is going on in front of us than what is coming from behind - this is just as true for us on bikes as it is for those in cars or in trucks - however many mirrors they may be equipped with.


----------



## Pete Owens (15 Apr 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> I have no idea where you have got these figures from,


The figures were quoted from the ECF report which was under discussion and was linked to in the quoted post I was replying to. Here is the link again:
http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-fat...tting-killed-by-a-lorry-than-a-bus-in-london/


> but I am reasonably sure they do not take into account the number of miles cycled,


They are *percentages *- ie what *proportion *of all cycle deaths are caused by trucks in each country. This is relevent because the fear-mongers have tended to highlight the high percentage of truck deaths in London an indication of how dangerous the roads are in general for cyclists even though the absolute numbers are low. The point I am making is that a high *proportion *of truck deaths is more an indicator an overall good safety record as deaths from other vehicles are fairy easy to avoid. This is bourne out by the figures highlighted in the report which show high proportions of truck deaths in notably safe countries such as NL, Denmark and the UK - and *within the UK *it is not surprising that central London, which is probably one of the safest places to cycle, has a particularly high *proportion *of truck deaths. 


> for instance in the Netherlands compared to the UK when these figures are taken into account the UK suddenly begins to look like a third world country.


A bit extreme - The NL is better than the UK (and has an even higher proportion of truck deaths at 38%) but not as good as the nordic countries - but all have very good safety records compared to the rest of Europe or North America and certainly the 3rd world.


> Irrespective of this, what everyone seems to be missing is the response of the government to these completely unnecessary cycling fatalities.


I think you will find there is huge concensus here that the UK government's response is appaling - particularly opposing EU regulations aimed at improving cab design.


> Please take a look at this from the Netherlands, about a third of the way down titled:
> *Cycling fatalities in blind spot crashes*
> https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf
> We all share the roads, yet some folk appear to grow horns when they get behind a wheel, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to solve this problem by just for once taking a long hard look at how our neighbours in Europe are dealing with this situation.


Perhaps you should try reading it.
Their analasys of the causes is spot on (though I would take slight issue with the 2nd - I want drivers to be principally concerned with where they are going rather than constantly checking 15 mirrors):
_Three causes In 2008, SWOV made an extensive study into the causes of blind spot crashes and possible solutions. 
Three main causes were identified: 
• The visual field is still insufficient, especially for high trucks that were manufactured before 2007 and do not have front view system. 
• Truck drivers do not make the best possible use of the different mirrors or these mirrors are not adjusted correctly. 
• Cyclists insufficiently take account of the fact that trucks have a limited visual field._​Note that the 3rd of these relates to cyclist behaviour - and the measure is to educate cyclists on road positionning.


----------



## slowmotion (15 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Why do you think that might be? Could it have been something to do with the large scale reconstruction that took place in the Netherland post-WWII perchance?
> 
> You'll also find that in those areas where older architecture prevails, there are few if any segregated facilities - cyclists share the roads with motor vehicles.


 I seem to have been cycling in a different Holland to yours.


----------



## Dan B (15 Apr 2015)

subaqua said:


> at the risk of repeating myself. it isn't the vehicle its the cocking driver. and not all drivers are cockwombles . i manage to not hit cyclists when driving a 7.5 tonner , even before i got back on the bike and my awareness went off the scale


"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". NRA slogan omits to point out that people kill more people more easily when given access to guns than when they only have wooden cudgels and small round stones.


----------



## Dan B (15 Apr 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Their analasys of the causes is spot on (though I would take slight issue with the 2nd - I want drivers to be principally concerned with where they are going rather than constantly checking 15 mirrors):
> _Three causes In 2008, SWOV made an extensive study into the causes of blind spot crashes and possible solutions.
> Three main causes were identified:
> • The visual field is still insufficient, especially for high trucks that were manufactured before 2007 and do not have front view system.
> ...


I don't see the conflict. A truck driver who is principally concerned with where their vehicle is going, wheh they are going around a corner, would be well advised to make good use of their mirrors, because parts of their truck are going into places that are only visible in their mirrors.


----------



## Arrowfoot (15 Apr 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Stay back stickers are merely sensible advice. They are there because some idiots on bikes do pull stupid stunts such as attempting to squeeze themselves through the space a truck driver needs to make a turn. Some are even so unaware of their stupidity that they post videos of themselves getting knocked off after racing through the blind spot to the left of a truck heading twoards a narrowing lane and expect our sympathy when the inevitable happens.
> 
> I'm sure all the 2-wheels-good-4-wheels-bad brigade who moan about these stickers would be the first to condemn any motorist that overtook them while they were stopped waiting to turn right or tried to squeeze past leaving an inadequate space or if they had pulled out to make a tight left hand turn only to find a stream of motorcycles flying past on the left - yet will take the side of cyclists who attempt the very same manouevres. Really they are just the mirror image of petrolheads who dismiss all cyclists as scofflaw lycra louts.
> 
> ...



Thanks. You have put it across very well. 

I am also mindful that as we talk about these issues in a very focused way, the neglect from the authorities over the last 3 years has been short of appalling. The least they can do is learn from their continental neighbours in many respects. 

In the meantime, educating our cyclist to be more spatially away of the dangers is an important plank. One example is that some cyclists not being aware that taking primary is an exercise in risk reduction. Being in front and not on the side of a tight situation is another.


----------



## summerdays (15 Apr 2015)

I saw this on twitter today:





Which looks a good step forward in lorry design. Though one of the people responding to it seems to be holding cyclists mainly responsible for accidents.


----------



## glenn forger (15 Apr 2015)

Stay back stickers are used as alibis by homicidally reckless drivers like the HGV driver who rear ended a rider, jumped out of the cab and shouted "I've got stickers!"

Those who blindly endorse these stupid stickers plainly don't understand the issue, people are putting "cyclists stay back!" Stickers on the front of their car, on the windscreen. It's a joke. If you support these daft stickers then you must also support cyclists who ride with a sign saying "stop being drunk drivers" equally facile, equally useless. Sooner or later we'll see a drunk lorry driver kill someone then protest "but I have stickers!"


----------



## glenn forger (15 Apr 2015)

The CTC has been told of a case in which a cyclist cut up by a left-turning lorry phoned the driver's company to complain, to be told: "Didn't you see the lorry's 'stay back' sticker?" It also noted with worry an inquest where lawyers for a driver pointed out a vehicle's sticker intimating the dead cyclist might have been at fault.


----------



## spen666 (15 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The CTC has been told of a case in which a cyclist cut up by a left-turning lorry phoned the driver's company to complain, to be told: "Didn't you see the lorry's 'stay back' sticker?" It also noted with worry an inquest where lawyers for a driver pointed out a vehicle's sticker intimating the dead cyclist might have been at fault.


 

I'm not sure I have any worries about the lawyers at the inquest.

A cyclist ( even a dead one) is not automatically blameless in an accident. The purpose of an inquest is to determine the issues.


----------



## glenn forger (15 Apr 2015)

Found it, but the video has been made private

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclists-stay-back-stickers-tfl.157721/post-3114556


----------



## Arrowfoot (15 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The CTC has been told of a case in which a cyclist cut up by a left-turning lorry phoned the driver's company to complain, to be told: "Didn't you see the lorry's 'stay back' sticker?" It also noted with worry an inquest where lawyers for a driver pointed out a vehicle's sticker intimating the dead cyclist might have been at fault.


Safety stickers are not going to absolve any errant driver if he fails to exercise proper lookout or have control. By your logic, putting a sticker means that driver does not even have to install mirrors or check his side. 

Lawyers to earn their keep will find the most ridiculous excuses. 

Try running a campaign to remove this safety stickers on the basis that it provides errant drivers a get out of jail card. You will be laughted at to no end. In fact a good prosecutor will argue that danger is known and thus the sticker has been placed, yet the driver did not take appropriate measures to reduce the danger. 

I am sure that you know that safety stickers and warnings in any situation even outside of cycling such at a school playground carries no weight if negligence, erroneous conduct or faulty equipment are concerned.


----------



## glenn forger (15 Apr 2015)

So, we know that idiot drivers use these stupid things as an excuse, we know that lawyers have argued that they mitigate culpability and we know that they offer an excuse for terrible drivers. These idiot drivers know exactly what they're doing, that's why the stickers are proliferating more than any other vehicle adornment. If you think it's to keep cyclists safe you are staggeringly naive.


----------



## benb (15 Apr 2015)

User said:


> That's what is already being argued in the courts by lawyers and insurers.



Also, whilst they were originally created to warn cyclists about HGV blind spots, they are frequently appearing on smaller vehicles that do not have such blind spots. They are offensive victim-blaming BS. The more recent wording something like "Avoid passing this vehicle on the left" are much better, but I'd still question their effectiveness and necessity.

I saw a normal size van that not only had a "Cyclists stay back" sticker at the rear, but a "Pedestrians, do not walk close to this vehicle at any time" on the side. Madness.


----------



## classic33 (15 Apr 2015)

Something like this? Realise its a double poster, but its a template.


----------



## totallyfixed (15 Apr 2015)

Don't get me started on the cars that have "baby on board" or "little princess on board", presumably if anyone is in a collision with one of these the punishment will be worse. Sorry, I digress, just had to get that one out.


----------



## mjr (15 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Why do you think that might be? Could it have been something to do with the large scale reconstruction that took place in the Netherland post-WWII perchance?


Nah, else we'd see similar provision in post-WWII reconstruction areas of England and we don't. This isn't about space - loads of space in Holland, Fenland and West Norfolk, for example - but about political will and designer skill. So we usually get roads rebuilt to add more carriageway lanes optimised for motor vehicles, rather than more footway or cycleway space.



> You'll also find that in those areas where older architecture prevails, there are few if any segregated facilities - cyclists share the roads with motor vehicles.


Maybe not segregated, but still other types of facilities like low speed limits, filtered permeability and directing most motor vehicles away from cycle routes.



benb said:


> The more recent wording something like "Avoid passing this vehicle on the left" are much better, but I'd still question their effectiveness and necessity.


Not much better - they're still offensive junk, contradicting the Highway Code and encouragement from highways designers who put cycle lanes on the left of carriageway lanes.


----------



## oldstrath (16 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> I'm not sure I have any worries about the lawyers at the inquest.
> 
> A cyclist ( even a dead one) is not automatically blameless in an accident. The purpose of an inquest is to determine the issues.


Until the driver is automatically blamed there will be no real incentive for improvements, because weaseling appears to work almost all the time.


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Apr 2015)

Speaking re inner city London:

HGVs only 23:00-05:00 and 11-15:00
Bikes only 6-8 and 17-19:00.
Cars at other times.


----------



## PK99 (16 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Whatever, Holland's cycling infrastructure has been installed without the need for widespread *demolition*.
> 
> .




According to this video, because it had already been done to accommodate more cars post ww2


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o


----------



## spen666 (16 Apr 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Until the driver is automatically blamed there will be no real incentive for improvements, because weaseling appears to work almost all the time.


 Have you really thought that through.

Guilt until proven innocent? Sounds like a breach of a fundamental human right.


----------



## mjr (16 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> Have you really thought that through.
> 
> Guilt until proven innocent? Sounds like a breach of a fundamental human right.


So you prefer the people on bikes or foot to be considered guilty until proven innocent, which seems to be what effectively happens now?


----------



## spen666 (16 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> So you prefer the people on bikes or foot to be considered guilty until proven innocent, which seems to be what effectively happens now?


 Erm,

I do not know how you can have any idea what I prefer.


I have merely stated what the legal position is. That is not an endorsement or otherwise of it. It is stating what the legal position is


----------



## mjr (16 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> I do not know how you can have any idea what I prefer.


You see that curly thing with the dot under it, looks like "?" - that means it was a question.

In any dispute between multiple parties, including road collisions, there is going to be some presumption of who is to blame: A, B, X or some mix of them. This is just a question of what it is. If anyone opposes the idea that the blame should rest initially on the largest vehicle's operator, they are effectively supporting the idea that some of the blame rests initially on one of the others.


----------



## spen666 (16 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> You see that curly thing with the dot under it, looks like "?" - that means it was a question.
> 
> In any dispute between multiple parties, including road collisions, there is going to be some presumption of who is to blame: A, B, X or some mix of them. This is just a question of what it is. If anyone opposes the idea that the blame should rest initially on the largest vehicle's operator, they are effectively supporting the idea that some of the blame rests initially on one of the others.


 


You are talking about a completely different issue.

I am talking about guilt which is a criminal term you are talking civil liability which is a completely different issue.


----------



## mjr (16 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> I am talking about guilt which is a criminal term you are talking civil liability which is a completely different issue.


And @oldstrath was talking about blame, not guilt or liability. While they are different issues, they are not _completely_ different and one cannot move from blame to guilt and then complain when others move back to blame.


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Apr 2015)

User said:


> You need to clarify what you mean by only.


Everyone except you.


----------



## oldstrath (17 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> Have you really thought that through.
> 
> Guilt until proven innocent? Sounds like a breach of a fundamental human right.


Rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable? Not sure why that should upset you.


----------



## spen666 (17 Apr 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable? Not sure why that should upset you.


 Rebalancing the law or breaching a fundamental human right?

Innocent until proven guilty is a universally accepted right

Perhaps you should be locked up until you can prove you have not committed any crime. I mean its only rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable


----------



## mjr (17 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> Innocent until proven guilty is a universally accepted right


Firstly, there is no "everyone is innocent" option for a road collision. It happened for some reason. At the moment, in theory, everyone and everything is considered equally guilty; in practice, the dead rarely defend themselves.

Secondly, universal "innocent until proven guilty" was lost when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed, if not before.


spen666 said:


> Perhaps you should be locked up until you can prove you have not committed any crime. I mean its only rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable


Yep, that's exactly what can happen under RIPA: "In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice [to provide the key], that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 - in other words, you have to prove that you don't have the key any more. How do you prove you don't have something? If you show absence of the key in any one place, they'll just suggest you had it stashed somewhere else - you're guilty until proven innocent and what's more, you can't really prove you're innocent.


----------



## benb (17 Apr 2015)

It's not a question of criminal guilt or innocence, but of which party is liable to pay damages.
That's why it's "liability" and not "guilt"


----------



## spen666 (17 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> Firstly, there is no "everyone is innocent" option for a road collision. It happened for some reason. At the moment, in theory, everyone and everything is considered equally guilty; in practice, the dead rarely defend themselves.
> 
> Secondly, universal "innocent until proven guilty" was lost when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed, if not before.
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what can happen under RIPA: "In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice [to provide the key], that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 - in other words, you have to prove that you don't have the key any more. How do you prove you don't have something? If you show absence of the key in any one place, they'll just suggest you had it stashed somewhere else - you're guilty until proven innocent and what's more, you can't really prove you're innocent.





You clearly need to study your law a little bit better. You are misconstruing that act. 

But WTF has RIPA got to do with a motorist and guilt ?


----------



## snorri (17 Apr 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> Don't get me started on the cars that have "baby on board" or "little princess on board", presumably if anyone is in a collision with one of these the punishment will be worse. Sorry, I digress, just had to get that one out.


I don't know why they put them on a board anyway, they could so easily get a splinter in the bum.


----------



## snorri (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3649871, member: 9609"]why would presumed liability make the roads any safer for cycling ? I welcome the idea that cyclist receiving compensation easier and quicker after being knocked off, but is any driver going to think to themselves I better be a little more careful near this cyclist in case my insurance company has to pay out - I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
It appears to help in every other country in Europe except Romania and another three that were strongly influenced by the UK in the not so distant past.


----------



## spen666 (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3649871, member: 9609"]why would presumed liability make the roads any safer for cycling ? I welcome the idea that cyclist receiving compensation easier and quicker after being knocked off, but is any driver going to think to themselves I better be a little more careful near this cyclist in case my insurance company has to pay out - I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
If your insurance company had to pay out, your future premiums would rocket. That is likely to have a sobering effect on your driving

Presumed liability if the details could be sorted out would be (in my opinion) a step forward


----------



## mjr (17 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> You clearly need to study your law a little bit better. You are misconstruing that act.


I await your corrections to Wikipedia and elsewhere.



> But WTF has RIPA got to do with a motorist and guilt ?


It shows the presumption of innocence isn't a universal right, contrary to the earlier claim.

But WTF are you taking about guilt instead of liability again?


----------



## Dan B (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3649933, member: 9609"]you're insurance will rocket even if you can prove it wasn't you're fault.[/QUOTE]
You mean more of the costs of motoring will be imposed on the beneficiaries not the bystanders?


----------



## snorri (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3649920, member: 9609"]in what way does it help? do accident rates go down, and if they do, why?[/QUOTE]
Motor vehicle users take more care in the presence of cyclists and pedestrians, cyclists take more care in the presence of pedestrians. Take a cycle tour in mainland Europe this year and you will see the difference.


----------



## snorri (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3649933, member: 9609"]you're insurance will rocket even if you can prove it wasn't you're fault.[/QUOTE]
No it will not, there will be fewer crashes, fewer and less expensive insurance claims, and a massive increase in motor insurance company profits and lower vehicle insurance premiums.


----------



## Dan B (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3650022, member: 9609"]No, at presant your insurance will go up whether or not you were at fault, (probably more so if you are at fault) but it will still go up. So I just don't see how PL will change attitudes, I just can't see your average tipper driver thinking to himself, 'i must take more care as the companies insurance is more likely to have to pay out'[/QUOTE]
The average private motorist, however, is quite likely to take more care if they know their insurer will start from the position that they are liable - remember Emma Way? No more rationalisation of the "he shouldn't be on the road, I pay road tax" type.

I don't know how the average tipper truck driver thinks. I'd like to hope that the prospect of becoming uninsurable and therefore unemployable might moderate his exuberant driving, but clearly it didn't for Barry Meyer.


----------



## spen666 (17 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> I await your corrections to Wikipedia and elsewhere.
> 
> ....



Ahh yes, wikipedia, that authoritative source of law that is relied upon daily by the Judges at the Supreme Court, down the Bailey etc.
I d recognized sources of legal commentary - you know like the ones the Judges, the courts and the English legal system rely upon.

but hey, never mind


----------



## spen666 (17 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> ...
> 
> But WTF are you taking about guilt instead of liability again?



If you look up on that legal source that is so well respected, wikipedia, I am sure you will find the difference between liability and guilt

You may even find an explanation as to why when answering your post about innocence until proven guilty, I am talking about guilt


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> ...
> 
> No such roads in the north that I've come across.
> 
> ...



In recent years there's been a quite a few contraflow cycle lanes implemented on one way streets in Lancaster, and they're very handy for us cyclists. In recent years they [the council] do seem to have embraced the cycling thing at least so far as securing a few grants is concerned... there's also a plethora of 'pointless' splats of red tarmac mixed in with the decent cycle lanes which i suspect are there to simply 'up' the total length. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than it used to be. Can't really comment on the rest of 'the north' as it's a big place


----------



## jefmcg (17 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> The average private motorist, however, is quite likely to take more care if they know their insurer will start from the position that they are liable - remember Emma Way? No more rationalisation of the "he shouldn't be on the road, I pay road tax" type.


Yes, this is the point. So many drivers think it is our responsibility to keep out of their way, maybe PL would help them think otherwise.


----------



## snorri (17 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3650022, member: 9609"]so the only diff is drivers in other countries are focussed on PL ?[/QUOTE]
I didn't claim it to be a cure all, merely a means of improving the present situation for vulnerable road users.


----------



## mjr (18 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> Ahh yes, wikipedia, that authoritative source of law that is relied upon daily by the Judges at the Supreme Court, down the Bailey etc.
> I d recognized sources of legal commentary - you know like the ones the Judges, the courts and the English legal system rely upon.
> 
> but hey, never mind


RIPA section 53 hasn't yet made an appearance in open court yet (unless you know different?) and do you subscribe to legal journals?

Anyway, guilt and presumed innocence aren't relevant because most here are talking about presumed LIABILITY.


----------



## Pete Owens (20 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3649871, member: 9609"]why would presumed liability make the roads any safer for cycling ? I welcome the idea that cyclist receiving compensation easier and quicker after being knocked off, but is any driver going to think to themselves I better be a little more careful near this cyclist in case my insurance company has to pay out - I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
It is subtle - but what you are doing is establishing on a legal basis a drivers duty of care to vulnerable road users - which if and when it is established as the norm will gradually translate into an attitude change among the popluation. This isn't at all radical - it would just make the operators of motor vehicles responsible for the safety of their operation in the same whay as the operator of any other piece of potentiually dangerous machinery. 

It is better to think of pedestrians crossing the road rather than cyclists to add clarity. With the existing rules of the road motorists are assumed to have priority in the vast majority of situations. Unless you are at a set of traffic lights or a zebra crossing then it is entirely the responsibility of a pedestrian to judge when it is safe to cross the road. So long as a motorist is sober and driving within the speed limit, then if they hit a pedestrian on the carriageway it will be deemed to be the fault of the pedestrian for stepping into the path of the vehicle without looking. This is the way the law treats it - and as a result is the way drivers think - which means they take no particular care to notice the pedestrian traffic arround them.


----------

