Lambeth Bridge tipper truck fatality

[benb]

Don't talk bollocks.

Goodbye.

 

[benb]

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]

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

 

[Pale Rider]

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]

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

 

[Pale Rider]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.​

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.