# Cycling question



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

An article in today's Times got me intrigued. It talked about an App for lorry drivers that would give them a route from A to B avoiding a lot of left-hand turns and so, it was suggested, minimise the risk to cyclists. Sounded like a good idea.

Now I am not a cyclist and so have no idea if this is a sensible idea or not. Nor do I want this thread to degenerate into cyclists vs cars vs motorbikes vs pedestrians.

The thing that intrigues me is this. Surely it is well-known among cyclists that if you are at a set of traffic lights and there is a lorry in your queue of traffic that there is the strong possibility that if you were to cycle up the inside of the lorry while it was stationary at red lights to the front of the queue, that when the lights turned green there was a fair chance that the lorry might turn left across your path? Therefore to wait at the back of the lorry behind it so that if, when the lights go green, it turns left you are well clear? Doesn't self-preservation come into it?

As I say, I'm not a cyclist and so may well be missing something here.


----------



## Racers (12 May 2015)

Cyclists waiting at lights! whatever next!

:wink: 

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 May 2015)

"Doesn't self-preservation come into it?"
Not when you're king of the road.


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

Ask a stupid question ..... :roll:


----------



## Droogs (12 May 2015)

As a passionate cyclist, when I get to junctions if there is no designated cycle lane or "box" at the front of the junction, if the carriageway is wide enough I will pass queuing /waiting vehicles on the right and position myself in front of the first vehicle where I KNOW that the driver can see me. If the road isn't wide enough then I take my place in the queue like everyone else but make sure that I am in a position for the driver behind me can see me clearly. 
Besides, just like every other road user it's illeagal to pass on the left side of vehicles unless you are in a designated lane or in an emergency. so there should never be an instance where cyclists are at a drivers 10/11 o'clock position at a junction, unless they are in a proper cycle box


----------



## mseries (12 May 2015)

I am a cyclist. And I agree with the OP that you shouldn't ride up the inside of a lorry. People do though, people get killed when the lorry turns across them. Maybe they think they can get infront of the lorry, out of the dangerzone and into the drivers line of sight, before he moves off. Maybe they are just oblivious to the danger.

Even if it is well known that it's a dangerous practice, peoples perception of risk is different.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 May 2015)

I'll have a little rant.
The cyclist jumping red lights has become the norm now, I live in a small town and even old ladies just cycle through the lights.
I met one on a single track railway bridge controlled by lights last week, as I went through on green she appeared over the top, I gave a wave to the light colour and she flicked the "v"s at me, this is an old woman, it's getting silly.
I would have stopped and had words but she looked a bit handy and I daren't risk it since been beaten to a pulp by a sprightly octogenarian................. :lol:


----------



## Bigbud78 (12 May 2015)

Racers":26n4zx1w said:


> Cyclists waiting at lights! whatever next!
> 
> :wink:
> 
> Pete



Soap box :lol: 

As a motorcyclist I spend a lot of time at the front of the cue at lights and the amount of cars that jump reds is very high. On any type of bike I will put myself in the safest place whilst trying to minimise any inconvenience to others but if my safety comes at making a car wait a short while then so be it.

Unfortunately as this is the internet you cant have a discussion about such things as people can't help themselves as the per the two tongue in cheek answers show, I don't drive a car but belong to every other hated group on the roads; Cyclist, motorcyclist and campervan driver.

The simple fact is people in vehicles are insular to what's going on around them, their thinking about the washing, work, life or that new chisel they want to buy, they switch off and don't really concentrate on what there doing. Then there's the aggression, majority of people in cars with "road rage" are bullies who think using their car as a weapon or a vehicle for intimation is fine as cyclists "insert trope" so that makes it ok.

If everyone abided by the rules including red light jumping cyclists and everyone had a little more patience, the roads would be a much more pleasant and safer place for all of us.

As to the op, cant see it being used TBH as "professional" drivers want to get to where there going asap. Manchester has installed mirrors on the traffic lights to increase viability down the N/S of the traffic cue and a blanket 20mph speed limit is on the way. Only time will tell if these help.

The thing is these articles are usually based on London who's traffic numbers are hugely different from the other cities, I might see 10 cyclists leaving Manchester on my route at 5.30 but then we don't have very good infrastructure at the moment.


----------



## n0legs (12 May 2015)

We used to have cycling proficiency sessions in the schools which taught road safety and a basic understanding of the highway code.
With the number of cyclists getting injured, or worse, you would think it's about time they were brought back.


----------



## mseries (12 May 2015)

n0legs":2m8qy0ay said:


> We used to have cycling proficiency sessions in the schools which taught road safety and a basic understanding of the highway code.
> With the number of cyclists getting injured, or worse, you would think it's about time they were brought back.



Do children get any form of cycling training these days ? Around here they do, I have seen groups of children with tutors being shown how to ride on proper live roads - just like we did in the 70s. I still have my Cycling Proficiency Certificate and badge.

It's adults that are being squashed by lorries in London though, perhaps they didn't bother with bikes when they were children and missed out on the training.


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

n0legs":3unejzg0 said:


> We used to have cycling proficiency sessions in the schools which taught road safety and a basic understanding of the highway code.
> With the number of cyclists getting injured, or worse, you would think it's about time they were brought back.



Our local primary school still has them.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2015)

RogerS":2xcofx2k said:


> An article in today's Times got me intrigued. It talked about an App for lorry drivers that would give them a route from A to B avoiding a lot of left-hand turns and so, it was suggested, minimise the risk to cyclists. Sounded like a good idea.
> 
> Now I am not a cyclist and so have no idea if this is a sensible idea or not. Nor do I want this thread to degenerate into cyclists vs cars vs motorbikes vs pedestrians.
> 
> ...


No you are right. As a cyclist it's essential to maintain your road space. If there are traffic lanes you must stay in the middle of the lane or you risk being nudged from one side or the other. 
Unfortunately some drivers don't like this and try to get past.
At a traffic light the place to stop is behind the lorry and in the middle of the lane so that you can't be pinched in. Unfortunately drivers sometimes don't like this and you get hooted at but you just have to ignore them.
If you don't feel safe it's best to get off and become a pedestrian. Drivers don't like this either and see it as cheating - you get hooted at as you push across the lights.
Maybe both cyclists and drivers should have more training.
What we definitely need is better road engineering for cyclists. Much of what they do for cyclists is a dangerous joke and it's safer to ignore them. Guess what many drivers don't like this either!

Flip through a few of these!: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... the-month/

Things are getting better however as more cyclists take to the roads and we get slowly up to European standards.


----------



## n0legs (12 May 2015)

mseries":2fi91iz5 said:


> Do children get any form of cycling training these days ? Around here they do, I have seen groups of children with tutors being shown how to ride on proper live roads - just like we did in the 70s. I still have my Cycling Proficiency Certificate and badge.
> 
> It's adults that are being squashed by lorries in London though, perhaps they didn't bother with bikes when they were children and missed out on the training.



I still have mine as well :lol: 
My girls didn't do any cycle training at school, they were in school from the late 90's up until 2011.
You may have a point about missing out on the training, then add into the mix some "it's like riding a bike" attitude and there may be the problem.
I'll say this though, if a motorist or a motorcyclist were to behave like some of the cyclists we see there would be points and fines handed out left right and centre.


----------



## n0legs (12 May 2015)

RogerS":23q3cxqy said:


> Our local primary school still has them.



That's really good news. It should be pushed and promoted by all local authorities IMO.
Our LA has spent thousands on cycle routes and paths. Their intent is there for more people to cycle, but folk need to do it safely.


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?


----------



## mseries (12 May 2015)

RogerS":2fgty54i said:


> Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?



It's called the Primary Position, it makes you more visible, makes it harder, if not impossible for other, wider road users to pass. Read about it here https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insig ... g-part-1-0 

Junctions need to judged individually. I can certainly picture one where I prefer to be in the way, to give myself as much space as possible and discourage stupid overtaking that could well result in me being cut up and forced into the barriers on the other side of the junction. It's not being bloody minded nor intended to p**s anyone off, it's done to increase ones chances of surviving. Remember though, like motorists, not all cyclists are courteous road users.


----------



## Bigbud78 (12 May 2015)

RogerS":yytl9zjd said:


> Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?



How much room are you supposed to give a cyclist when you pass ? If the cyclist is in secondary position and you allowed the correct amount of space to pass you would be in the next lane no ?


----------



## John Brown (12 May 2015)

I always cycle as though all other road users are trying to kill me and/or themselves. I drive and walk the same way. In the 56 years or so since I first ventured out on my own, nobody has yet managed to succeed in killing me, and as far as I know, I have not killed anyone else.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2015)

RogerS":2bd0mm8f said:


> Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?


If you are near the kerb drivers squeeze past and you find yourself boxed in - or worse you have no wobble room and hit the kerb.
Worst position of all is near the white line separating lanes - stuff will come past close on both sides and as you veer away from one you veer into the other. This is where you must hog the centre of the lane.
NB cyclist steer by a controlled wobble from one side to the other. The slower you go the wider the wobble. This is unavoidable they can't steer in a straight line due to physics. You see this if you look at wet bike tyre tracks near puddles etc.

PS cyclists get it horribly wrong - I nearly winged one the other day: 
Approaching an island he was going slow and well in to the left with me behind him (in a car). I stayed behind so as to give him room and he went round the island staying tight in to the left and I assumed he was going straight on. Instead just as he got to the other side he turned sharp right across my path without signalling, just as I was about to pass him, assuming it was now safe. I was being really careful - he was being really stupid and didn't even appear to look behind him. Luckily nothing occurred!


----------



## JohnPW (12 May 2015)

RogerS":2fhlx33q said:


> Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?



The reason for riding out away from the left kerb when the road is narrow is so that drivers can't overtake too close, ie too small a gap between cyclist and driver. It says so in the Highway Code.

When the road is wide enough, obviously the cyclist should keep to the left (but not ride as far left as possible) but also, drivers should give more space when overtaking.

If drivers drove in a considerate manner, then cyclists wouldn't have to be in the "centre of the lane".

To give an example: I'm riding on a quiet residential street, I'm approcahing a pinch point with a traffic island in the middle of the road. There's a driver coming up from behind, and as I go through the pinch point the driver overtakes very close with inches to spare, I can easily touch the vehicle if I put out my right hand.

What is the point of that? If the driver simply took their foot off the pedal for 0.5 seconds, the overtake would not have been at the pinch point. I'm not sure why, but it always seem like drivers time it so they arrive at the pinch point at the same time as I'm going through it, even when there are no other drivers around. So, every time I go through a pinch point I look behind and if needed move to the right or put my right arm out.


----------



## mseries (12 May 2015)

Rule 163 of The Highway Code says "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" - most motorists don't do this,


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

Bigbud78":oicmzzwt said:


> RogerS":oicmzzwt said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?
> ...



Don't you mean 'primary' position?


----------



## Bigbud78 (12 May 2015)

RogerS":304vijw0 said:


> Bigbud78":304vijw0 said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":304vijw0 said:
> ...



You said next to the Kerb, even in secondary (a safe distance from the kerb) there is not enough room for a car to safely pass without crossing into the next lane. Hence why being in primary is safer for the cyclist as it prevents unsafe overtakes when in the secondary position.


----------



## bugbear (12 May 2015)

Bigbud78":3hiopxbi said:


> The thing is these articles are usually based on London who's traffic numbers are hugely different from the other cities,



The thing is, these articles are usually written by lazy London based journalists.  

BugBear


----------



## mind_the_goat (12 May 2015)

Applies to cars as well as lorries, it would be quite possible to pull up to the left of a car and not be noticed. It would also be a mistake for a cyclist to assume no signal means the vehicle is going straight on. I always rarely over/undertake a row of traffic at a junction but I do admit to sometimes hopping up on the pavement and passing traffic that way, clearly, checking the route for pedestrians.
As a sat nav user I would be more interested in an option to avoid right hand turns, not left hand ones, I would imagine drivers of larger vehicles would find that a much bigger advantage.

We have a busy single carriageway road here which is really to narrow for cyclists to share with motorised traffic. Several tens of thousands of pounds have recently been spent providing a cycle lane separate from the road. Most cyclists still seem to use the road which annoys the hell out of me,


----------



## bugbear (12 May 2015)

mind_the_goat":jrrxzopr said:


> . Several tens of thousands of pounds have recently been spent providing a cycle lane separate from the road. Most cyclists still seem to use the road which annoys the hell out of me,



Since it's in the UK, I suspect the cycle lane is poor to the point of unusability.

We have such an item in our town; the cost was high and the benefit (to either cyclists or cars) is zero.

Being seen to Spending Money seems to be the priority.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... the-month/

BugBear


----------



## mind_the_goat (12 May 2015)

RogerS":2xn3ugfz said:


> Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?



This is for the same reason why a bike shouldn't get on the left of a stationary vehicle, if the bike keeps his position in the queue but on the left, another vehicle will likely occupy the space, and quite possibly forget the bike is there. Also remember the bike can accelerate quicker for the first few feet so is unlikely to hold you up, unless of course you try to get in front it it so you don't get held up once moving, then risk pushing the bike into the curb.


----------



## mind_the_goat (12 May 2015)

bugbear":6k0ks8za said:


> Since it's in the UK, I suspect the cycle lane is poor to the point of unusability.
> We have such an item in our town; the cost was high and the benefit (to either cyclists or cars) is zero.
> Being seen to Spending Money seems to be the priority.
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... the-month/



Interesting, I assume the preferred route is round the outside, on the grass? 
I've not used our new path but it looks much much smoother than the edge of the road, or the middle of it to be honest. Don't think there are any unnecessary obstacles just the normal road markings at entry and exit points. Given that I drive on that road a lot, I think had I wanted to cycle that way before the path was provided I would have used the pavement. 
It was really built to provide a safer route to local school, I'd like to think the kids use it but I try to avoid it at that time of day.


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

mind_the_goat":26za5ef3 said:


> .....Also remember the bike can accelerate quicker for the first few feet so is unlikely to hold you up, .....



Not in my Tesla, it ain't  :wink:

Seriously though, I challenge that statement. I did a little quick Google and came up with these figures for a bike.
0-10 mph--------- 1.4 seconds
0-15 mph--------- 3.2
0-20 mph--------- 5.0
0-30 mph--------- 18.0
0-35 mph--------- 33.0

If anyone is interested the original is here

I think that most cars will out accelerate those figures. That 0-20 time, in one of our cars we're close to 60mph. :shock:


----------



## bugbear (12 May 2015)

RogerS":3rl3k557 said:


> mind_the_goat":3rl3k557 said:
> 
> 
> > .....Also remember the bike can accelerate quicker for the first few feet so is unlikely to hold you up, .....
> ...



I remember the One Show had a Olympic sprinter (can't remember which one) racing a Formula One. It was very close.

It's just a matter of distance. Sprinter was faster over (very!) short distances.

Can you find quoted/measured 0-10 mph times for a car?

BugBear


----------



## mind_the_goat (12 May 2015)

RogerS":2db7zjuj said:


> I think that most cars will out accelerate those figures. That 0-20 time, in one of our cars we're close to 60mph. :shock:



Hehe, well you had more luck Googling than I did, I'm sure Top Gear would take this on....oh wait.....
I was certainly only thinking of the 0-10, or even 0-5 range and was assuming the motorist wasn't trying to race the bike away at the lights. From being in the position where I'm in front of a car in traffic I'm quite aware it's behind me and would generally try to get moving quickly, it's fair to assume that in most cases the motorist would be aware there is a bike in front and would not put the pedal to the metal. Maybe the motorist does have to pause a little, but not enough to get p**sed off about it
Be interested to see if anyone else come up with some figures.


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

Car simulator came up with 0.28 secs for an Audi 80.


----------



## Eric The Viking (12 May 2015)

mind_the_goat":1tnpgfwp said:


> Hehe, well you had more luck Googling than I did, I'm sure Top Gear would take this on....oh wait...



Oi ! 

Some of us are still in mourning.

I keep coming across re-runs by mistake whilst ambling around Freeview. It's really depressing if you let yourself get dragged into watching something.

E.


----------



## Finial (12 May 2015)

Going back to the original question, the assumption seems to be that people hurt by turning lorries bring it on themselves by passing on the left. Others here are quick to condemn cyclists. But cyclists in general are the most law abiding and careful traffic group. Not surprising, as they know they will get hurt if they run into something. Investigations show that most accidents they are involved in are the fault of an incompetent driver or careless pedestrian. Simple observation confirms that all drivers break the law daily, with impunity. Most people killed by turning lorries were being overtaken by the lorry at the time.

As far as cycle training is concerned, I know from experience that if you cycle strictly in accordance with the law and highway code it won't save you from being run down by an incompetent driver. Most people are well aware of the risk, and very few are now prepared to cycle on the roads. Motor vehicles have forced most other traffic off the road and we all pay the price for that, in congestion, ill health, obesity, noise, higher taxation, ugly and unpleasant town centres and poisonous air pollution that kills even more people than drivers do.

This may sound strange to some, but until you ride a bike in traffic, you may not realise how incompetent, distracted, careless and sometimes aggressive too many drivers are. They feel safe in their cars, but put others in danger. Most bike riders are also drivers, but most drivers aren't regular bike riders.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 May 2015)

"Most people killed by turning lorries were being overtaken by the lorry at the time."
I don't recall ever overtaking anyone and turning left across them. Where did you get that from?


----------



## RogerS (12 May 2015)

Finial":2mynqpfe said:


> ...... Motor vehicles have forced most other traffic off the road and we all pay the price for that, in congestion, ill health, obesity, noise, higher taxation, ugly and unpleasant town centres and poisonous air pollution that kills even more people than drivers do.
> 
> .....



I'll give this one the weekly prize for the Sweeping Generalisation of the Week award. 

Also I don't think that anyone in this thread has said anything negative about cyclists. And, as I suggested in my OP, self-presevration must surely feature in the mindset of a cyclist and commonsense not to put themselves at risk such as passing by the lefthand side of a lorry at traffic lights. You even suggest that 'they know they will get hurt' and so you are contradicting yourself.

Where is the evidence that 'cyclists are the most law abiding and careful traffic group'? Compared to pedestrians? Passing red lights? Cycling on the pavement? Cycling the wrong way down a one-way street?


----------



## n0legs (12 May 2015)

RogerS":wevzpuof said:


> Where is the evidence that 'cyclists are the most law abiding and careful traffic group'? Compared to pedestrians? Passing red lights? Cycling on the pavement? Cycling the wrong way down a one-way street?



I would like to know as well RS.
Round here it's like the bike scenes from ET (obviously except for the alien in a basket :lol: )


----------



## Finial (12 May 2015)

RogerS":33o5fml7 said:


> Finial":33o5fml7 said:
> 
> 
> > ...... Motor vehicles have forced most other traffic off the road and we all pay the price for that, in congestion, ill health, obesity, noise, higher taxation, ugly and unpleasant town centres and poisonous air pollution that kills even more people than drivers do.
> ...





phil.p":33o5fml7 said:


> "Most people killed by turning lorries were being overtaken by the lorry at the time."
> I don't recall ever overtaking anyone and turning left in across of them. Where did you get that from?



Drivers overtaking a bike then turning left across them is one of the commonest ways that riders get hurt. (Others are people opening car doors in front of the bike, turning right across the path of the bike, pulling onto a roundabout in front of a bike, or pedestrians stepping off the kerb in front of a bike.) Competent drivers don't do it. There are a lot of cycling deaths in London. Most are people crushed by turning lorries, often tipper lorries. Most London riders are experienced and don't ride up the inside of a lorry, though I'm sure some do. It usually turns out the rider was at the lights before the lorry. One problem is the poor visibility from lorry cabs, but another is that many drivers don't look. In some cases the driver was on the phone.

Why, thank you Roger!

The evidence is the result of police investigations that show drivers are usually the cause of accidents. Not much traffic law applies to pedestrians, but they aren't as careful as people on bikes, as a general thing - they cause more accidents.

Passing red lights - far more drivers do this than bike riders, at least in London. Almost every light change, one, two or sometimes three drivers keep going, sometimes after the opposite light is green. Many bike riders do as well, everyone knows that. But it is very rarely dangerous when they do. They look before they cross, like pedestrians do. Wouldn't you?

A few people ride on the pavement. They are almost always careful and considerate and safe. But people fuss about it in this country, even though driving and parking on the pavement is now completely commonplace, and far more dangerous. 

Most people who might like to cycle now don't do so, and the reason they give is fear of traffic. Self preservation does indeed take up the attention of the few who do. That's why bike riders are, on the whole, the safest traffic group.


----------



## mind_the_goat (12 May 2015)

Found some figures for a Toyota Prius, not sure that that is representative, but from the graph I'd say 0-10 is, well, 1.4s
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...IJSVa23C8m0Uc-2gaAN&tbm=isch&ved=0CCEQMygBMAE


----------



## rafezetter (13 May 2015)

RogerS":khm7zv4j said:


> An article in today's Times got me intrigued. It talked about an App for lorry drivers that would give them a route from A to B avoiding a lot of left-hand turns and so, it was suggested, minimise the risk to cyclists. Sounded like a good idea.
> 
> Now I am not a cyclist and so have no idea if this is a sensible idea or not. Nor do I want this thread to degenerate into cyclists vs cars vs motorbikes vs pedestrians.
> 
> ...



I'm not a driver, so I've cycled on the roads pretty much since I took my proficiency at 13, and there is no excuse for any cyclist to cycle in a dream world expecting everyone around him to take avoiding action. Sadly I see too many cyclists that do exactly this - and doing so with headphones / earbuds on is just suicidal - If I were in charge any cyclist that got hit and was proven to be distracted and impaired by headphones would be considered a self inflicted injury with no penalty to the driver.

Cyclists that go through a red light deserve to die. simple. Even those that go through a red light when there is no left turn, because going through a red becomes an inbuilt habit and one day they will do it without even realising where they are and they will get hit; and I'll back that up and say hand on heart if I ever witness a cyclist get hit by a car as he goes through a red light I will witness and testify for the car driver that the cyclist went through the red and it wasn't the drivers fault.

Going towards a red light - look at the cars - pay attention to their indicators, and if it's a dual lane with a left turn next to it - go to the middle. If it's a single lane then park yourself _in front_ of the car in the box, instead of the side - this will force a driver to take you into account regardless of his direction - so he might curse you, big deal; you're safe and he's not facing manslaughter by dangerous driving, you did him/her a favor. He won't dare hit or even nudge you out of the way - too many witnesses, and lots of cyclists with gopro camera's on their helmets.

You should ALWAYS look behind you when approaching a left turn if you intend to go past it, no excuse not to.

For some junctions I've encountered I won't even chance it - I'll get off and use a crossing.

Passing parked cars I'll look inside each and every one in the distance and if I see a body I'll slow down and go wider.
Pedestrians waiting to cross I'll ALWAYS assume they will step out after the last vehicle passes them because people are stupid, they are only looking for vehicle shaped objects in the centre of the lane not what's to the side, not helped by the fact the human eye only really see's what's in the middle, peripheral vision is pretty poor even in a 20/20 sighted person.

I'll admit to sometimes cycling up the white line, but that's usually because 80% of drivers never give enough space for a cyclist, even when it's available. I used to ride home on a road that was a dual lane but made almost 4 cars wide near enough - did you have oodles of room on the inside for cyclists on an obvious stretch of road with loads of cyclists on it? did you f***. Vehicles 2ft from the curb BOTH sides with 10ft of gap between them. Ridiculous. 

Drivers that PASS a cyclist then go back to the curb in stopped traffic... what the hell is that about? Did you think the cyclist you passed stopped behind you? Is your attention span so short you forget about the presence of a cyclist and decided you needed to bring the car 18 inches away from the curb for no logical reason? I have also been known to get very aggressive about this and deliberately knock off wing mirrors with my foot if they pass me then pull back in... sometimes I'll just stop by the window and tap on it and tell them to pull out so I can get by... or I'll break it off.

sorry that got into a bit of a /rant there.... as you can see it boils my blood to be labelled and treated the same as some of those other cycling cretins.

Every cyclist death or serious accident caused by a vehicle turning onto a cyclist while following the CORRECT direction of traffic is the cyclists fault, no exceptions (and yes I'm aware Nick Gibbs got hit by a truck). No cyclist should ever assume the driver is competant or even know where he is going, because otherwise you'll encounter either one or both at once; some old confused biddy who's obviosuly not fit to drive and lost to boot and you'll get hit; yes that's happened. I've had cars accelerate to pass then turn left literally in front of me - the first time it happened I hit the side of the car went flying over the boot and broke my arm as I didn't know any better, now I expect it. (I was going downhill on a racing bike & the b'tard didn't even stop). It's so common almost every cyclist will have had it happen to him, so once bitten and all that. I've had cars pull over to park and hit me because they were watching the parking space, not what was beside them. Same for a reversing car, even though they are looking out of their rear window. I've been knocked off maybe 6 - 7 times, but I daresay I've avoided dozens more.

I could go on but I won't so I'll finish with this: A cyclist should always assume he has to do the thinking for both himself AND the drivers around him, like a game of chess - because that's pretty much the reality, for larger vehicles - doubly so.


----------



## RogerS (13 May 2015)

Finial":1b91m9zt said:


> ......
> The evidence is the result of police investigations that show drivers are usually the cause of accidents. Not much traffic law applies to pedestrians, but they aren't as careful as people on bikes, as a general thing - they cause more accidents.
> 
> Passing red lights - far more drivers do this than bike riders, at least in London. Almost every light change, one, two or sometimes three drivers keep going, sometimes after the opposite light is green. Many bike riders do as well, everyone knows that. But it is very rarely dangerous when they do. They look before they cross, like pedestrians do. Wouldn't you?
> ...



Sorry but this is all still hearsay. It might be personal observation but without any links to surveys/studies etc then it all remains just that - hearsay.


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2015)

In towns and cities, pedestrians are a menace.

In quiet areas, they (tend to) only _listen_ for a car before confidently stepping out to cross the road.

If your cycle is well maintained, and silent, they thus step in front of you without warning.

Which is fun for everybody. :roll: 

BugBear


----------



## Eric The Viking (13 May 2015)

I've often wondered if the driving qualification system should be altered to be a progression:

1. get some sort of qualification on a bicycle (proficiency test).
2. eligible for the motorcycle training/test scheme.
3. eligible for a car test, after, some bedding-in period on a bike.

I took my motorcycle test late in life, and it transformed my view of road safety, even though I am a pretty safe driver and have cycled for decades. That feeling of vulnerability when you first go on the road should be forced on every driver. 

I don't often feel that prescriptive, but I've been knocked off my pushbike twice, once by a car cutting me up on a roundabout, and once by a car turning right out of a left minor road without looking properly (and then stopping right in front of me). In the second case I ended up under the car's back wheel.

We live on a busy road, on a commuter route, and daily you see truly dreadfully unsafe driving. They only get away with it because it's at very slow speeds, but there is a lot of glass and plastic in our gutters locally, particularly at the end of the road, which is a T-junction with reduced visibility.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 May 2015)

1. get some sort of qualification on a bicycle (proficiency test).
2. eligible for the motorcycle training/test scheme.
3. eligible for a car test, after, some bedding-in period on a bike.

100% 

As an aside, though, I've seen friends of my children (who thankfully have no interest in bikes) go out and ride like idiots after they've passed a proficiency test - they think they are invincible because they've passed a test.


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2015)

I've always cherished the idea that a 6" spike sticking out of the centre of all steering wheels would
do wonders for decency, care and courtesy in driving behaviour.

BugBear


----------



## mseries (13 May 2015)

bugbear":22h7oni8 said:


> I've always cherished the idea that a 6" spike sticking out of the centre of all steering wheels would
> do wonders for decency, care and courtesy in driving behaviour.
> 
> BugBear


Risk compensation. The safer you feel the more risk you'll take. Happens in all activities.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 May 2015)

+ 1
If you see a total silly person on a cycle, you can guarantee he/she will be wearing a helmet.


----------



## Finial (13 May 2015)

There's too much victim blaming on this thread. 

Are the roads safe enough for anyone to cycle? No.
Is that because all riders are suicidal? No. 
Do all riders always obey the law and follow the highway code? No. 
Do all drivers? No. 
Which group is most vulnerable? The riders. 
Which group injures and kills them (and pedestrians)? The drivers.
Is it always the driver's fault? No.
Is this ever going to change? Not any time soon. 

The answer is good quality separate cycle tracks.


----------



## novocaine (13 May 2015)

some interesting stats for you.

yes I'm a cyclist, I also ride a motorcycle and drive a car and a van. 
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice ... s-figures/

being predictable is the best form of defense against other road users no matter how you are travelling.


----------



## Finial (13 May 2015)

novocaine":2b65r5i9 said:


> being predictable is the best form of defense against other road users no matter how you are travelling.



Thanks for the link. 

Unfortunately, being predictable is no guarantee of safety. For example, if you are clearly visible on a roundabout and in the correct position, that is predictable. But a van driver on the phone can still enter the roundabout as if you were not there. As happened to me. Riding along, clearly visible in the middle of a traffic lane to keep clear of parked cars is also predictable, but a driver can still run into you from behind, as happened to me. Twice.

And nothing is more predictable than street furniture, but lots of drivers can't even overtake a bollard without hitting it!


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2015)

Finial":dfdflng9 said:


> ......
> The answer is good quality separate cycle tracks.


Yes but not necessarily always separate. Too complicated and expensive. Better marking and priority for cyclists at junctions etc. and less of this dangerous nonsense: 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... h/book.htm


----------



## novocaine (13 May 2015)

I said it was the best defence I didn't say it was the only defence. 

The incidents you describe are unusual as apposed to the norm but they do happen, nothing you did could have prevented the incident you describe short of not being there in the first place and as he wasn't really paying any attention there is every chance he'd have hit a car, however the majority of incidents (as born out by the stats posted) and especially those incidents involving teenagers and children could have been prevented by the driver being able to read and judge what you were doing and about to do.
as an aside about me so you know why I know the stats and where to find them and why I say the above. 

I put in around 4000 miles a year not including weekend pootles with the family. I have ridden and built every type of bike you could name and done more types of riding than most including being a cycle courier and being in closed road racing (and open road for that matter) I have acted as marshal for events and taught cycle proficiency to teenagers a number of times and will continue to tell them that being predictable is going to help them on the road. all but a few of the incidents I have been involved in have been down to either myself or the other party not being predictable (granted some of them have been because I was stupid but they didn't tend to involve anyone else)

as for street furniture, there is nothing predictable about it, that lamp post really did jump out and hit me officer.


----------



## RogerS (13 May 2015)

novocaine ..great link, thanks. I think RoSPA could be a bit more clever with their figures, though. For instance saying that 80% of cyclist casualties are men. That may be true but suggests causation rather than correlation. Are there more male cyclists than female, for example.


----------



## Doris (13 May 2015)

As long as both bikes and cars are operated by humans there will always accidents happening.

I cycle almost everyday and have so far had one accident. I was cycling on the pavement to get to a cycle path and was knocked down by a car pulling forward (not reversing) out of their drive. The driver admitted he wasn't looking where he was going but his passenger still insisted on swearing at me and saying I shouldn't be on the pavement in the first place.

I took responsibility for my part in the accident as did the driver and that was that. It happened all to fast for anyone to change what had happened, yet his passenger still insisted I was to blame. This is what seems to happen a lot drivers are quite happy to blame cyclists when they are sometimes just as much at fault themselves.


----------



## Finial (13 May 2015)

Doris":hfc8ltnh said:


> As long as both bikes and cars are operated by humans there will always accidents happening.
> 
> I cycle almost everyday and have so far had one accident. I was cycling on the pavement to get to a cycle path and was knocked down by a car pulling forward (not reversing) out of their drive. The driver admitted he wasn't looking where he was going but his passenger still insisted on swearing at me and saying I shouldn't be on the pavement in the first place.
> 
> I took responsibility for my part in the accident as did the driver and that was that. It happened all to fast for anyone to change what had happened, yet his passenger still insisted I was to blame. This is what seems to happen a lot drivers are quite happy to blame cyclists when they are sometimes just as much at fault themselves.



Yes. Drivers kill about 200 times as many pedestrians on the pavement than bike riders do. But somehow it's the bikes that are the problem. Why did you say you were responsible? Would it have been different if you were a pedestrian or pushing the bike?

It's usually, not sometimes, the driver at fault. I've had to jump out of the way of a pavement driver more than once. This country needs a 'presumed liability' law.


----------



## Finial (13 May 2015)

RogerS":y9nr6ayp said:


> novocaine ..great link, thanks. I think RoSPA could be a bit more clever with their figures, though. For instance saying that 80% of cyclist casualties are men. That may be true but suggests causation rather than correlation. Are there more male cyclists than female, for example.



I think you will find there are substantially more male riders, mostly young. In London there have been a disproportionate number of women killed and there has been speculation that this is because they may be more law abiding. Traffic law is not designed for cycling. Stopping at lights can endanger them because it puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. The suggestion is that young men are more likely to jump the lights and keep themselves safe.


----------



## RogerS (13 May 2015)

Finial":yuyoklre said:


> ..... Traffic law is not designed for cycling. Stopping at lights can endanger them because it puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. ......



You're really confusing me now. Are you saying that it is OK for cyclists to jump red lights ? And then if they do 'presumed liability' means that it is the car drivers fault because some richardhead of a cyclist has jumped the lights ? 

_puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. _ But I thought that everyone else was advocating that the cycle boxes at the front of the queue and taking primary position was the right thing to do. Now you seem to be suggesting that drivers see those cyclists as targets ??


----------



## RogerS (13 May 2015)

Finial":1783ludb said:


> .....
> Yes. Drivers kill about 200 times as many pedestrians on the pavement than bike riders do. .....



Link please (again) to the evidence to support your statement.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 May 2015)

If anyone is killed by a cyclist on a pavement, the cyclist was probably there deliberately. Anyone killed by a car on the pavement is unlikely to have been killed by a car driver who intended to be on the pavement. There are many times times more drivers than cyclists anyway, which makes that statistic meaningless.


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

RogerS":i6wrm97i said:


> Finial":i6wrm97i said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Traffic law is not designed for cycling. Stopping at lights can endanger them because it puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. ......
> ...



No I'm not saying it's OK for cyclists to jump lights. Just that, paradoxically, it can be safer. It has been hypothesised that waiting at the lights then to be run down is an explanation for some of the deaths. I don't have a view on that. The cycle boxes are of little value in practice. They are often blocked by motorists, they encourage bike riders to pass lorries on the left to get into them, they place riders in the front blind spot of high vehicles and they don't necessarily stop vehicles turning left over the rider. 

No, presumed liability means that in the event of an accident, the driver is presumed at fault for insurance purposes. If it can be shown that the rider caused the accident any claim would be settled as it is now. It's like when a car drives into the back of yours. It's deemed to be their fault unless they can show you were reversing into them. If ever you get run over, you would get compensation even if you had no witnesses so couldn't prove the driver was at fault.

As for primary position, I'm not convinced it works very well, from personal experience, having been hit twice by drivers who thought they could squeeze past without getting their paint scratched but were wrong.

You ask for evidence. I suggest that you stand by some traffic lights for a bit and count. I predict that you will see some people cycling through on red, and that there will be a larger number driving through. That is certainly the case in my part of London. Then walk a bit of pavement. I predict you will see none or a small number of people cycling there, and that they will be riding with care, but you will see a larger number of vehicles parked on the pavement, all of which were driven there. You will also see the pavement extensively smashed up by cars and lorries having driven on it. 

My position on all this is that cyclists get a lot of unjustified and ignorant criticism from drivers, who are in fact the worst offenders and far more dangerous. Bikes and motors are fundamentally incompatible. I would like to see them separated, as completely as possible.


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

phil.p":2tpts59y said:


> If anyone is killed by a cyclist on a pavement, the cyclist was probably there deliberately. Anyone killed by a car on the pavement is unlikely to have been killed by a car driver who intended to be on the pavement. There are many times times more drivers than cyclists anyway, which makes that statistic meaningless.



Yes, the cyclist was there deliberately, normally because of fear of traffic. But the number of deaths they cause is tiny. You are more likely to be struck by lightning. Drivers also are deliberately on the pavement and do cause accidents. Another comment here gives an example. Far more than cyclists. If there were more cyclists I dare say there would be more accidents. But then if drivers were more competent, people would be more willing to cycle in the road. People would rather not cycle on the pavement, given a fair choice.


----------



## RogerS (14 May 2015)

Many thanks for the clarification, finial. Guess it all comes down to personal experience and observation as well as recorded figures. Lived in London from 1985 to 2005. My tally ?

Hit by cyclist - twice - once on the pavement, once him going the wrong way down a one-way street.

Cyclist - near misses c. 20 or so. It coincided with the peak of messenger cyclists...

Hit by a car or other vehicle - none (thankfully)

Car - near misses - 1

By those figures, car drivers are better than cyclists !!!
So my own experience differs from yours !!


----------



## bugbear (14 May 2015)

As a cyclist, I've hit a car, which is probably unusual.

I was coming down a gentle slope, probably doing 20-23 mph, when an oncoming Citroen car suddenly turned right, across my path, to get into a car park entrance. (I found out later he wasn't going to turn, but he saw a space at the last minute).

I dented the F** out of his passenger door. Didn't do me or the bike a lot of good though.

I was wearing clothing best described as "gaudy", had fully working lights, and ankle reflectors (3m Scotchlite).

His words as he emerged from his vehicle?

.
.
.

"Sorry mate, I didn't see you".

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2015)

bugbear":cajirote said:


> ........
> .
> 
> "Sorry mate, I didn't see you".
> ...


is widely known in cycling circles as a "smidsy". It happens all the time. Bright yellow helps - and assertive cycling; sticking to the middle of lanes, holding on to your road space etc.


----------



## Eric The Viking (14 May 2015)

This is a rant. Please ignore it if you wish.

Here in Bristol, where I've ridden a bike for about 35 years, we have a lot of money spent on 'schemes'. 

In the last five years or so we've spent (of other people's money!):

- 12 million on bus lanes (which have CAUSED at least three serious accidents (incl. fatality) when pedestrrians have been hit)
- More than 10 million on 20mph zones
- Unknown amounts on "residents' parking schemes"

Had this money gone straight to the police to pay for traffic officers, I think it would have been far better spent.

Cyclists belong on the roads -- on SAFE roads -- not pavements. The enthusiasm for breaking traffic law, either by riding on the pavements or jumping red lights (or whatever) is understandable, but not really excusable. The ones that do it aren't actually statistically safer because they are, by definintion, behaving unpredictably, and thus very likely to do something a driver will misinterpret. Never mind hitting pedestrians (well, they do here, anyway)...

Enforcing good driver behaviour, by actually catching the bad ones, would work. Many drivers resent cyclists sharing their road space, and that attitude needs changing. Similarly, cyclists need to ride to a higher standard and be law abiding, just like anyone else. Enforcing both is the police's responsibility, yet their funding is being cut.

Accidents are CAUSED by many of these expensive schemes, especially at the boundaries. They are also rarely thought through properly, and the law of unintended consequences applies with a vengance: 

- One of our expensive bus lanes had to be re-done (planners' fault, so at the taxpayers' expense), because it was found to be causing FOUR MILE tailbacks simply because it was about 100 FEET too long, and traffic couldn't use a junction properly.

- I've already mentioned the fatalities and other accidents caused by the scheme in the Centre.

- I now live on a major road which is officially 20MPH. At the bottom end of my road is a police station, a major hospital with a casualty department and a fire station. Guess which road they use with blues+twos to get places fast. But pedestrians -- many are elderly round here (and deaf!) -- are now EXPECTING 20MPH traffic! There are five zebra crossings between here and the police station. The first fatality will probably be from a police car, with a preoccupied driver forgetting to switch on the siren, or a full fire engine overturning after hitting the high curb on the islands. 

- We have another major road very close by, with a 20MPH section on one of its widest parts for less than 350 yards. I am certain the only purpose is future revenue-raising. Obviously I live in a city, but this bit of road has LOWER housing density than the 30MPH bits either side of it.

- We have several bus lanes where the buses run against one-way traffic flow. The predictable accidents have happened, quite a lot.

Our city traffic department seems almost completely unaccountable. This has got far worse since we got a mayor with executive powers. Schemes that have had HUGE amounts of local resident and political opposition have been pushed through regardless of locals or their councillors.

Our traffic is slower than ever before. The city has more traffic light poles than it can count (there are seventy four on the old Tramways Centre alone, which was a simple roundabout in the 1980s). Someone is getting very rich through all this, and our roads are no more efficiently used, nor safer for the 'greenest' users, meaning cyclists and pedestrians.

There have to be better ways of doing all this...

E.


----------



## Droogs (14 May 2015)

I know how you feel BugBear.
I had a similar one from a guy who drove out of an alley way that connected his house to the main road, a dual carriageway. he'd lived there for 20 years and only every looked to the right, coz he didn't know that the path he crossed everyday had been a cycle path for the last 15 years. Me, i ended up in the outside lane of the dual carriage way with a totally wrecked bike and 2 broken bones dislocated shoulder. Then his insurance company had the affront to offer me £400 for a £2K bike
ah well


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

Eric The Viking":2dsmtknt said:


> Cyclists belong on the roads -- on SAFE roads -- not pavements......
> 
> There have to be better ways of doing all this....



Too right about the second point!

A lot of cyclists say that about the roads, but they will never be safe enough for mass cycling. Human error is always there. Parents will never let their children cycle on the roads with significant amounts of traffic. But cycling doesn't belong on the pavement either. So for most people cycling has effectively been banned.

A small part of the nation's transport budget spent on good cycle tracks would solve a lot of major problems and benefit everyone.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 May 2015)

I was wearing clothing best described as "gaudy", had fully working lights, and ankle reflectors (3m Scotchlite).

His words as he emerged from his vehicle?

.
.
.

"Sorry mate, I didn't see you". - BB

I was on my motorbike the first day I owned it when a woman drove out in front of a stopped, blocking the lane with heavy traffic coming the other. She wasn't looking into the sun, she undoubtedly did see me - she was looking in my eyes, smiling. Me and my bike - 8'5" long, half a tonne with me on it. Headlights and hi viz. I looked down at the clock - 87 miles. From new. I shifted my feet, got my thumbs on top the bars and got ready to go over the top. Fortunately she took fright at the last moment and lurched forward. I just got behind her.
Many car drivers seem to think if you're on a cycle/motorcycle you can turn on a sixpence and stop in six feet. I have driven a car most of my life, a cycle, a motorcycle, small flat bed trucks, 7.5T ers and 5T dumpers - each of them give you a slightly different outlook.


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2015)

Sunday we had a mass village bike ride organised by local mountain bikers for a charity fund. More than 100 turned out including kids down to 4, adults up to 70 (me) and a lot of people who hardly use bikes.
17mile route mostly lanes and tracks. Road crossings with police halting traffic and the whole thing marshalled.
They had kept the route secret as half the people there would have been completely put off by the hills. As it is they nearly all completed it and saw bits of the Peak district which they'd never seen before.
Brilliant! Great success - acknowledged by all.


----------



## RogerS (14 May 2015)

phil.p":213pkw0l said:


> ...each of them give you a slightly different outlook.



This is very true. I've noticed a change in my driving since getting the elderly Discovery. For starters, if you ever want to overtake a slower vehicle then you need to have about a fortnights' notice. Speedy acceleration, it ain't. Also at around two tonnes that's an awful lot of momentum and so you also tend to drive slower with more space between you and the vehicle in front. "Pottering" is the phrase that springs to mind.

So then put me in the S2000 and I find that my driving style is still very much 'pottering'. With the occasional foray up the MPH scale, I have to confess.

Age might have something to do with it as well!


----------



## RogerS (14 May 2015)

Jacob said:


> ....
> They had kept the route secret as half the people there would have been completely put off by the hills. ...../quote]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mind_the_goat (14 May 2015)

Here's something to think about.
If there was a law passed to say cyclists were no longer allowed on the road but had use the pavements, would the total number of serious injuries and fatalities due to traffic (including cycles) increase or decrease ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 May 2015)

I think many cyclists believe that laws already been passed.


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

mind_the_goat":3k77wjkd said:


> Here's something to think about.
> If there was a law passed to say cyclists were no longer allowed on the road but had use the pavements, would the total number of serious injuries and fatalities due to traffic (including cycles) increase or decrease ?



I've wondered about this myself. More bikes on the pavement would likely increase pedestrian injuries, almost all very minor, but if you knock an old lady over sometimes it's fatal. And if people weren't risking a fine by riding on the pavement to keep themselves safe the number of riders might well rise. But many would be potterers, not the young, fit commuters who make up most of the riders today.

But then the riders would be safer, and every person riding is someone not in a motor vehicle, which are much more dangerous to riders and pedestrians, so that would tend to reduce the number of accidents. And it would tend to reduce air pollution, which kills many people, and reduce ill-health and obesity so saving the NHS a lot of money. And also it would reduce congestion and other problems so would have a number of plus points.


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

phil.p":3mw9u2aq said:


> I think many cyclists believe that laws already been passed.



It has in some places. There are quite a lot of shared use pavements. Even more where pavement driving is allowed. Personally, in London, I have never, ever, not once, been inconvenienced, felt threatened or injured by someone riding on the pavement. Or in the road. The government's position is that there is nothing wrong with considerate pavement cycling. But most people don't cycle at all now. 

Did you know that even small children break the law if they cycle on the pavement? Officially, a five year old on her first bicycle is meant to be in the road with the traffic.


----------



## mseries (14 May 2015)

riding my 20 miles to work would be very very tedious if I wasn;t allowed to use the roads - I'd probably not do it. I think many people would give up cycling if they had to use the pavement. I don't believe legalising pavement cycling would entice people out of cars, especially for cummuting. it would be too slow having to stop every 80m for a side road. (one of the reasons I don't use most cycle paths is that one isn't treatred like a vehicle and don't get the same priorities as vehicles on the road). I don't think it would change the KSIs much at all


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

mseries":2larnt66 said:


> riding my 20 miles to work would be very very tedious if I wasn;t allowed to use the roads - I'd probably not do it. I think many people would give up cycling if they had to use the pavement. I don't believe legalising pavement cycling would entice people out of cars, especially for cummuting. it would be too slow having to stop every 80m for a side road. (one of the reasons I don't use most cycle paths is that one isn't treatred like a vehicle and don't get the same priorities as vehicles on the road). I don't think it would change the KSIs much at all



Pavement riding is no good for people like you, not so bad for most though. But it's not the answer. If there were good cycle tracks the only problem you would have is the large number of people using them. I'm not aware of any good tracks in this country. Lots that are nice to ride on, but not suitable for utility cycling.


----------



## Finial (14 May 2015)

RogerS":87jp40yb said:


> Finial":87jp40yb said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



OK, have a look at table 14 near the end of this document

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...nd-casualities-in-greater-london-sep-2011.pdf

Probably similar to figures from elsewhere.


----------



## Droogs (15 May 2015)

This is my kinda cycle path
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30024883


----------



## mseries (15 May 2015)

Finial":1yy85562 said:


> RogerS":1yy85562 said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":1yy85562 said:
> ...


Interesting that they assign 'exceeding speed limit' 30 times to cyclists, when speed limits apply only to motor vehicles. Exceeding speed limit itself is surely not a contributory factor, 'travelling too fast for conditions' would be though and they assign this 67 times to cyclists.


----------



## novocaine (15 May 2015)

hyde park ( I think) has a speed limit ( I think) that is applicable to cyclist so I assume it's that.


----------



## pcb1962 (15 May 2015)

novocaine":wm1r6hbx said:


> hyde park ( I think) has a speed limit ( I think) that is applicable to cyclist so I assume it's that.



Richmond Park does too, but there seems to be some doubt over whether it really does apply to cyclists or not
http://road.cc/content/news/145161-spee ... lty-lawful


----------



## mseries (15 May 2015)

novocaine":uwl3b0nw said:


> hyde park ( I think) has a speed limit ( I think) that is applicable to cyclist so I assume it's that.



The table was compiled based on Police Officers' reports so I wouldn't be surprised if they made comments such as "he was exceeding the 30mph speed limit, really olny meaning he was going faster than 30mph". Going faster than an arbitary speed limit isn't cause for a crash though as many speeding motorists will tell you.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Finial":8te8r6fb said:


> RogerS":8te8r6fb said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":8te8r6fb said:
> ...



I was curious to know if there had been any analysis as to the causes of KSI's for cyclists and came across this report from the NHS - who one could argue have an even better handle on things then the police.

Their figures do not concur with yours. The figures from *the NHS who put the blame for KSI's (killed or seriously injured) more on the cyclist!* http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02february/ ... eport.aspx

If one thinks it is the motorists fault then one will believe the police figures. And vice versa. 

The only thing clear from this is that we cannot say for sure which type of road user is more to blame.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

RogerS":icuye4mo said:


> Finial":icuye4mo said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":icuye4mo said:
> ...


No they don't put the blame on the cyclist at all. Yes cyclists are more involved in KSIs but this is as victim rather than perpetrator.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Jacob":2ahgozw0 said:


> RogerS":2ahgozw0 said:
> 
> 
> > I was curious to know if there had been any analysis as to the causes of KSI's for cyclists and came across this report from the NHS - who one could argue have an even better handle on things then the police.
> ...



Jacob, write out 100 x " I must read the article before opening my mouth"

*This suggests that cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions. * from the report I linked to.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2015)

Thanks Roger. Certainly drivers aren’t always to blame. I know of a case where a rider shot out of a side road and ran into the side of a car on the far side of the road.

But my own experience is that, round my way at least, people riding bikes do so mostly in compliance with the law and the highway code (the exception being that many jump red lights, which I have never once seen to cause a problem, because of course they don’t do it through moving traffic). 

But just about all drivers contravene both, particularly in two respects - speeding and overtaking bikes too close. Many also jump red lights and drive while phoning or otherwise distracted.

The commonest accidents that injure bike riders happen when:

a vehicle overtakes a bike and immediately turns left
a vehicle pulls out of a side road in path of a bike
a driver’s door opens in path of bike
a vehicle turns right, across the path of an oncoming bike
a vehicle hits bike while overtaking too close
a vehicle enters a roundabout when bike has priority

I’ve experience all these, while cycling fully in compliance with the Highway Code, and as far as I am concerned, lawless and incompetent drivers are a menace. Education and training for drivers hasn’t worked very well. This is why we need proper cycle tracks.

So, going back to the original post, it is not possible to assume that bike riders are to blame for passing HGVs on the left. Perhaps some are, and perhaps sometimes the driver pulls up alongside the bike and then turns left over them.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

This from the report I linked to suggests other reasons as well - including 'one in four of non-collision accidents' were caused by drunk cycling !!

_Riding aside these giant beasts of the road can be intimidating, but data suggests they are not as dangerous as other vehicles.
By far the biggest risk to a cyclist in terms of a collision are cars and taxis. The 2012 DfT report recorded 2,434 collisions between a cyclist and a car, with the KSI rate between a cyclist and an HGV just 114.
Unsurprisingly, however, cyclists involved in an HGV collision tended to sustain more serious injuries than those involving cars. In 2013, there were 14 reported fatalities in London, nine of which involved an HGV.

A surprising number of cyclists endanger themselves unnecessarily. In 2012, there were 248 KSIs with no other vehicles involved. Instead, cyclists were injured or killed for reasons such as falling off or hitting the kerb.
However, it’s worth highlighting that a significant number of these incidents occurred when cyclists were impaired by alcohol. Transport Research Laboratory estimated that around one in four “non-collision cycle accidents” was the result of drunk cycling_

The other interesting point that came out was 

_One UK researcher has argued that many women wrongly perceive that overtaking an HGV on the left-hand side is less risky, possibly because they believe sticking close to the curb is safer. The researcher did find a statistically significant trend in women reporting to be “left-side overtakers_

There is an awful lot of interesting research out there and from a quick dip in one of the recommendations that arise time after time was better road training and education for, no - not drivers - but the cyclists themselves. That is NOT to detract from your valid points made re driver inattention etc.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

RogerS":1jlyojho said:


> ...
> There is an awful lot of interesting research out there and from a quick dip in one of the recommendations that arise time after time was better road training and education for, no - not drivers - but the cyclists themselves. That is NOT to detract from your valid points made re driver inattention etc.


Both innit.
I had no cycling training but I have years of cycling experience and have also driven HGVs (mostly careering around quarries off-road - any cyclists would have been flattened very quickly!). 
I'm somewhat horrified by some other cyclists and the risks they take. It's often not recklessness but just ignorance and inexperience. More training would be good.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2015)

Training can't be a bad thing. If there are people who don't know it's not safe to filter past a vehicle that might turn, in spite of all the warning stickers on HGVs etc, it's time they did. I'm not arguing against it, only that it is not going to do much to make cycling safe. HGVs kill more than other vehicles in London, but cars, taxis, vans and buses are dangerous too. Most accidents are like the ones I described, and not necessarily the rider's fault at all.

What is needed more than training is proper protected tracks so that people feel safe and are safe cycling. Traffic law enforcement might help until we have them.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Trouble is many of London's roads aren't wide enough to allow for cycle lanes.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

RogerS":il3vkgsx said:


> Trouble is many of London's roads aren't wide enough to allow for cycle lanes.


Typo? Did you mean not wide enough for HGVs, buses etc? 
Bikes don't need much space. On narrow roads there's a good case for giving them priority and having low speed limit for motors say 20 or below.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Jacob":2ezndwet said:


> RogerS":2ezndwet said:
> 
> 
> > Trouble is many of London's roads aren't wide enough to allow for cycle lanes.
> ...



No, I meant not wide enough to have cycle lanes and lanes for other vehicles.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

They have to share the space then - but with better signage, slower speeds, cycling priority, etc as they do in a lot of European countries, without a problem.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Well I'm not going to debate this with you, Jacob.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

Why not?

One thing that tends to get overlooked is that roads were improved, thanks to cyclists, long before the first motor vehicles. 
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/ro ... rs-history
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -for-roads


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Because debating with you is like trying to nail jelly to a tree.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

Hmm I see. :roll: 
You mean you are a bad loser perhaps? :lol:


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

Jacob":2sawsdbh said:


> Hmm I see. :roll:
> You mean you are a bad loser perhaps? :lol:



No, a realist.


----------



## Droogs (2 Jun 2015)

RogerS":3h3hnuta said:


> Jacob":3h3hnuta said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm I see. :roll:
> ...



Snigger, tee hee


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2015)

In some countries they try to increase cycling and reduce car use. They gain in improved health, reduced congestion and pleasanter town centres. Here, we consistently prioritise motor vehicles and we all pay the price. We have some of the fattest children in Europe and some of the unhealthiest adults. Lots of people would like to cycle, but don't feel safe if they do. They don't have the choice, and very few cycle now.

The only way to enable them to ride is to provide cycle tracks where they are needed. Nothing else works. This is what other countries have done, and it could be done here if there was the will. Residential streets should be closed to through motor traffic and limited to 20 mph. Without rat running, they are normally safe enough. Roads for through traffic must have cycle tracks and pavements where there is room. Where there isn't, the roads must be made one way to motors. Roads that can't be made safe should be closed to through motor traffic. All this is done elsewhere and works very well.

When eventually it is done here, everyone will look back and wonder why it took so long.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jun 2015)

Be careful your halo doesn't strangle you.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2015)

phil.p":1pmk67cl said:


> Be careful your halo doesn't strangle you.



:lol:


----------



## Alex H (3 Jun 2015)

Finial":11m6o1cu said:


> They don't have the choice, and very few cycle now.



8% of the population of the UK (4.6 million people) cycle more than 3 times a week

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics#How many people cycle and how often?



Finial":11m6o1cu said:


> All this is done elsewhere and works very well.



Where exactly does this happen?

If everyone in the UK was Danish or Finnish or Dutch, then the problem wouldn't exist :-"


----------



## Ransoman (3 Jun 2015)

Could one potential solution for the Traffic light fatalities be to have a seperate green light for cycles and they are "green lighted" 2 seconds before cars are? This would give them the chance to get ahead into safety and prevent cars tying to race them from the lights to get ahead. It would also help prevent the left turning fatalities as the cyclist would hopefully be out of the way by the time the car/van/lorry starts moving/turning.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2015)

They've already got one - they're all colour blind.


----------



## RogerS (3 Jun 2015)

Ransoman":30p92os1 said:


> Could one potential solution for the Traffic light fatalities be to have a seperate green light for cycles and they are "green lighted" 2 seconds before cars are? This would give them the chance to get ahead into safety and prevent cars tying to race them from the lights to get ahead. It would also help prevent the left turning fatalities as the cyclist would hopefully be out of the way by the time the car/van/lorry starts moving/turning.



Even easier and cheaper solution. Cyclists don't cycle up on the inside of an HGV at traffic lights.


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2015)

RogerS":1a8hjsnh said:


> Ransoman":1a8hjsnh said:
> 
> 
> > Could one potential solution for the Traffic light fatalities be to have a seperate green light for cycles and they are "green lighted" 2 seconds before cars are? This would give them the chance to get ahead into safety and prevent cars tying to race them from the lights to get ahead. It would also help prevent the left turning fatalities as the cyclist would hopefully be out of the way by the time the car/van/lorry starts moving/turning.
> ...



Roger, your idea would work in the case of people who might filter on the inside. What do you suggest for when drivers overtake or stop alongside the bikes already waiting at the junction?


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2015)

Alex H":2fb66zkt said:


> Finial":2fb66zkt said:
> 
> 
> > They don't have the choice, and very few cycle now.



8% of the population of the UK (4.6 million people) cycle more than 3 times a week

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics#How many people cycle and how often?


Yes, very few. Where I live there is nothing but queues of cars, often stationary. Some hardy commuters on bikes in the rush hour, but hardly anyone on the road outside that. When was the last time you saw a child cycling on the road? Or a pensioner? A few cycle on the pavement. Some enjoy leisure cycling off road. In some places there may even be usable cycle tracks. Where people have a choice, a high percentage of journeys are made on bikes.


----------



## RogerS (3 Jun 2015)

Finial":2ad5vmbh said:


> RogerS":2ad5vmbh said:
> 
> 
> > Ransoman":2ad5vmbh said:
> ...



In both cases the drivers would see the cyclist already there.


----------



## mseries (3 Jun 2015)

RogerS":mmu4ej44 said:


> In both cases the drivers would see the cyclist already there.



You'd expect so but many collisions are caused when drivers don't see cyclists when they should. Sorry Mate I Didn't See You is all too common.

"A study which used eye tracking technology to monitor driver behaviour found that the drivers involved in the experiment failed to notice 22% of cyclists on the road, despite them being in clear view. - See more at: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/437 ... 8goz3.dpuf"


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2015)

> In both cases the drivers would see the cyclist already there.




Yes, you would think so. That's what usually happens. If all drivers were reliably careful and considerate there would be no problem. Unfortunately some forget, are distracted, or don't understand that they need to let the bikes get clear. Often they seem not to look. And HGVs are notorious for having big blind spots. The sort of incidents I described earlier are very common. Educating drivers and training bike riders has been tried, and has failed to improve cycling safety. If you cycle fully in accordance with the law, wear hi vis and carry as many lights as can fit on the bike, you still have a significant chance of being run down. 

Seriously, motor traffic has driven most people who would like to cycle, and pedestrians (where there is no pavement), off the road. Is that acceptable?


----------



## Jacob (3 Jun 2015)

Finial":3v6t8qv6 said:


> RogerS":3v6t8qv6 said:
> 
> 
> > Ransoman":3v6t8qv6 said:
> ...


Cyclists at a junction should stick to centre of the lane so they can't be overtaken. That's what I do. If someone gets irritated and does try to sneak past when there isn't really room then you know he is probably a nutter and you keep well clear.


----------



## n0legs (3 Jun 2015)

If a motorist did this there would be a case of due care and attention to answer. Your insurance company wouldn't be impressed either.

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1 ... a_scratch/

Car drivers of the world enjoy


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2015)

Finial - Perfectly. The economy of the Country depends on lorries, buses and cars. It does not depend on cycles.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2015)

n0legs":ss3uybfk said:


> If a motorist did this there would be a case of due care and attention to answer. Your insurance company wouldn't be impressed either.
> 
> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1 ... a_scratch/
> 
> Car drivers of the world enjoy



Smidsy!  =D>


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2015)

phil.p":iyjnpqkh said:


> Finial - Perfectly. The economy of the Country depends on lorries, buses and cars. It does not depend on cycles.



Not entirely true, ill health costs a lot and businesses tend to do better when their employees are fitter and their customers cycle. But there is certainly a need for motor traffic. Other countries seem to have solved the problem without going bust. So is it your view that nothing can or should be done here?


----------



## n0legs (3 Jun 2015)

phil.p":30gmzf4j said:


> Smidsy!  =D>



Think once
Think twice
Think.............

Yea bike boy just think a bit :lol:


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2015)

Man bites dog.....


----------



## n0legs (3 Jun 2015)

Dog writes best seller.....


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2015)

Jacob":2i3eni7i said:


> Cyclists at a junction should stick to centre of the lane so they can't be overtaken. That's what I do.



That may be good advice for people who cycle now. Others don't feel safe in front of moving traffic. And perhaps you aren't as safe as you might think.


----------

