reohn2 wrote: You'll have to forgive me if you don't agree,but to ride up the inside of a left indicating HGV is inviting disaster and is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Incredibly stupid yes.
Then we agree.
But have you honestly never done something very stupid? Never?
Everyone on the planet has done something stupid,however in the face of an obviously dangerous situation situation such as riding up the inside of left indicating HGV I'd have to be either suicidal or ignorant of the consequences. That said others have pointed out that the truck had no side rails which could have reduce injury,but the onus is on the cyclist not to put his/herself in such obvious danger,that's reasonable IMO. We'd all like perfect roads and much needs to be done to UK road structure,working practices/access and driving standards to even get near to that end. But only so much can be done to stop people who insist on putting themselves in such obvious danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Horribly sad story. But I agree that some sort of training/advice/publicity is needed so that no more needless and tragic incidents such as this occur again. When I cycle or drive I know that something bigger than me is liable to cause me harm if I come into contact with it so I ride/drive accordingly. Accidents will always happen but being aware is so important.
I don't doubt there is only so much you can do. I do doubt that what can be done is being done. Not by a long shot. Cycling in London invariably involves being closer to larger vehicles than you'd care for on an almost constant basis in parts. To not filter to some degree is effectively to not cycle. I not saying going up the inside of a left turning lorry should be normal, but the constant nature of cycling in London can bring on a complacent moment. It doesn't have to be as bad as it is and it should be fixed.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....
How about banning HGVs from making left turns, wherever possible?
Thinking out of the box and not sure it would be a good idea but on an episode of Mythbusters they investigated the myth that some delivery companies use sat navs that avoid left turns, it was in America so a left turn is across the oncoming traffic, so the delivery van would turn three rights instead of a left, or alter it's route to reduce left turns, they found it did work slightly to reduce fuel consumption and time spent delivering. Sat Navs could easily be set to not allow left turns where there is a right turning alternative. Any with no alternative could be signposted.
Although this means that in the UK, forcing HGVs to always turn right would have the opposite effect, increasing congestion but hopefully reducing the number of accidents of this type.
I am of course assuming that there is more conflict with left turning HGVs passing cycle lanes and filtering cyclists than there would be with an HGV making more right turns.
I don't think there's any 100% workable solution. Sometimes I've wondered about some sort of extensible arm to block the passage of cyclists, rather on the lines of the arm that swings out the side of American school buses when they're picking up or dropping off passengers. Or is this idea just too crazy and unworkable?
I hope people won't think this too stark, if I bring up the analogy of Beachy Head. Of course there are measures in place to dissuade people from ending their lives there. There are regular patrols and organisations like the Samaritans keep a constant watch. But short of blocking access to the whole cliff edge with an unclimbable fence (which would certainly spoil it as a beauty spot) you'll never stop the really determined individual. Deaths will continue to happen.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
661-Pete wrote:I don't think there's any 100% workable solution. Sometimes I've wondered about some sort of extensible arm to block the passage of cyclists, rather on the lines of the arm that swings out the side of American school buses when they're picking up or dropping off passengers. Or is this idea just too crazy and unworkable?
I hope people won't think this too stark, if I bring up the analogy of Beachy Head. Of course there are measures in place to dissuade people from ending their lives there. There are regular patrols and organisations like the Samaritans keep a constant watch. But short of blocking access to the whole cliff edge with an unclimbable fence (which would certainly spoil it as a beauty spot) you'll never stop the really determined individual. Deaths will continue to happen.
But there is a world of difference between someone making a mistake, for whatever reason, and someone deliberately wishing to harm or kill themselves. Who has never misjudged something? Or taken an unnecessary risk? Or were not paying attention? Most of us get the opportunity to learn from these mistakes. But some people don't get a second chance.
While not all accidents can be reasonably prevented, that doesn't mean there is no point in taking steps to prevent some. A fence might not be 100% effective, but that is not a good reason to have no fence.
As well as sympathy for having witnessed at least some of the events leading up to this death, I think you are to be congratulated for coming forward as a witness. So many people decide that they don't want to "become involved." In due course you are likely to be called to give evidence, although your statement may be read out in your absence if it's not challenged eg at the inquest.
When it's all over and there's no risk of prejudicing anything, I hope you will feel able to relate to us how the system treated you as that most valuable of people, the independent witness. In the meantime, all the best with coming to terms with this.
First of all, please can we remember one thing here, a young (I presume) lady has died. Can we show some respect and not use words like 'stupid' and 'suicidal'. Whilst I don't think her family will be reading this, I do not think that these are the words that any forum should be using, let alone one made up of fellow cyclists - even if we believe that she made a serious error of judgement.
Secondly, what could we do to prevent or reduce this type of accident from happening again? Should we all be contacting Boris and asking him to educate people into the dangers around long vehicles? Maybe warning adverts advising cyclists that long vehicles may use more road space on corners and junctions. These adverts need to be coupled with an advert advising drivers to check their mirrors for vulnerable people when manoeuvring around bends and junctions. What about some 'training' before someone is allowed to register to use a hire bike - a five minute read of something with two or three questions to prove that the reading was undertaken. People picking up new bikes should be encouraged to go on the equivalent of a 'Cycling Proficiency Course'. I had to take a 'Bikeability 2' course when I picked my bike up through work. Despite the fact that I have cycled thousands of miles in my youth, I found it a very good course for riding in traffic. When I mention it to other people, they guffaw with laughter saying that they know how to ride a bike - yet I see them riding past junctions at 20 - 30 mph in secondary position and doing other things that put them in a vulnerable position.
I don't really know what the answer is. The above were just some suggestions. They may actually work against cyclists as there are some car drivers that will see cyclists as stupid for needing to be told how to ride a bike.
Whatever the answer is, it's still a very sad thing to read about the death of a cyclist. What we also have to remember though is that for every death that makes it into the news, there must be hundreds of accidents where cyclists suffer life changing injuries. Surely some sort of training or education or responsibility needs to be taken by both cyclists and drivers.
pwa wrote:I agree that the blame thing is a distraction and we should be concentrating on getting solutions. But I feel the segregation you want is just going to put bicycles on the footpaths, having to give way at every junction, mixing it with pedestrians.
No, mixed use footways are not segregation (or protected space).
In terms of the increased danger that segregation (whatever the currently fashionable euphamism is) causes at junctions, it make no difference at all whether the cycle path is shared with or separated from pedestrians on the approch.
The problem here is that it is a very very bad idea to ride to the left of left turning motor vehicles (which of course is where a segregated facility would be put). This leads to inevitable conflict where the paths cross at junctions. Whichis why such things have such a poor safety record - increasing the collision risk by a factor of 3 for same direction traffic and a factor of 10 for bi-directional paths such as the new super-duper highways that all the facility fanatics are raving about at the moment.
Normally, this sort of stuff is justifiued on the grounds that it is needed by slow timid cyclists who are too scared to obey normal traffic rules - (at this vehicular cycling is dismissed as only suitable for high speed, brave, agressive, testoserone fueled males). But as we see from this example the sex of the witness and victim are the only features that conform to the steryotype. The vehicular cyclist was waiting patiently in line while whetever attributes the victim had, she showed abundance of bravery and confidence.
The fat commuter wrote:Secondly, what could we do to prevent or reduce this type of accident from happening again? Should we all be contacting Boris and asking him to educate people into the dangers around long vehicles? Maybe warning adverts advising cyclists that long vehicles may use more road space on corners and junctions. These adverts need to be coupled with an advert advising drivers to check their mirrors for vulnerable people when manoeuvring around bends and junctions.
Mark1978 wrote:Blame, up to an extent, doesn't really matter. We should have a road system where large vehicles like lorries never share the same road space with bicycles in the first place. By Steve's account it does look like the cyclist made a mistake, but mistakes should not be punishable by death
Trouble is this isn't mathematically possible. Bikes an truck both need to use a network of routes that connects to everywhere within a city. It is simply not possible to create two non-intersecting networks on a two-dimensional surface. Or are you suggesting banning trucks from London on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays - and banning cycling on the other days?
Hmm, but that sticker isn't true in all situations. If it said "keep back whilst this vehicle is turning" - but there are times when a long vehicle may be moving in a straight line and a cyclist can get past.
I stand guilty of using the word "suicidal" for the manoeuvre the unfortunate young woman attempted, and I can see why that might seem insensitive and for that I apologise. But I stand by the intention of my words, which was to impress upon anyone who is in any doubt that the witness accounts point firmly at a very poor bit of cycling being the primary cause of this tragedy. We do cyclists no favours by attempting to brush that fact under the carpet. Any discussion of this incident that fails to address cycle skills and the responsibility of cyclists is misguided.
It has been suggested that some degree of filtering is required to cycle in London, as if the horrendous mistake of cycling up the left of a left turning lorry is an understandable mistake. I'm not perfect and I do make mistakes, but in 40 years of cycling on the roads I have never done that. That is not an understandable mistake, it is a staggering lack of common sense. Nobody should cycle if they think they might make that mistake. And if getting around in London on a bike means doing things like that, well its not cycling that I would defend.
Somewhere out there is a lorry driver who is also a victim of this incident. Some of the contributions to this thread have been written as though his driving were partly to blame. We have no reason to think that.
It's constructive to talk about infrastructure, but in this case it is not right to ignore poor judgement on the part of some cyclists.
Mark1978 wrote:Blame, up to an extent, doesn't really matter. We should have a road system where large vehicles like lorries never share the same road space with bicycles in the first place. By Steve's account it does look like the cyclist made a mistake, but mistakes should not be punishable by death
Trouble is this isn't mathematically possible. Bikes an truck both need to use a network of routes that connects to everywhere within a city. It is simply not possible to create two non-intersecting networks on a two-dimensional surface. Or are you suggesting banning trucks from London on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays - and banning cycling on the other days?
There are two periods of day when this should be implemented- the peak commuter periods at both ends of each working day. It's an "urban area" issue, not a rural road one (just due to the density of traffic and junctions), and overwhelmingly a rush hour problem afaict.
Yes it will have some effect on deliveries, but I can't imagine that they would be unfathomable. Some deliveries would use smaller vehicles, others would need to be differently timed.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
