Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

May as well take the car and add another to the queue

The MGIF attitude! Sounding more like one of us cagers by the second:rotfl:

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

Very difficult one, as you seem reticent to give me the name of the deceased I can only go on your version of events. Perhaps we should consider getting rid of ASZ's, a move gaining ground amongst many cyclists.

http://www.magnatom.net/2012/01/advanced-stop-lines-spawn-of-satan.html

problem is
with so many deaths
its hard to find the exact case from google these days

Avoriaz

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

...I personally think before being allowed to ride on a road, you should do a road driving/riding test like every other road user, and have a pushbike license to show you are competent to ride.....

Aye.

The driving test has eliminated all deaths, injuries and accidents amongst the car and lorry drivers and motorbike drivers hasn't it.

Altarf

hugheskevi wrote: »

Why are you assuming I can see that there will be nowhere to pull back in before getting to the keep left sign?

So you are overtaking without being able to see that the overtake is safe. Not very clever.

hugheskevi wrote: »

When you start filtering

AKA "overtaking".

hugheskevi wrote: »

There is a narrow bus lane to the left with several bus stops so cyclists often cannot proceed there as there will usually be a bus stopped.

So wait behind the bus, rather than attempt a dangerous and illegal manoeuvre?

hugheskevi wrote: »

By cars and particularly motorbikes blocking the ASZ resulting in a set of options to which there is only one sensible decision.

Which is wait in the traffic queue and not do something dangerous and illegal.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Unless you are arguing that cyclists should only filter on the right over very short distances, which wouldn't be very practical in London, then this is the inevitable choice that the cyclist will sometimes be faced with.

I am arguing that cyclists are not above the law, and should not attempt dangerous and illegal manoeuvres. If that slows their progress, then so be it.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Although ultimately it is worth remembering that issues such as this are caused by the lack of infrastructure for cyclists in the first place, and if there was a dedicated cycle lane through this busy area there wouldn't be any issue.

And quite how would you fit two proper width cycle lanes in that narrow road?

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Ban cyclists wearing headphones (Boris)

Anyone that cycles in London wearing headphones is a plank.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Cyclists to wear hi-viz and helmets (Police)

If you don't understand that wearing hi-viz makes you more visible, then you need your eyes or your head tested. Helmets I agree are a waste of time.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Cyclists to have to pass test to be on road

Not the worst idea to have some kind of training (thinks back rather a lot of years to cycle proficiency training), to at least understand the risks.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Cyclists to have insurance and registration (possibly including number plates)

Proved to be a waste of time, since all the Boris Bikes have registration numbers and insurance, and they are not the best ridden bikes in London.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Targets issued to police to issue specific number of penalties to cyclists (Police)

The target should be, when cyclists stop jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement, and the wrong way up one way streets, stop the enforcement. Until then, carry on.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Stronger enforcement of existing rules, generally but not exclusively in relation to cyclists

Yes, especially black cab and Addison Lee drivers, who are a complete menace.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Consider the various solutions proposed:

• Ban HGVs from urban areas between certain times

So which window of "non-Death" do you pick 7-8am, so the kids still get squashed on the way to school, 8-9am so the workers do? And the same problem in evening.

Aside from which, most of the HGV problem doesn't seem to affect the very centre of London, but the outskirts. So where do you ban, are where don't you.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Even if you could remove 100% of serious accidents involving cyclists where cyclists were to blame (fanciful, humans are always flawed) there would still be a significant problem.

But it would be a much smaller problem, and cyclists behaving responsibly within the law, would have an effect on motorists perceptions, which at the moment is, if they don't care, why should I.

custardy

If you don't understand that wearing hi-viz makes you more visible, then you need your eyes or your head tested. Helmets I agree are a waste of time.

http://road.cc/content/news/99660-high-vis-clothing-doesnt-make-cars-pass-you-more-safely-says-new-study

being visible is part of the issue
The taxi driver that took me could not miss seeing me
he simply decided his time was worth more than my life

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

http://road.cc/content/news/99660-high-vis-clothing-doesnt-make-cars-pass-you-more-safely-says-new-study

What that study didn't measure was whether the cyclist was more visible or not.

custardy wrote: »

being visible is part of the issue

Yes, a pretty key issue.

custardy wrote: »

The taxi driver that took me could not miss seeing me
he simply decided his time was worth more than my life

Some cyclists seem to have this odd perspective that because doing x doesn't prevent 100% of incidents, then it is not worth doing. What was the argument back in the 80s - No point in wearing a seatbelt, because a person got killed despite doing so last week.

The issue is stacking the odds in your favour. Cycling is like playing Russian Roulette, if you play, you risk death. Isn't it more sensible to only have one bullet in the chamber, rather than six, by lowering the odds, by wearing high-viz, having lights, etc?

Or of course you could take the fatalistic view, and just pick your coffin now.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

What that study didn't measure was whether the cyclist was more visible or not.
well look at the outfits. Do you feel the drivers passing under 50cm didnt see them?



Yes, a pretty key issue.
key to what? making no difference to the driver that takes you out?


Some cyclists seem to have this odd perspective that because doing x doesn't prevent 100% of incidents, then it is not worth doing. What was the argument back in the 80s - No point in wearing a seatbelt, because a person got killed despite doing so last week.

The issue is stacking the odds in your favour. Cycling is like playing Russian Roulette, if you play, you risk death. Isn't it more sensible to only have one bullet in the chamber, rather than six, by lowering the odds, by wearing high-viz, having lights, etc?

Or of course you could take the fatalistic view, and just pick your coffin now.

the fatalistic view is despite lights,highviz,helmet,years of experience and a road with only one taxi and myself on it
Im the one that has lost 000s in loss of income/costs and have permanent injury

still whilst one cyclist breaks the rules(in a car drivers view) then its all fine then?

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

the fatalistic view is despite lights,highviz,helmet,years of experience and a road with only one taxi and myself on it
Im the one that has lost 000s in loss of income/costs and have permanent injury

still whilst one cyclist breaks the rules(in a car drivers view) then its all fine then?

And being a cyclist myself as well as being a motorist (shock horror, you can exist in both tribes), and a person who cycles in central London every day, I can say that by wearing high-viz, having lots of lights, and obeying the traffic laws, I have not been in an accident with a taxi.

Your point is?

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

And being a cyclist myself as well as being a motorist (shock horror, you can exist in both tribes), and a person who cycles in central London every day, I can say that by wearing high-viz, having lots of lights, and obeying the traffic laws, I have not been in an accident with a taxi.

Your point is?

what do you mean 'by'
are you saying that it prevented it?
Should I get a refund on mine(what survived) as its obviously faulty?

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

what do you mean 'by'
are you saying that it prevented it?
Should I get a refund on mine(what survived) as its obviously faulty?

Did you high-viz cause you to be run over - pretty damn unlikely.

Did your high-viz lower the odds of you being run over on every other day that you were not run over - pretty likely.