Independent front page story on cycle deaths...

[xpc316e]

[QUOTE 1367781"]
The TfL document from a few years ago on cyclist deaths at junctions makes interesting reading. The second attachment has all the specifics to each fatality.

Plenty where the driver turned right or left into the cyclist.
4 separate opening car door killers.
Several cyclists who rode off the pavement into the path of a vehicle.
One van which ignores give way and collides with a bike.
A driver who lost control of a speeding vehicle and killed a cyclist.
Some vehicles driving into the back of a cyclist.
2 drivers disobeying ATS and killing a cyclist.
Bus drove out of depot and killed cyclist.
Drunk cyclist hits a parked car and dies.
Another speeding driver cyclist killer.
Speeding driver kills 7-year-old cyclist
Another drunk cyclist.
A drunk driver cyclist killer.

That's a select from the incidents up to page 3. You can read the rest yourself if you're interested.

There were also numerous cyclists on the inside of large vehicles, but the above is a good selection which disproves the claim that cyclists could have avoided most of the deaths. Unless they never rode again.
[/quote]

It isn't the riders fault when a door is opened in front of him/her - but is there nothing they could have done about it? I think not - if I am forced to ride in the door zone I reduce my speed dramatically.

Drivers fail to give way on many occasions, but an awareness they they may well pull out and looking for eye contact etc. can go a long way to prevent a collision.

On page 51 of the report it cites a need for education of cyclists with a view to getting them to not ride alongside larger vehicles near junctions. Wiser cycling would have resulted in fewer deaths - that is a fact.

 

[Davidc]

When I did a defensive driving training session there were several things relevant to cycling - and to xpc316e's posts.

One was that the blame for a collision is irrelevant to you if you're dead. Another was that you greatly reduce the chance of a collision if you keep an imaginary bubble of space around you, and restore it whenever someone else gets into it. Another was that there are some collisions that you can do nothing to avoid. All you can do is take whatever actions are possible to minimise your injuries.

Taking those three, the first suggests that on a bike as in a car if someone else wants to do something illegal, or contrary to your priority on the road then just let them get on with it and keep out of their way. The second means that you just stay back, dont overtake (or undertake) unnecessarily, and if you need to just slow down or stop in order to keep a safe distance from everone else.

The third - well you may be unlucky. Try to stay where you can leap off, jump, or get out of the way, but you can never completely compensate for the complete idiot. That's how life is

Cycling is safe, but not totally so. Like other activities where the same applies all you can do is look out for yourself but accept that there is a level of risk. Again, that's how life is. You're unlucky if after taking precautions you're injured or killed, but it can happen. More car drivers are killed than are yclists, and more pedestrians too. Being at home is worse than any of those. That's how life is, however much it shouldn't be, however much it could be improved in future.

 

[xpc316e]

Then why are you generalising about specific cases when you do not know if they could have been prevented if the cyclist had stayed away from the larger vehicle in the first place? Can you not see how this detracts from what is sound advice about giving larger vehicles space and being cautious around them?

I attended the inquest of one of the cyclist who died. However, I have not, and will not, make the same sweeping generalisations that you have on this thread.

I'm also surprised given your background that you would speculate on what could have prevented these deaths without knowing the detail, causal factors etc.

PS On the vid you allude to, undertaking the scooter rider was the only option given my speed as I had a cyclist on my right shoulder. Still poor cycling and hazard perception by me, though.

Had you both been riding at a speed that would have enabled you to stop easily while approaching a traffic light that had been green for some time and therefore almost bound to change, the incident would not have occured. Your excuse is the one trotted out by most people who lack observation and anticipation. I also note from watching your other clips that you are not averse to overtaking cyclists (who are riding at a decent speed in the cycle lane) by creating a third lane between you and the motorised traffic - hardly what I would class as good management of personal risk. It is interesting that you post video clips about risks taken by others, yet there are instances when you fail to take much responsibility for your own safety.

The report posted by another user that analyses the cycling fatalities between 2001 & 2006 (I think) comes to a number of conclusions. These findings were made in many instances without having spoken to the most important person involved, because they died instantly at the scene. The findings are probably in some cases a best guess as to what happened, but does that mean that we cannot extrapolate and learn from these tragic cases? If you take the stance that cyclists have nothing to learn and that their safety can be entrusted to others, I suggest that we go our separate ways. There is no way that you will ever see the point I am trying to make.

 

[sheddy]

Possibly OT, but just a reminder to email your local radio station whenever they use the 'accident' word in traffic reports rather than 'collision'

 

[lukesdad]

It amazes me everytime this is discussed and the events and reports are trotted out. Every piece of terminolgy under the sun is thrown about except the most relevant ' Common sense' its so obvious its stunning!

 

[asterix]

I no longer have the unfettered access to Fatal RTA files that I used to have as a serving Metropolitan Police Traffic Officer who was qualified to investigate fatal crashes. My knowledge of collisions has been gained by attending and reporting thousands of them and I have been accepted as an expert witness on driving matters in court. Having retired from the Police, I now work as a Road Safety Officer but I do maintain contact with serving Collision Investigators, so I often get snippets of info that the general public don't receive. I also hold a LGV C+E licence (and have earnt my living with it), so I write with a modicum of knowledge. I try hard to pass on the benefit of my experiences as a car driver, motorcyclist, truck driver and cyclist because I have seen at first hand the carnage that can be caused by the drivers of larger vehicles. You will not catch me getting any closer to one than I have to, and I cannot understand why anybody else would.

You were therefore part of a system that clearly isn't working. Why does that make your opinion better than that of anyone else?

My accident was in the door-zone. One of those useless green cycle lanes they paint to encourage cyclists to cycle up the inside of vehicles.

I remember nothing about the incident and rely on excellent witnesses. However it is considered by experts that I was not going fast yet I was seriously injured.

There needs to be a total change of attitude towards driving. For example, technology is making available excellent and resonably simple aids to road safety yet these are resisted by the motoring lobby because such measures will reduce the emotional appeal that they rely on to sell vehicles. The boy-racer factor.

 

[Origamist]

Had you both been riding at a speed that would have enabled you to stop easily while approaching a traffic light that had been green for some time and therefore almost bound to change, the incident would not have occured. Your excuse is the one trotted out by most people who lack observation and anticipation. I also note from watching your other clips that you are not averse to overtaking cyclists (who are riding at a decent speed in the cycle lane) by creating a third lane between you and the motorised traffic - hardly what I would class as good management of personal risk. It is interesting that you post video clips about risks taken by others, yet there are instances when you fail to take much responsibility for your own safety.

I do not have an excuse for the riding in the video you're commenting on and I've not trotted any out. The video is called "defensive riding failure", in the video description, it clearly states: "I was riding too fast and had poor hazard perception", in my last post in this thread I remarked it was "poor cycling". I mentioned undertaking the scooter rider as you brought this up. I was clarifying why I chose this line when the gap was tighter and I had a kerb to deal with. I was giving you extra information and contextual detail that was not evident from the video and explaining why I could not overtake the scooter at this stage, as my options were limited due to a lack of forward planning on my part (and others). Did this escape you - or are you trying to point score, repeat the blindingly obvious, or detract from your earlier remarks?

My videos show risks taken by others and by myself. People can learn from these mistakes, understand how problems develop on the road, and hopefully how to avoid them or mitigate them (or if this fails, try to extricate themsleves from difficult traffic situations). My most recent video, for example makes this clear - poor decision making on my part.

The report posted by another user that analyses the cycling fatalities between 2001 & 2006 (I think) comes to a number of conclusions. These findings were made in many instances without having spoken to the most important person involved, because they died instantly at the scene. The findings are probably in some cases a best guess as to what happened, but does that mean that we cannot extrapolate and learn from these tragic cases? If you take the stance that cyclists have nothing to learn and that their safety can be entrusted to others, I suggest that we go our separate ways. There is no way that you will ever see the point I am trying to make.

I posted a link to that TRL report when it was first released. I'd advise reading it in its entirety as the recommendations at the end are wide-ranging and they do not solely focus on cyclist behaviour.

My stance is not that "cyclsts have nothing to learn and that their safety can be entrusted to others" - that's a gross mis-characterisation of my position. Of course we can extrapolate from these tragedies, but we need to do this with as much detail as is possible in order to draw reasonable conclusions. This is not what you are doing.

Cyclists can benefit from training on how best to deal with large vehicles on the road, just as HGV drivers can benefit from training, vis a vis how to deal with cyclists, and road engineers and traffic planners can look at engineering solutions in light of KSIs etc

Where we diverge, is that you, by your own admission, do not know the details of the cases highlighted in the Independent, and yet, you are adamant that nearly all these deaths could have been prevented by cyclist behaviour alone, when you know a critical combination of circumstances are at play in these incidents.

I can understand the point you are makng, I just disagree with your unsubstantiated conclusion and do not want to be aligned with this one dimensional and ill-informed position. What's more, the TRL report you have mentioned (where the authors have access to far more data than you and I) posits numerous, holistic measures to ameliorate the situation - your stance is well-meaning, but unfairly reductive.

 

[kevin_cambs_uk]

After reading the article and the many comments underneath I find this depressing and I do try and not read such articles.

I cycle in Cambridge and see cyclists at least 3-4 every day jump red lights. All I wish is that we had was the police there all the time to prosecute these people, along with motorists who are on the phone or jump red lights too.

To me its like 2 children fighting at each other because one is getting away with stuff thats naughty and the other is not, no matter which side is at fault here.

I see bad cyclists, I see bad drivers. Both need to be punished some how and maybe then both sides would think that its much fairer, but when I am at the light in Cambridge and then a couple nip across or nip on the kerb and shoot across I just sigh in despair and think that all the motorists next to me, you have just done me no favours at all.

But more Police out catching these acts, well thats never going to happen, so I think this will just keep rolling

 

[downfader]

You know what saddens me?

We have the perfect opportunity here to campaign for better cycle provision in the UK, a front page dedicated to the issue of road safety, and all we can do is bicker. None of us can sit here and generalise, and its not fair to. However there has been a severe lack of justice where a conviction has been obtained. Improving road infrastructure would probably save the idiots from themselves, has anyone even thought of that?

Why bicker? Get off your arse and campaign whilst the iron is hot.

 

[Bicycle]

It is dreadful that cyclists have dies and are still dying; I and my entire family ride.

But I feel comfortable making an occasionally unpopular observation about urban cyclists (mainly London in my case).

I ride frequently in London and did so even more frequently thoughout my childhood and early adult years when I lived there.

I think I take a risk or two, but nowhere near as many as I did in childhood and in my twenties.

Three things stand out to me when cycling in London today:

1. Very, very often a cyclist riding alongside me will RLJ, sometimes on the 'pedestrian red' and sometimes in a kamikazi fantasy. One can generalise about the age, style of bike and so on, but these are all cyclists. We are all tarred with their brush whether we like it or not, just as many (not me) dismiss all HGV drivers as ignorant brutes.

2. Way, way too many cyclists seem oblivious to the danger of riding up inside a bendy bus, rigid bus, skip lorry, PO van.... I'm not exactly risk-averse when cycling, but some of the things I see make me wince. I've driven HGVs - and even with the door-top mirror on the NS a driver cannot always see a cyclist in moving urban traffic. There are cowboys in HGVs, of course, but most are not. I see riders daily who seem to have no idea about what a driver can see and how his vehicle will move at junctions. SCARY!

3. I see a lot of 'nervous wallflowers' riding very rigidly, occasionally wobbling a little, not looking round enough, not indicating (or occasionally appearing to think that looking behind is a fair substitute for indicating). These riders seem to be either terrified out of their skin or riding in an imagined, magic bubble of 1950s traffic density. I love to see people out on their bicycles, but we all have a duty to learn the basic ropes. There are parks and Sunday afternoons for these things.

All of the above worry me - and I'm strongly pro-bike.

In the sticks where I now live, most cycling is for leisure or sport. Towns are too far apart for many people to consider commuting. In towns I see way, way too many 'bunnies on the Motorway' - riders who are putting too much of their fate in the hands of others. We all do it inadvertantly from time to time, but I see too much of it too much of the time for my comfort.

I'm sure that none of those so tragically killed in collisions in the past couple of years was part of any of the above three groups, but whilst people like that are visible for every driver to see, cyclists will be tarred with that brush.

 

[andyg9053]

Back to the original post



"The Government confirmed this week it is considering the introduction of a new criminal offence of causing death by dangerous cycling following concerns that there is no legislation to deal with riders whose reckless behaviour leads to fatalities."


Imagine your loved one being killed by an idiot on a bike and then the max penalty being a few hundred quid fine, if he had been riding a 50 cc scooter he could have got years inside.

That is why the government are looking at this, not just to persecute honest sensible people cycling.

And as far as personal safety is concerned, look around and see how many cyclists ride at night wearing black with crap/no lights etc etc , we are responsible for our own safety but many do nothing to help themselves then cry out when it goes wrong.

 

[Lurker]

.... 2.  Way, way too many cyclists seem oblivious to the danger of riding up inside a bendy bus, rigid bus, skip lorry, PO van....   I'm not exactly risk-averse when cycling, but some of the things I see make me wince.  I've driven HGVs - and even with the door-top mirror on the NS a driver cannot always see a cyclist in moving urban traffic.  There are cowboys in HGVs, of course, but most are not.  I see riders daily who seem to have no idea about what a driver can see and how his vehicle will move at junctions. SCARY!

TfL don't seem to get this point either - see examples from last summer's first Cycle Superhighways of nearside blue strip at sideroad junctions at

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1797

and http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef0133f18ffb5f970b-pi

 

[downfader]

Back to the original post



"The Government confirmed this week it is considering the introduction of a new criminal offence of causing death by dangerous cycling following concerns that there is no legislation to deal with riders whose reckless behaviour leads to fatalities."


Imagine your loved one being killed by an idiot on a bike and then the max penalty being a few hundred quid fine, if he had been riding a 50 cc scooter he could have got years inside.

That is why the government are looking at this, not just to persecute honest sensible people cycling.

And as far as personal safety is concerned, look around and see how many cyclists ride at night wearing black with crap/no lights etc etc , we are responsible for our own safety but many do nothing to help themselves then cry out when it goes wrong.

You have these legal tools:

- Wanton and Furious (up to a £2500 in court)
- Offences against the person act (up to 2 years jail)
- Manslaughter (definate jail term, over 2 years)

There is no need for new and expensive legislation. The MP knows this, I got the feeling this is about either raising a personal profile (now doubtful), or feeling that she can do some good for a family grossly let down by the justice system.

 

[Bicycle]

Apologies for being puerile for a moment, but my CV will not now be complete until I've been charged with 'wanton and furious cycling'.

Wanton and furious..... It is beautiful, almost Biblical.. or churchillian.....

'... that on the day in question you did wantonly and furiously ride in a fashion likely to cause a violent and multilateral vehicular concatenation to the detriment of the greater public good....'.



"So sonny, what do you want to be when you grow up?"

"Wanton and furious, mostly..."

 

[BentMikey]

...and just wait till you see my latest video clip of a cyclist and a lorry. It'll be out, hopefully, in one of Gaz's silly cyclist series, assuming he thinks it's good enough.