Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

KxMx

I'm always shocked by how many cyclists seem to think the traffic lights don't apply to them when they are using their bikes on the roads.

somerton_blue

KxMx wrote: »

I'm always shocked by how many cyclists seem to think the traffic lights don't apply to them when they are using their bikes on the roads.

I'm always shocked by how many drivers seem to think the speed limits don't apply to them when they are using their cars on the roads.

discplayer

custardy wrote: »

and what do you do when the truck passes you and turns left across you?
or have you decided this isnt what/couldnt have happened?

This is a key point in the large vehicles issue.

We can make cyclists aware of blind spots, we can say ignore the painted cycle lanes on the left at junctions but that won't stop vehicles of any sizes coming up from behind and swinging left. Cyclists taking the lane might reduce the chance of this, but not completely.

AndyBSG

KxMx wrote: »

I'm always shocked by how many cyclists seem to think the traffic lights don't apply to them when they are using their bikes on the roads.

If you look at the stats behind it you'd probably be less surprised.

There's been several studies which show that red light jumpers make up a smaller percentage of those hit in accidents than those who obey traffic lights.

The reason behind this?

The vast majority of cyclist vs vehicle accidents occur at junctions and traffic lights where the vehicle turns left across the path of the cyclist.

By going across the junction ahead of the red light changing cyclists are actually removing themselves as a target for left turn vehicles and it is precisely this logic that is behind the new advanced cycle lights in places like Cambridge.

[Deleted User]

Little wonder cyclists get so little respect:

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/transport-news/2013/11/18/police-hit-out-at-vile-twitter-users-after-m42-closure-complaints/

theEnd

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

London cycle deaths
2010: 10 deaths, four involving HGVs
2011: 16 deaths, 12 involving HGVs
2012: 14 deaths, five involving HGVs
2013 so far: 13 deaths, eight involving HGVs

It's incredible that HGVs are allowed through busy cities, yet don't seem to be able to see anything around their vehicle. How was this ever allowed to happen and why does everyone think it's acceptable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

bugslet

In the modern world, I'm not sure what the options are about allowing LGVs into cities. True to say most loads are divisible, but then you would take one truck off the road and have say 20 vans in its place. Some loads aren't divisable and you need a large vehicle due to weight or dimensions. Just about everything bar the air you breathe is reliant on trucks to deliver. Nothing is impossible to re-structure, but trying to effectively deliver all the goods that modern day consumers require in a different fashion would seriously push up costs. I have no idea and no inclination to work out current tax take per vehicle, but back in 2002, the tax take on each artic and trailer was over 50k per annum and that's a lot of money to replace.

The tfl video is useful in so far as it makes a point, but it is designed to get a message across and therefore skewed to acjieve that result. The set of the near side mirrors is very poor and secondly neither the truck or the cyclists are moving, they all have to maintain exactly that position to make the point. As a cyclist and haulier, I may see things differently to those who have no experience of large vehciles, but at no point would I ever be on the near side of truck when there is a junction to the left following a set of lights, yet I see cyclists run up the near side, purely because they have no concept of what its like to be in the cab. In an ideal world, I'd like all roadusers - including car drivers - to spend half a day in a truck, just to understand the multiple demands faced by drivers in heavy traffic.

I'm not, BTW, going down the road, ahem, of blaming one set of drivers over the other, it's just that most truck drivers have cycled ( though possibly some time back), but many cyclists don't have experience from the other side of the fence.

Fishingtime

SidP wrote: »

Whilst having constant beam lights front and rear is a legal requirement for cyclists

I did not think it were a legal requirement these days ?

Front Lamp

One is required, showing a white light, positioned centrally or offside, up to 1500mm from the ground, aligned towards and visible from the front. If capable of emitting a steady light, it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard.


If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.


http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

WiggyDiggyPoo

HGVs Banned from City Centre?

With a lack of an alternative (thanks Beeching!) HGVs are always going to feature on our roads, its simply a case of managing them. I can't see the video so it may feature this cab already but as a new design to help visibility I like it:

Johno100

AndyBSG wrote: »

If you look at the stats behind it you'd probably be less surprised.

There's been several studies which show that red light jumpers make up a smaller percentage of those hit in accidents than those who obey traffic lights.

The reason behind this?

The vast majority of cyclist vs vehicle accidents occur at junctions and traffic lights where the vehicle turns left across the path of the cyclist.

By going across the junction ahead of the red light changing cyclists are actually removing themselves as a target for left turn vehicles and it is precisely this logic that is behind the new advanced cycle lights in places like Cambridge.

So are you an advocate for cyclists breaking the law?