Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

AndyBSG

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

Surprisingly like many cyclists, I am not 100% familiar with the actions of every other person.

I think logic, evidence and reasoning is lost here and, as Chris Boardman said about Monday's Transport Committee, I think the same can be applied to Tilt's continued posts which completely ignore the issues that are actually causing deaths

"They didn't even know the most basic of facts. Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics"

Some interesting figures also came out of that meeting

"A recent study shows that HGVs in London make up only 4% of traffic, yet are involved in 43% of London's cycling deaths.

53% of cyclists killed by trucks were run over by lorries turning left over the top of them."

There's a good article on it here

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/im-with-chris-boardman-control-lorries.html

Guesthouse

andrewf75 wrote: »

This is often the problem. Even where you have nice segregated cycle paths, you reach a roundabout or junction and it just stops. Which is why the "opportunistic" cyclists from the list in the previous post sometimes just cyles on the road despite there being a cycle path! Compare that to what you get in Holland or Denmark and you really see where we go wrong.

Yip....you head towards a roundabout or junction and the cycle lane narrows ever so slightly then vanishes or just stops. No warnings to motorists (who should be paying attention anyway) to say "Warning" cyclists entering traffic flow.

Or, a bus lane (shared cycle lane) ends and cars just cut in because they've looked and seen no buses but haven't spotted a cyclist.

Really annoys me, and as you observe that's where assertive and opportunistic merge. If I'm made (by the planning and implementation of cycle lanes, bus lanes, pavements & roads) to hop on and off kerbs then I'm looking for the easiest route, and if that means cycling on the road where a disjointed cycle lane is available or cycling on a pavement/footpath because a half-hearted cycle lane on a main road is so short or inappropriate as to be unsafe or useless then that's what I'll do.

I liken it to motorists who use residential rat runs : they'll duck down speed hump infested side streets to avoid sitting in a queue and using a local example, I've seen them crawl half along a pavement to get past traffic queuing to turn right.

Guesthouse

AndyBSG wrote: »

I think logic, evidence and reasoning is lost here and, as Chris Boardman said about Monday's Transport Committee, I think the same can be applied to Tilt's continued posts which completely ignore the issues that are actually causing deaths

"They didn't even know the most basic of facts. Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics"

Some interesting figures also came out of that meeting

"A recent study shows that HGVs in London make up only 4% of traffic, yet are involved in 43% of London's cycling deaths.

53% of cyclists killed by trucks were run over by lorries turning left over the top of them."

There's a good article on it here

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/im-with-chris-boardman-control-lorries.html

So really, there's two big groups to focus on here for education and it's backed up by statistics.

Cyclists : don't filter down the left side of large/long vehicles and be aware of their driver's limitations in terms of sightlines. And arguably that should just be an absolute DO NOT.

Long/large vehicle drivers : you have to be extra careful at left turns as you are in charge of a relatively unwieldy vehicle and some other road users (I count cars amongst this too) forget or don't recognise the extra room needed to manoeuvre.

Cycrow

All drivers need to have some education in how to cycle on roads and it would hopefully avoid incidents like what happened to me today.

i was approaching a roundabout just behind the car in front, i was turning right, so signalled and moved to primary. Then the car behind decided to carry on and drive right into me then got angry because i came in contract with his car. Then between all the swearing he was saying that i need to use some common sense and to not cycle away from from the curb

brat

Cycrow wrote: »

Then the car behind decided to carry on and drive right into me then got angry because i came in contract with his car. Then between all the swearing he was saying that i need to use some common sense and to not cycle away from from the curb

Straight up dangerous driving! Minimum 12 month disqualification and extended retest if convicted.
Unfortunately, without supporting evidence, the muppet driver gets away with it.

Some drivers have a disgusting attitude to cyclists.

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

Straight up dangerous driving! Minimum 12 month disqualification and extended retest if convicted.
Unfortunately, without supporting evidence, the muppet driver gets away with it.

Some drivers have a disgusting attitude to cyclists.

Hard to tell that from the information given. Signalling intention doesn't mean that there's the time or space to make the manoeuvre safely.

Was it reported? Failure to report a RTC and leaving the scene is taken seriously.

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Hard to tell that from the information given. Signalling intention doesn't mean that there's the time or space to make the manoeuvre safely.

If "decided to" means "intended to" then the offence is complete. If someone intentionally drives into another, especially a vulnerable road user, that is dangerous driving.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Was it reported? Failure to report a RTC and leaving the scene is taken seriously.

If details are exchanged if requested, then that's all that's required. No requirement to report to the police in these circumstances.

bugslet

May or may not be interesting to the cycling folk, there is an article in this weeks Commercial Motor (5/12/13)

http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/out-now-commercial-motor-5-december

about a company whose truck collided with and killed a cyclist.

brat

bugslet wrote: »

May or may not be interesting to the cycling folk, there is an article in this weeks Commercial Motor (5/12/13)

http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/out-now-commercial-motor-5-december

about a company whose truck collided with and killed a cyclist.

Hard to know if we're interested in it if we can't read it... :think:

bugslet

Yes, I can't link the article, but you can always take a sneaky peak if you are around a newagents.