Just noticed a small report that a 28yo cyclist died on Sunday as a result of a collision with a police vehicle in Lincoln.

 

I have no idea as to fault but I think it's time the press campaigned more forcefully and they could make a start by publishing cycle deaths on the front page under a big headline. How many more must die before changes are brought to bear?

 

Indalo

We had another London cyclist crushed to death by a lorry (skip I think). Reported by the evening standard today. Perhaps if we threatened drivers with gaol then they would stop running over us - sorry I forgot they can go to gaol but it doesn't seem to work.

and pedestrians killed by cyclists

 

This tragic story was on my local BBC news the other day BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

Yes that is the same story talked about on another thread and they are angry that the cyclist has not gone to gaol. This dates back to 2007 and I wonder how many cyclist and pedestrians have been killed by vehicles since them - not many of the drivers have ended up in gaol.

We had another London cyclist crushed to death by a lorry (skip I think). Reported by the evening standard today. Perhaps if we threatened drivers with gaol then they would stop running over us - sorry I forgot they can go to gaol but it doesn't seem to work.

Maybe if we threatened cyclists with death they would stop riding up the left hand side of lorries just before a junction.

Maybe if we threatened cyclists with death they would stop riding up the left hand side of lorries just before a junction.

 

Is this supposed to be funny? As somebody who has had his head (well helmet) clipped by a portaloo on the back of a lorry, had his mirror clipped by a passing lorry who thought there was enough room to overtake when the road narrowed at a central island, I wouldn't assume that it is always the cyclist at fault. Why don't you ask James Cracknell about his accident?

 

PS I would like to see the statistics that show it is the cyclist undertaking before being crushed in these accidents. About a month ago I had a Lorry overtake me and turned left - this is despite all the publicity about cyclist being killed this way so it can and does happen if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Edited March 29, 201115 yr by HarryB

Is this supposed to be funny? As somebody who has had his head (well helmet) clipped by a portaloo on the back of a lorry, had his mirror clipped by a passing lorry who thought there was enough room to overtake when the road narrowed at a central island, I wouldn't assume that it is always the cyclist at fault. Why don't you ask James Cracknell about his accident?

It's not meant to be funny. Most cycling deaths in built up areas are easily preventable by the cyclist. Your post seems to suggest it's always the fault of the driver, it's a dangerous thing to as cyclists need to be aware that their own actions make a difference. With hindsight I'm sure that you can see how your clip could have been avoided, I know that after almost every close call or accident I've spotted what I've done wrong and tried to modify my behaviour in future.

 

If the threat of death won't stop cyclists putting themselves in dangerous situations then why would the threat of prison stop a car driver putting a cyclist in danger?

Edited April 1, 201115 yr by Mussels

It's not meant to be funny. Most cycling deaths in built up areas are easily preventable by the cyclist. Your post seems to suggest it's always the fault of the driver, it's a dangerous thing to as cyclists need to be aware that their own actions make a difference. With hindsight I'm sure that you can see how your clip could have been avoided, I know that after almost every close call or accident I've spotted what I've done wrong and tried to modify my behaviour in future.

 

If the threat of death won't stop cyclists putting themselves in dangerous situations then why would the threat of prison stop a car driver putting a cyclist in danger?

 

Cyclist are threatened with death every day and it does not always modify their behaviour. They are sent out onto the roads with no training and this level of deaths seems to be accepted. Like fighter pilots you learn by mistakes and if you are unlucky then you cop it. Yes I avoid accidents by constantly looking over my back to check that somebody is not going to run me over - that is not the way it is supposed to be and is not acceptable. In 10 or 20 years we will look back in horror at the number of accidents and in particular the number of cycling deaths. I added a bit to my post to illustrate the point here: I would like to see the statistics that show it is the cyclist undertaking before being crushed in these accidents. About a month ago I had a Lorry overtake me and turned left - this is despite all the publicity about cyclist being killed this way so it can and does happen if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

In fact I was being ironic (I think) about the comment on going to gaol not stopping the slaughter, so on this point we agree.

Perhaps the time has come for another look at STRICT LIABILITY

Don't believe everything reported in the press

 

Remember though, don't believe everything that's reported, especially at the beginning of the episode. Wrong press causes extreme extra stress and grief, my Richard was reported as speeding and having crashed into a van - in both local and national papers, and on regional TV! Both totally wrong. He had a massive brain haemorrhage whilst on the bike, was seen to wobble and fall to the ground, not a craze on him anywhere, still astride his Sprint. The van driver stopped to block the road, but was also extremely upset at the incorrect salacious reporting.

 

To this day I still find myself telling people that Richard did NOT crash into a van, indeed, it took a couple of days for even me to understand exactly what did happen, fortunately there were lots of witnesses and it was only after I returned home from the Neuro-critical Care Unit in Plymouth 11 days later that I learnt the extent of the wrong press, the Police helped me get the truth out there, but, of course, by then it was no longer front page news and the damage had already been done. Also would you believe the papers even rang me after I'd returned home to ask me how I felt about "Richard's crash"........

 

I think cyclists should always obey the rules, take responsibility, as much as they can, for safe cycling, even if it does mean tolerating bad manners and positioning of vehicles on the road. As always there will be those that do not, and give cycling a bad name.

 

I feel for the cyclist's family, it's a very sad day.

Very well put!

 

Regards,

Indalo

........ditto

I am probably biased, but I blame the planners. Anyone who specifically puts cyclists and HGV's on the same space in the road should expect injuries and deaths, its simply inevitable.

 

No sane person 'wants' to kill or maim another, so why does it happen so often? It must be the traffic system itself, its completely flawed.

 

J

Trouble is that we live in a very media driven world. The majority of the general public is brainwashed into believing everything that is reported in the media. Everything is taken at face value and judgements are made. The media know this of course and use spin and speculation to make their money. If everyone could step back from the media reporting and wait for the truth to out, before making judgements, then the world would be a much less hysterical place.

 

An added complication to this, is the modern phenomena of the internet and especially social networking. The 'facebook' generation is brainwashed into believing what their peers spin and speculate about.

 

Be careful, it's a hyped up world out there.

I think it would be really nice if a small forum like this could achieve unity of opinion on serious issues concerning all those who mount bicycles.

 

Of course there are some stupid, aggressive pillocks out there riding bikes who give us all a bad name but they're the exception rather than the rule.

 

The reality is that a lot of good people die each year because our driving tuition, our driving test, our culture pay(s) such little regard to those who choose to ride on two wheels.

 

It's time to try something radical like......PUNISHMENT!!! To that end, (correct me if I'm wrong) Australia still has plenty of room so let's resume transportation of all those who piss us off. Just one driver banished to a country where they've forgotten how to win at cricket is one less potential cyclist killer in the UK.

 

Too costly? Ok....let's hang them; quick and cheap!

 

Indalo

The reality is that a lot of good people die each year because our driving tuition, our driving test, our culture pay(s) such little regard to those who choose to ride on two wheels.

This is what I was objecting to before, it's great saying that the bloke that kills you will be punished, great but it doesn't help you. Cyclists need training as well and all the time we place all blame on car drivers cyclists will continue in ignorant bliss believing all responsibility sits with car drivers.

The probability of an accident is low because many factors are needed for it to happen, remove one of those factors and there's no accident. Some of these are impractical (don't ride at all), some are out of our control (is the driver awake) and some are in our control (road positioning of the bike). I don't want to stop riding and I can't stop people driving so if I want to stay alive I must realise that I need to pay attention to my road positioning. Don't expect a stranger to be responsible for you.

This type of thinking seems commonplace in the motorbike world but very lacking for pushbikes. It's not covered by the motorbike test but something people talk about fairly often, it applies to cars as well but as they are inherantly safer many drivers don't bother.

In the motoring world there is a lot of support from the Police, the IAM and advanced instructors so help is easy to find. In the pushbike world there is very little good help, I know a cycling proficiency* instructor and what they call advanced level training I consider basic.

I don't know what the answer is but laying all the blame on other drivers and increasing punishments won't help you (not indalo specifically) anywhere near as much as changing your own attitudes and learning roadcraft.

 

* I can't remember what it's called now.

 

My statement about cyclists passing lorries on the wrong side being the main cause of death is prevalent in London and a reason for many barriers being removed from pavements (so the cyclist can fall onto the pavement rather than under the lorry) but I can't find any breakdown for rural areas where I suspect speed is a much bigger factor in cyclist deaths.

This is what I was objecting to before, it's great saying that the bloke that kills you will be punished, great but it doesn't help you. Cyclists need training as well and all the time we place all blame on car drivers cyclists will continue in ignorant bliss believing all responsibility sits with car drivers.

The probability of an accident is low because many factors are needed for it to happen, remove one of those factors and there's no accident. Some of these are impractical (don't ride at all), some are out of our control (is the driver awake) and some are in our control (road positioning of the bike). I don't want to stop riding and I can't stop people driving so if I want to stay alive I must realise that I need to pay attention to my road positioning. Don't expect a stranger to be responsible for you.

This type of thinking seems commonplace in the motorbike world but very lacking for pushbikes. It's not covered by the motorbike test but something people talk about fairly often, it applies to cars as well but as they are inherantly safer many drivers don't bother.

In the motoring world there is a lot of support from the Police, the IAM and advanced instructors so help is easy to find. In the pushbike world there is very little good help, I know a cycling proficiency* instructor and what they call advanced level training I consider basic.

I don't know what the answer is but laying all the blame on other drivers and increasing punishments won't help you (not indalo specifically) anywhere near as much as changing your own attitudes and learning roadcraft.

 

* I can't remember what it's called now.

 

My statement about cyclists passing lorries on the wrong side being the main cause of death is prevalent in London and a reason for many barriers being removed from pavements (so the cyclist can fall onto the pavement rather than under the lorry) but I can't find any breakdown for rural areas where I suspect speed is a much bigger factor in cyclist deaths.

 

Well we are all saying that sending people to gaol doesn't work aren't we? It won't help a cyclist killing a pedestrian either - that is the point.

 

Cycling doesn't require training to ride on the road - nor does being a pedestrian but we accept in common law that a driver should be responsible for the death of a pedestrian but the same rules do not apply to cyclist. I think if drivers were automatically held responsible then standards would improve. Drivers would less likely 'take a bit of risk with that overtaking move' - after all at the moment there is little risk to them but plenty for the cyclist. How would you suggest we change the balance of risk as it must change?

 

Bear in mind I have changed my position on this (from yours) in the last five years. My mind has been changed by riding a lot more on London roads and the attitudes of many drivers. Also despite my experience I am seriously taking up one of your options on cycling - can you guess which one?

Planners in our area i would assume have never been on a bicycle in their lives.

They narrow the roads, extend the pavements as wide as the roads then put a cycle lane by the kerbside where residents park all day so no room for cyclists on the cycle lane, instead we have to dodge in and out of parked cars.

Then when the car parking (cycle lane) ends you come to the cyclist dismount sign where you have to cross the road and ride on the pavement for a couple of hundred yards and dodge pedestrians trying to cross the road, before having to dismount again to cross the road to cycle on the pavement on the other side of the road and so it goes on.

 

Sensible and safe cycling should now be considered a priority in all towns and cities, reduce congestion and accidents.

Edited March 30, 201115 yr by hawkwind

Planners in our area i would assume have never been on a bicycle in their lives.

They narrow the roads, extend the pavements as wide as the roads then put a cycle lane by the kerbside where residents park all day so no room for cyclists on the cycle lane, instead we have to dodge in and out of parked cars.

Then when the car parking (cycle lane) ends you come to the cyclist dismount sign where you have to cross the road and ride on the pavement for a couple of hundred yards and dodge pedestrians trying to cross the road, before having to dismount again to cross the road to cycle on the pavement on the other side of the road and so it goes on.

 

Sensible and safe cycling should now be considered a priority in all towns and cities, reduce congestion and accidents.

 

I agree that road planners have got a lot to answer for. Anybody with a pen and the back of an envelope can see what happens when you put a dirty great big island in the middle of the road and cars/lorries are over-taking cyclists - highway code rule 136 or no highway code rule 136. I suggest that they are either stupid or they don't consider cyclist in their planning - which sort of begs the question, are they stupid?

Well we are all saying that sending people to gaol doesn't work aren't we? It won't help a cyclist killing a pedestrian either - that is the point.

 

Cycling doesn't require training to ride on the road - nor does being a pedestrian but we accept in common law that a driver should be responsible for the death of a pedestrian but the same rules do not apply to cyclist. I think if drivers were automatically held responsible then standards would improve. Drivers would less likely 'take a bit of risk with that overtaking move' - after all at the moment there is little risk to them but plenty for the cyclist. How would you suggest we change the balance of risk as it must change?

 

Bear in mind I have changed my position on this (from yours) in the last five years. My mind has been changed by riding a lot more on London roads and the attitudes of many drivers. Also despite my experience I am seriously taking up one of your options on cycling - can you guess which one?

The instant liability problem is a toughie, I can see both arguments and not an easy answer.

The subject of cyclists wearing helmet cameras seems to be upsetting a few motorists, I'm a bit surprised by that unless they know their driving is bad and that's scary as it means they just don't care. Maybe mounting a camera is a good preventative measure rather than just for proof after an accident, I'm not really keen on that but if it improves driving in my vicinity then I'll have to accept the possibility of awkward questions from inquisitive coppers.

The instant liability problem is a toughie, I can see both arguments and not an easy answer.

The subject of cyclists wearing helmet cameras seems to be upsetting a few motorists, I'm a bit surprised by that unless they know their driving is bad and that's scary as it means they just don't care. Maybe mounting a camera is a good preventative measure rather than just for proof after an accident, I'm not really keen on that but if it improves driving in my vicinity then I'll have to accept the possibility of awkward questions from inquisitive coppers.

 

In many ways the helmet camera has sort of answered the question about cyclist safety - what other group feels compelled to resort to that? I have bought a camera and so far not bothered to fix it on. Interesting what you say about drivers being cross about being filmed. I think that if we all had to abide by the rules of the road drivers would have more to lose than they think.

 

PS I think there has been a bit of a back-lash by cyclists about the others that go through red lights. Many more are waiting and even today another cyclist yelled at one for going through the light - not seen that for years as it would be so futile!

Edited March 30, 201115 yr by HarryB

Personally i think one addition to a cycle can make it a lot safer. That one item costs £10. In a car we are taught to use our mirrors and it can be just as important to know whats going on behind as well as in front. So my proposal is to make a bike mirror COMPULSORY.On todays roads it can be very dangerous to look over your shoulder to see whats there given the amount of bad surfaces,potholes and dodgy grates.I alway know whats behind and especially so when i approach traffic islands ,roundabouts and other obstructions. I also wave traffic past when i have a clear view of the road,like exiting a corner. We all use the road so we all have to work together when we use them to make them safer. When you overtake a bike you need to leave more room again due to bad surfaces and also due to the wind which both can cause a wobble. It needs to be drilled into learner drivers and should be a compulsory test question.

Ps

condolances to the families involved

So my proposal is to make a bike mirror COMPULSORY

 

There are mirrors compulsorily fitted in cars but as most cyclists will know they are far from invariably used so do not solve the problem.

 

If those of us who drive a car as well as use a bike are honest, do we always, without fail, use our mirrors? If not, we only need to not use them once to cause a death or injury.

 

Life is full of risk taking. In many ways, it is life itself. Given the mass movement of individuals in the modern world on all our different forms of transport, what is remarkable is how few people are hurt and injured.

 

It seems to me that no one group is solely responsible for accidents. Most of us are careless, inattentive or distracted at times. In my experience, also, most accidents have more than one contributory factor.

 

Better training for ALL road users may be an answer but I don't think any more legislation will help. What use is legislation when it is not enforced or, indeed enforceable?

 

Life is full of risk taking. In many ways, it is life itself. Given the mass movement of individuals in the modern world on all our different forms of transport, what is remarkable is how few people are hurt and injured.

 

Hear, Hear!

 

Britain is an amazingly safe place to be on the roads, no matter what class of user one is.

 

We have around 3000 road deaths each year, half what it was for many years. The USA has about four and two thirds times our population, so one might expect them to have about 14,000 deaths. But until very recently they averaged 44,000 and they are now pleased it's down to about 34,000 at the moment. That's still 2.4 times as dangerous!

 

Our road deaths in the UK represent just under 50 per million of population. In Portugal, for long one of Europe's most dangerous places to be on the road, it was over 270 per million until not long ago and at 91 more recently is still nearly double ours.

 

Of course we shouldn't be complacent, but we should recognise that to get further improvement becomes more and more difficult with every reduction.

.

Personally i think one addition to a cycle can make it a lot safer. That one item costs £10. In a car we are taught to use our mirrors and it can be just as important to know whats going on behind as well as in front. So my proposal is to make a bike mirror COMPULSORY.On todays roads it can be very dangerous to look over your shoulder to see whats there given the amount of bad surfaces,potholes and dodgy grates.I alway know whats behind and especially so when i approach traffic islands ,roundabouts and other obstructions. I also wave traffic past when i have a clear view of the road,like exiting a corner. We all use the road so we all have to work together when we use them to make them safer. When you overtake a bike you need to leave more room again due to bad surfaces and also due to the wind which both can cause a wobble. It needs to be drilled into learner drivers and should be a compulsory test question.

Ps

condolances to the families involved

 

Making any 'safety' equipment compulsory for cyclists is absurd, where do we stop? I think HiViz provides higher safety than a mirror, so we should legislate for all cyclists to wear HiViz first. We have done it for lights, why not HiViz?

 

What about helmets? Body armour? Non-Slip shoes?

 

What about the blind spot? Will everybody just rely on their mirrors and forget about what they can't see and therefore never use a backward glance? Mirrors help in rearward visibility but should not be considered a safety feature. As a long term motorcyclist, you have to be aware of everything around you nearly all of the time, mirrors are just an aid to that awareness. BTW mirrors are not compulsory for motorcycles.

 

As for waving traffic past you, this should not be considered a safe maneouvre. If I'm on my cycle, bike or car I don't trust any other road user with my own safety and certainly wouldn't trust another road user to make a judgement on my behalf and make a gesture that I could overtake them safely. Gestures such as a quick flash of lights, waving, nods of the head etc should all be treated with suspicion as the intention might not be clear, or the road ahead might not be clear and at the end of the day your road use is your responsibility.

 

Of course, use mirrors if you feel it helps you, but there really is no need to legislate.