Independent - Big article on Cyclist Deaths...

[highlandsflyer]

I stood out in front of a car yesterday that was driving along a closed road that is normally not open to cars, he was flying along, and went passed my car at maybe 30 despite seeing I had dogs running around. I told him to mind his speed because it was a dog walking area and a footpath generally.

He just f-ed and blinded at me, and drove off.

I am going down there now with my dogs, but this time in the 4x4 and I will not be considerately parking at the side to let him get past.

When he or one of his brethren stop and complain I will tell them that for the last few weeks I have been considerately parking to one side as most of them slowed to a safe speed seeing a vehicle, but now thanks to this chap I will have to block the path to make sure we or my dogs don't risk injury.

You just can't tell some people.

 

[yagamuffin]

I stood out in front of a car yesterday that was driving along a closed road that is normally not open to cars, he was flying along, and went passed my car at maybe 30 despite seeing I had dogs running around. I told him to mind his speed because it was a dog walking area and a footpath generally.

He just f-ed and blinded at me, and drove off.

I am going down there now with my dogs, but this time in the 4x4 and I will not be considerately parking at the side to let him get past.

When he or one of his brethren stop and complain I will tell them that for the last few weeks I have been considerately parking to one side as most of them slowed to a safe speed seeing a vehicle, but now thanks to this chap I will have to block the path to make sure we or my dogs don't risk injury.

You just can't tell some people.

The road is closed to traffic?
Did anyone see the bomb left in a van under a bridge in Norn Iron last week? The Police closed the roads around but people just drover around the barricades, in one instance getting out of their car to move cones. There's footage of people driving around this van full of explosives (one of the biggest bombs ever found in NI apparently!).

 

[cyfa2809]

The Police closed the roads around but people just drover around the barricades, in one instance getting out of their car to move cones. There's footage of people driving around this van full of explosives (one of the biggest bombs ever found in NI apparently!).

:shock: wow thats nuts!

as you mentioned, peopel always seem to be in a rush, its like driving = zombie like reactions

 

[highlandsflyer]

And thats where we're going wrong isn't it, just accepting that drivers will do the speed limit plus 30% and changing our behaviour to suit them. Whats wrong with not accepting this and actually enforcing speed limits?

Perhaps you accepting that, personally I do whatever I can to slow cars down. I certainly only change my behaviour when I have no option.

Surely using 'empirical knowledge', it can be expected that a cyclist will run a red light so drivers should drive accordingly and pedestrians should look out for it before stepping into the road?

Do you ever step out without checking the traffic has actually stopped? There is a difference between taking this precaution and being in the wrong if you were struck by someone running the light...

We make the roads safer for all using them by educating drivers, slowing motor vehicles down, increasing penalties for dangerous driving and breaking this attitude that drivers have right to be on the roads.

They do have the right. I am not suggesting cyclists relinquish their rights, only that the system is made safer for all.

Motor vehicles account for more than 99% of fatalities on the roads, we're not going to make the roads significantly safer by throwing new laws at the people responsible for the remaining (less than) 1%

Agreed, but where there are dangers to cyclists and the authorities have taken our money to provide alternatives it is an irresponsible road user who will make everything more dangerous for everyone.

 

[highlandsflyer]

So what would happen with said following motorist if there was already stationary traffic - you know, accident, traffic jam, tree fallen in the road, etc...

The law expects - quite rightly - that motorists be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Anything else is at least DWDCA.

They would most likely crash. Not sure what point you are making.

Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.

Had trouble parsing that line.

Are you saying that you have told cyclists more than once to use the cycle path?

You really had a problem making sense of it?

I have on numerous occasions told solo and groups about the cycle path.

Luckily the council recently cleared some bushes and made it more visible, and better lit.

 

[Neil]

So what would happen with said following motorist if there was already stationary traffic - you know, accident, traffic jam, tree fallen in the road, etc...

The law expects - quite rightly - that motorists be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Anything else is at least DWDCA.

They would most likely crash. Not sure what point you are making.

That any drivers that can't cope with something happening around a blind bend, are driving entirely inappropriately.

Anything could happen around a blind bend - and on occasion, does.

If drivers can't cope with that, then their fvckwittedness needs attention and redress. The law, nor the roads have changed in this regard for decades. There could be a milk float, slow moving tractor, or farm animals around a blind bend on country lanes.

Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.

Had trouble parsing that line.

Are you saying that you have told cyclists more than once to use the cycle path?

You really had a problem making sense of it?

I said it didn't parse easily, that's all.

I have on numerous occasions told solo and groups about the cycle path.

Luckily the council recently cleared some bushes and made it more visible, and better lit.

There's a difference between telling somebody it's there, and instructing them to use it.

Your first sentence says the latter, your sentence from this post, the former.

 

[drcarlos]

One thing that isn't mentioned in this article is the moments leading up to this latest accident and in fact the last 3 deaths I have read about in London (seems to be about 1 a month in the Metro or Evening Standard).
They have all said that the cyclist has pulled up on the inside of a bus or HGV at lights and the bus or HGV has then pulled away and turned left (usually there is no mention of indicators but I guess they are on) and the cyclist has been crushed as the vehicle turned.
This to me is suicidal cycling you are occupying the 2 feet between the kerb and HGV and expecting the driver to see a small silent vehicle pull up on their blind side?
I would personally wait behind the HGV until it pulled away.
I guess drivers could be helped by blindspot systems but they would be helped a lot more by some cyclists not (they seem like they are almost trying) being so stupid.

Carl.

 

[highlandsflyer]

So what would happen with said following motorist if there was already stationary traffic - you know, accident, traffic jam, tree fallen in the road, etc...

The law expects - quite rightly - that motorists be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Anything else is at least DWDCA.

They would most likely crash. Not sure what point you are making.

That any drivers that can't cope with something happening around a blind bend, are driving entirely inappropriately.

Anything could happen around a blind bend - and on occasion, does.

If drivers can't cope with that, then their fvckwittedness needs attention and redress. The law, nor the roads have changed in this regard for decades. There could be a milk float, slow moving tractor, or farm animals around a blind bend on country lanes. .

Haven't really got a clue what your point is, which you merely seem to have repeated.

Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.

Had trouble parsing that line.

Are you saying that you have told cyclists more than once to use the cycle path?

You really had a problem making sense of it?

I said it didn't parse easily, that's all..

No, actually you asked for clarification.

I have on numerous occasions told solo and groups about the cycle path.

Luckily the council recently cleared some bushes and made it more visible, and better lit.

There's a difference between telling somebody it's there, and instructing them to use it.

Your first sentence says the latter, your sentence from this post, the former.

I have done both. What is unclear?

 

[highlandsflyer]

One thing that isn't mentioned in this article is the moments leading up to this latest accident and in fact the last 3 deaths I have read about in London (seems to be about 1 a month in the Metro or Evening Standard).
They have all said that the cyclist has pulled up on the inside of a bus or HGV at lights and the bus or HGV has then pulled away and turned left (usually there is no mention of indicators but I guess they are on) and the cyclist has been crushed as the vehicle turned.
This to me is suicidal cycling you are occupying the 2 feet between the kerb and HGV and expecting the driver to see a small silent vehicle pull up on their blind side?
I would personally wait behind the HGV until it pulled away.
I guess drivers could be helped by blindspot systems but they would be helped a lot more by some cyclists not (they seem like they are almost trying) being so stupid.

Carl.

I get your point.

These systems are all very well, but the only sure way of preventing these incidents is to separate the two types of traffic.

I am a biker, and I take a lifesaver before turning left and all drivers should be checking for cyclists, etc. coming up their inside. They are no less at fault than the cyclists who ignore their indications and proceed.

It is only a difference of vehicle that decides who becomes the victim.

With that in mind, we need to change cyclists' behaviour to prevent their deaths.

 

[Neil]

Haven't really got a clue what your point is, which you merely seem to have repeated.

Um, you wrote the following:-

Now I have the pleasure of rounding the long blind uphill corner and finding myself, being a considerate motorist who will not overtake a cyclist on a blind corner, sitting at <10mph waiting for a car doing the standard 65 in a 50 zone to hammer into my backside. My only option being to attempt an overtake on a blind corner, or ironically pull off the road onto the dedicated cycle path.

And on further discussion, wrote this - elaborating:-

If that driver were doing 65 and I am doing 30 odd I might be lucky to escape with a bit of a tap. If I am basically sitting there waiting I am possibly going to be involved in a fatality.

Were they adhering to the stated limit, there would still be a good chance of me being whacked and my car ending up sitting with my passenger exposed to a collision from oncoming traffic.

Real world scenario is that I expect a car coming at sixty five.

To which I've responded that if there could potentially be any number of either static or very slow hazards around that blind bend, then the behaviour that needs correcting, is any muppet who thinks they can drive around the corner (whether within the speed limit or not), regardless of it being blind, and regardless of whether there's a hazard just around the corner.

That is the behaviour that needs correcting, rather than simply hypothesising that we should just remove bikes from coexisting on the roads with motorised traffic - presumably, because after decades of coexistience, we can no longer expect motorised traffic and cycles to share the same roads any more.

All the while, losing the perspective that cyclists, and indeed pedestrians (and probably people on horses, too) are the only road users that actually have a right to be there (conveniently ignoring motorways or other classes of road where they are not permitted). Motorists merely have a privilege to be able to use motorised vehicles on road, not a right, like pedestrians, cyclists etc.

So because roads are busier, and it appears there's an argument that driving standards have dropped, and perhaps a contention that drivers are less tolerant, your claim is that we should remove one group of road users that actually have a right to be there, in favour of a group that don't.

I expect many "I've paid road tax, got a right to be here, get off the road and outta my way!" drivers would agree with you, but if ever there was a case of dumbing down and pandering to the inept vote, that is it.

Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.

Had trouble parsing that line.

Are you saying that you have told cyclists more than once to use the cycle path?

You really had a problem making sense of it?

I said it didn't parse easily, that's all..

No, actually you asked for clarification.

I asked for clarification because I found it didn't parse easily. HTH.