I share this to establish that I am not an anti cycling nut job, defusing part of the argument against me before someone even tries it. The number of deaths in London recently has made the news and cyclist safety is a key issue in the capital. But it feels like one suggestion is off the table, telling cyclists to change their behavior.
Much like drivers, cyclists and their attitude vary, but as a percentage of cars and cyclists I see those on two wheels making risks much more often. I have myself been hit by a cyclist going through a red light, it hurt, but not as much as his face after I gently caressed it with my fist. Weaving through traffic, red light jumping, talking on the phone, no high vis when needed, poor lights and the biggest sin of all, stopping down the left hand side of a lorry (or other very large vehicle) at a junction.
You are asking for trouble in that situation, how often do you hear of this kind of accident? Every time you hear people ask what can be done to the lorry to stop it happening, padding, side bars, different mirrors. Here is a novel idea, try not being in a dangerous place to start with. Surely the easiest thing to stop this happening is for cyclists to realise that lorries have massive blind spots so not to go there in the first place.
 |
| Why take the risk? |
Removing the holier than thou attitude some cyclists have and changing their behavior is probably the easiest and quickest way to save lives. When a cyclist dies because a lorry was turning left at a junction my initial reaction is "why were they there". If someone jumped off a cliff into the sea for a buzz and died would you blame their stupidity or the cliff and sea?
Follow @RantyPantz_
Re this point:
ReplyDelete"When a cyclist dies because a lorry was turning left at a junction my initial reaction is "why were they there". If someone jumped off a cliff into the see for a buzz and died would you blame their stupidity or the cliff and sea?"
Presumably you've seen where the cycle lanes and advanced stop areas are painted? Right along the gutter, up the inside of lorries, and into their blind spots. You and I might recognise that such a place is a dangerous position to put oneself in, but the infrastructure guides people to there and it habituates them to do so. It teaches them to endanger themselves.
And if it wasn't insane enough that people build cycle lanes there, they even come along afterwards and criticise the people who use them, telling them it's dangerous to do so:
beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/tipping-out-the-paint/
It's like when you see a lorry stuck under a bridge because the sat nav said to go there.
DeleteEngage your brain and all will be fine
Well, no, it's not like that. A satnav, which uses third party data and algorithms to suggest routes, is not the same as road markings, which are placed there as part of the very roads themselves and which have very specific legal implications regarding their use. Also, lorry drivers aren't subjected to abuse or aggression if they drive down a road without a low bridge in it.
DeleteSo what you're saying is that people are too stupid to use common sense to keep themselves safe
DeleteWhy shouldn't cyclists be safe in their lane?
DeleteWell, the obvious solution is to read this very good instruction manual:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Saddle-Sore-ebook/dp/B00589X96K
:o)
It's not that simple. Yes, some people put themselves in dangerous positions because they are, if you want to call it such, "too stupid". For many it's a much subtler thing: you'd arguably need experience to know that sitting in the middle of the lane behind a vehicle is safer than riding up the inside of it, but many people cannot ride quickly or assertively enough to get into that position. They are left to rely on what the experts, the people who design roads, give them.
ReplyDeleteYes, it'd be lovely if everyone understood the dynamics of every road scenario and acted entirely defensively. But that's certainly not the case for those who are licensed to drive 1-ton-plus vehicles at up to 70mph (or more), and it's not going to be the case for people on bicycles.
Then you would presumably support my idea for a test to be allowed to cycle on the roads where they would have to learn all these things. Then when they break these rules, like drivers, they have to take the test again after a ban.
ReplyDeleteThat makes logical sense from a natural angle on it, yes, but there are a couple of intertwined things that mean I don't agree. To be honest the explanation is a little long-winded and is a blog post I'd already started writing anyway, so I shall try to get back to it later and let you know when I have.
Delete"Then you would presumably support my idea for a test to be allowed to cycle on the roads where they would have to learn all these things"
DeleteTraining wouldn't help in the situations Bez talks about. For example many cyclists are too slow to ride defensively, this is not a training issue but a fitness/attitude issue, or at worse its being intimidated by drivers who (some seem to) forget their training even overtaking etc...
In the situations where cyclists are using a cycle lane and then get hit by a truck is also not a training issue as the HC already accounts for this by stating all vehicles need to check to see if its safe to move before moving. And makes assumptions that you are safe in your lane if the rules are followed (this seems to apply to all road users but cyclists who are not safe in their lane).
Training wouldn't help with RLJing/pavment cycling either as everyone knows that's illegal. And no amount of training will fix that (fines might though).
As for undertaking when there's no room - this and only this I suspect training could help, but even then its not something that would justify the training/licensing infrastructure that would be required.
Then of course you have other (less obvious) issues - training kids to be kids, putting people off cycling - resulting in all kinds of social issues that Ill happily go into if you are curious.
Where's your evidence that the cyclists killed by left turning vehicles put themselves there, rather than the incidents being the result of the vehicle overtaking?
ReplyDeleteAnd are you really blaming cyclists for using cycle facilities that specifically guide them in to these blind spots?
This article is nothing more than victim blaming nonsense. Classic 'cyclist myself gibberish.
http://cambridgecyclist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/cyclist-hater-type-vi-cyclist-myself.html
If you are too stupid to avoid a dangerous situation then what hope is there for you?
ReplyDeleteI don't blame cyclists for all accidents, not that you would think that by some of the reactions, just pointing out that plenty take stupid risks and then act like they do nothing wrong. Nowhere do I excuse bad driving causing accidents
"If you are too stupid to avoid a dangerous situation then what hope is there for you?"
DeleteIts dangerous because of the HGV not because of the cyclist. Why are you so keen to find fault with the cyclists and not the ones introducing the danger, or the ones who have limited visibility when turning, or the ones that design cycle paths (you know, those places where cyclists should be safe) so badly?
Fine, go ahead and keep putting yourself in a stupid situation. I will pen you Darwin award nomination
DeleteAbsolutely incredible. "hmm that wagon is really big and really heavy, but this cycle lane is here for me. Fuck physics, I'll just trundle up the side." I'm not saying it's all cyclists fault or all HGV Drivers' fault. What I am saying is blindly following a coloured lane as if it will protect you from harm like a magical talisman is incredibly retarded!
Delete"Fine, go ahead and keep putting yourself in a stupid situation. I will pen you Darwin award nomination"
DeleteIll ask again - why are we assuming its cyclists who need to change. Or do you assume because ones bigger we should all give way and hope for the best as not tame the element of danger?
"hmm that wagon is really big and really heavy, but this cycle lane is here for me. Fuck physics, I'll just trundle up the side."
when you're in your car, do you not feel you have priority in your lane? Or is it just cyclists who do not get equal treatment?
No I say everyone needs to change.
DeleteThen you need to re-write the highway code to state that:
DeleteCyclists are not safe in their dedicated lanes
Advanced stop boxes are useless and a waste of time
And its acceptable for large heavy vehicles to have multiple blind spots that allows them to ignore the rule that states only move/change lanes when you know its safe todo so.
Do I assume automatic priority? No, far from it. Again, lines a painted on the road. no warrant/entitlement should be implied. The only guarantee you have it your eyes and your own spatial awareness.
Deleterah rah rah everyone else should make sure I am safe and I should not have to do ANYTHING at all to keep myself safe....
DeleteSurely you can see how unbalanced you are being?
All that ranty is saying is "yes... those things are bad but SURELY as a cyclist you can also keep yourself safe by using intelligence"
" lines a painted on the road. no warrant/entitlement should be implied"
DeleteThen why paint them?
"rah rah rah everyone else should make sure I am safe and I should not have to do ANYTHING at all to keep myself safe...."
if you where driving and a truck entered your lane and smashed up your car (Ill assume you didn't die) whose fault is it for the driver of the truck no looking before changing lanes?
You are all agreeing with each other.
ReplyDeleteranty is pointing out that being in a blind spot is dangerous and let's train people to be more intelligent, and also invest in infrastructure to improve safety...
I would point out that I am also a cyclist and I do not blindly follow cycle lanes into dangerous places... if you are arguing that "it is your right to do this" as a cyclist (and that all consequences are out of your hands) then frankly you are very silly.
When I cycle I light myself up like the proverbial Christmas tree, avoid dangerous situations when I can, and presume all other users of the road (pedestrian / cyclist / car / HGV / mobility scooter) are total fools with their eyes shut. It is called "taking responsibility for myself" and not relying on others to keep me safe.
I totally agree that the design of roads is barmy but then, since when did the state do anything sensible?
Why wait for the state to protect you when you can protect yourselves....?
"Its dangerous because of the HGV not because of the cyclist."
ReplyDeleteIt's dangerous because of stupid thinking like that.
why?
DeleteWhat danger does a cyclist pose cycling in a cycle lane?
Its dangerous if both are in the same place at the same time. It is fundamental to the problem that it is because of both of them.
Delete"Its dangerous if both are in the same place at the same time. It is fundamental to the problem that it is because of both of them."
DeleteThen why is a HGV in the cycle lane then?
Would it not be simpler to just ban cycles from our streets/pavements, thus saving lives? Simple! Those that currently cycle can walk/drive or use public transport! Sorted with no more arguments. I should be PM, it's so easy sorting things out... Lord Lindley of the Peak
ReplyDeleteIf bicycles were invented today, it is most unlikely they would be allowed on the roads.
ReplyDelete"If bicycles were invented today, it is most unlikely they would be allowed on the roads."
DeleteThe same has been said of HGVs.
It is not so much the vehicle as the persons in control of that vehicle. HGV - Busy workers in charge of a huge dangerous vehicle. Cyclists - Selfish, left wing, socialists who think global warming is real.
DeleteLet us consider the options?