"So what do you propose he should have done? Just let the taxi knock him off his bike?
Hitting a vehicle is a last resort, but most cyclists will do it to deter bad driving."
Deter bad driving! we saw another cyclist in the program, brake to avoid being dragged under a lorry. This cyclist continued to pedal forward thus actually increasing the chances of an accident. He by his own admission had the option to stop, he could by his own admission also saw a danger . He could have stopped and let the taxi pass and resumed his journey. I am not advocating what the taxi driver did but he was also in a position to avoid it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
"Rubbish, it was very good cycling. If a road is so narrow that overtaking cannot be performed safely and/or legally (but the former being more important), the point should be emphasised by moving into the middle of the lane."
It was not in this case, if you listen carefully to the cyclist he sounds as if he does this even if the road is not narrow just to annoy other road users. Cyclists also have the option to pull over and wait until a line off traffic passes.
"What, and the drivers featured shouldn't have their cars taken off them?"
Some of them should
"Cyclists can handle their bike and are aware of the dangers.
People on bikes can't and aren't."
Really because we saw some evidence in the program especially the couriers who are putting peoples lives in danger. And some of the attitudes shown by some of them showed that they were simply out to get drivers. Militant and aggressive cyclist and drivers should not be allowed on the roads.
Re BIB. He ttried to make eye contact with the lorry driver (the best thing to do in that situation) and thought he had. The lorry slowed down approaching the roundabout. At that time there was no reason for the cyclist to slow down. He was already on the roundabout. Once he saw that the lorry was pulling out he braked. At no time did he say he carried on pedalling as the lorry pulled out.
Deter bad driving! we saw another cyclist in the program, brake to avoid being dragged under a lorry. This cyclist continued to pedal forward thus actually increasing the chances of an accident. He by his own admission had the option to stop
We must have been watching different footage, as he did stop. How could you have seen him pedalling as all we have is his camera footage.
What about when the car is travelling a safe speed close to the kerb and finds a cyclist is coming through his inside through a narrow gap just as he starts to turn left quite likely with no high visibility clothing or lights on.
We saw plenty of footage of daft manoeuvres up the inside. Shame the programme did not reinforce this as a danger.
Although the mother did some good with the cement lorries in terms of training and mirrors, where was the basic message to cyclists of not going up the inside of such vehicles?
Where the van cut up "cycle droid", you could see from the lane markings that the left-hand lane was left-turn only. So if he was intending to travel straight on, he was in the correct lane.
Ah, I'd not remembered the road markings correctly. Even so, he would have been better nearer the middle of the lane than where he was near the white line dividing the lanes.
He looked like my Paper Boy.....he was a Pain, and yes, no favours to other Cyclists.He was an Accident waiting to happen.
Hand signals wouldn't go a miss too....plus looking behind.
It should.
Re BIB. He came over badly, but regarding the main points:
1. the silver taxi overtaking too closely, and
2. occupying a primary position to prevent drivers overtaking him when there is not enough space to do so,
he was absolutely correct.
I think it was him who talked about his actions educating drivers. The irony was that on those two points there was actually no education at all. The driver of the silver taxi still does not realise he did anything wrong. The "if I can bang on your taxi, it's because you are too close" type of comment just fell on deaf ears.
We saw plenty of footage of daft manoeuvres up the inside. Shame the programme did not reinforce this as a danger.
Although the mother did some good with the cement lorries in terms of training and mirrors, where was the basic message to cyclists of not going up the inside of such vehicles?
I agree, good point.
I think the programme concentrated on the conflict, not on what is and isn't safe.
For example, in the couple of examples I mentioned above.
There was no real discussion as to what is a safe gap to leave when overtaking. Also, although the cyclists tried to explain why they take the primary position, I still don't think it was done in a way to educate drivers, as that wasn't the programmes style.
I didn't think much of the way a lot of the cyclists behaved by squeezing down such narrow nearside gaps, especially when the vehicle is turning left (although they did show the same footage several times, so there might not be many examples), but it's difficult to tell how dangerous or safe it was without knowing the junction layout, the cycle times of the lights, whether the gap opens into a safe space for the cyclist etc, all of which the cyclist might know.
In heavy, stop/start rush hour traffic unless the lanes are very wide, i tend to queue with the traffic, as I think it is safer. It does sometimes annoy the driver behind me though - even though all that would happen if I got over into the gutter would be that he would overtake unsafely and then sit on the tail of the car that had been in front of me.
Where the van cut up "cycle droid", you could see from the lane markings that the left-hand lane was left-turn only. So if he was intending to travel straight on, he was in the correct lane.
No it was all ahead and left. http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01p7q2l/?t=40m15s
Not that gives the driver and excuse, and as I said previously, we didn't know where droid was going or coming from.
of course not, but then nor should such film be used with the implication its typical of road use, just so Daily Mail types can go "urrrgh cyclists", distracting from the point that many cyclists are killed on the roads, and most of the time its not their fault (Department for Transport, see also post #146).
I don't think they said it was normal road use, I am sure they talked of some sort of event. I did not realise it was for a film but it was made clear that it was done specially for something. Still does not justify it and much of it was things that are seen every day in places like London though not in one continuous race like that.
We must have been watching different footage, as he did stop. How could you have seen him pedalling as all we have is his camera footage.
Best I can tell cookieshop is talking about two seperate incidents; the one on the roundabout with the HGV and the one in the bus lane with the taxi driver. Apparently, not ceding the road to every stupid, dangerous and illegal manoeuver makes cyclists in part culpable. This completely ignores the fact that the two aren't fully analogous; the hazzard presented by the first situation was orders of magnitude greater than that posed by the second, if evasive action had not been taken death or serious injury would have been a near certainty. Any yes, it is odd that people incapapble of this kind of risk assessment are lecturing others about observation and anticipation.
The scenario you paint is difficult to envisage, because if the car is moving, then presumably they've overtaken the cyclist.
Simply put, if you can't complete the manoeuvre before the cyclist reaches the junction, don't start it.
Not necessarily, a cyclist will often pass a car on the nearside when barely enough room for them so the slightest movement of the car can endanger them. They will often do this at speed so can be in the car's blind spot before the driver has seen them because he is concentrating on traffic all around him and cannot be looking everywhere at once..
I may be wrong, but I think the wearing of headphones/earphones over both ears is an offence for motorised vehicles. Not sure a bout bikes, but it should apply to all.
That is what I thought, one earpiece only in a car. Made worse of course by some of the cyclists and pedestrians using full headphones specifically to keep road noise out.
apparently it was a cyclepath ... originally intended to keep cyclists off the roads ... good example of why most cyclists use roads as pedestrians (often pushing prams) can use the paths!
Does not give the cyclist the right to ride straight at or close to a cyclist at speed. Imagine a motorist doing that, you slow down and prepare for the pedestrian to change direction. I do that even for pedestrians near the edge of the pavement. Ironic considerating the fuss the cyclists was making about vehicle drivers doing the same at cyclists.
According to DfT research, in collisions between motorists and cyclists, the motorist is solely culpable between 60% and 75% of the time, the cyclist between 17% and 25% of the time. Let me repeat that; motorists are between 3 and 6 times more likely than cyclists to be the culpable party in collisions between the two. This despite the fact that motorists do have to pass a test and be licensed and insured, so there is no reason to believe that introducing the same for cyclists would lead to some kind of panacea. In fact, these figures suggest that much more could be achieved by making the driving test more stringent.
But would all that 60% to 75% have happened if the cyclist have riden more sensibly? They may not to be to blame but often if they rode more carefully the accident quite likely would not have happened.
Driving my car I try to avoid accidents even ones that would not be my fault.
I had to laugh this morning, within 5 minutes of getting on my bike as I was about to turn left I could see a pedestrian about to step straight out in front of me, I rang my bell. She ignored it, I started to brake knowing if she stepped out I'd still hit her so I loudly said "LOOK RIGHT!".
Another pedestrian decided his reply to this was to call me a "****ing ********".
But would all that 60% to 75% have happened if the cyclist have riden more sensibly? They may not to be to blame but often if they rode more carefully the accident quite likely would not have happened.
Driving my car I try to avoid accidents even ones that would not be my fault.
That sounds a lot like blaming the victims.
There are plenty of numpies about, but most cyclists ride defensively purely because they know they are vulnerable and likely to come off worst if they come into contact with a motor vehicle. Despite this the stats you quoted are clear - the figures are for the motorists being SOLELY culpable, not some sort of partial blame where the cyclist is also partially at fault.
Edit. There is a lot less need or incentive for a motorist to drive defensivly, especially at typical urban speeds, where the worst that is likely to happen is a dented wing and a slight delay to the journey.
But would all that 60% to 75% have happened if the cyclist have riden more sensibly? They may not to be to blame but often if they rode more carefully the accident quite likely would not have happened.
Well no, if they left their bike at home and got a bus instead then the accident wouldn't have happened either. Not sure your point. Isn't it better to address the faults of the drivers that made errors that caused the injury, rather than to suggest that cyclists shouldn't be there, which seems to be where your argument will lead if taken to conclusion....
Not necessarily, a cyclist will often pass a car on the nearside when barely enough room for them so the slightest movement of the car can endanger them. They will often do this at speed so can be in the car's blind spot before the driver has seen them because he is concentrating on traffic all around him and cannot be looking everywhere at once..
What people are finding difficult to imagine is a cyclist passing a motorist who is travelling at a safe speed. In free flowing traffic cyclists rarely pass motorists because they lack the speed and acceleration to do so.
Christ. The film set out to create a fuss, which it has. 11 pages on people are using the carefully selected shots from a few Youtube vids to prove that all cyclists shouldn't be on the roads, or on shared cycle paths, or should always be looking in all directions at once ready to stop at the drop of a hat whenever a motor vehicle looms into range.
If you don't like cyclists fair enough. There are enough out there who are complete chuffing morons who shouldn't be allowed out without a strait jacket; equally there are quite a few morons out there who have passed a test that apparently means they can drive properly. The roads have a fair share of idiots out there, and these idiots seem to be equally spread amongst car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, taxi drivers & cyclists.
The rest of us go about our lives driving & cycling obeying whatever rules happen to be in force and go months, years even without encountering problems.Why? Because most people just get on with it. Cycling isn't hard, neither is driving if you put your mind to it and think what you're doing. 11 pages most of which is tit for tat petty point scoring doesn't get us anywhere.
What a waste of a programme. It could have explained why cyclists don't like being passed so closely that they can touch the car as it goes past. Drivers - you try it. Stand at the side of a busy road and put your hand out as cars & trucks go past; see if you dare touch them. The programme could have explained in simple terms just why riding secondary and primary are safety measures. It could have gone on to explain that cyclists riding down the inside of buses & lorries at left-turn junctions are on a suicide mission, much like those who don't find it necessary to wear visible clothing or lights at night. In short, it could have been a good useful programme of the sort that the BBC used to be renowned for making, and instead we got a cobbled together collection of clips and a couple of shouty people who did no-one any favours, in an attempt to justify calling it war. It was a shockingly bad programme that Leopard Productions should be ashamed of for making and the BBC should be ashamed of putting out. I wonder if we'll see a follow up that answers these questions, and more?
Christ. The film set out to create a fuss, which it has. 11 pages on people are using the carefully selected shots from a few Youtube vids to prove that all cyclists shouldn't be on the roads, or on shared cycle paths, or should always be looking in all directions at once ready to stop at the drop of a hat whenever a motor vehicle looms into range.
If you don't like cyclists fair enough. There are enough out there who are complete chuffing morons who shouldn't be allowed out without a strait jacket; equally there are quite a few morons out there who have passed a test that apparently means they can drive properly. The roads have a fair share of idiots out there, and these idiots seem to be equally spread amongst car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, taxi drivers & cyclists.
The rest of us go about our lives driving & cycling obeying whatever rules happen to be in force and go months, years even without encountering problems.Why? Because most people just get on with it. Cycling isn't hard, neither is driving if you put your mind to it and think what you're doing. 11 pages most of which is tit for tat petty point scoring doesn't get us anywhere.
What a waste of a programme. It could have explained why cyclists don't like being passed so closely that they can touch the car as it goes past. Drivers - you try it. Stand at the side of a busy road and put your hand out as cars & trucks go past; see if you dare touch them. The programme could have explained in simple terms just why riding secondary and primary are safety measures. It could have gone on to explain that cyclists riding down the inside of buses & lorries at left-turn junctions are on a suicide mission, much like those who don't find it necessary to wear visible clothing or lights at night. In short, it could have been a good useful programme of the sort that the BBC used to be renowned for making, and instead we got a cobbled together collection of clips and a couple of shouty people who did no-one any favours, in an attempt to justify calling it war. It was a shockingly bad programme that Leopard Productions should be ashamed of for making and the BBC should be ashamed of putting out. I wonder if we'll see a follow up that answers these questions, and more?
What a waste of a programme. It could have explained why cyclists don't like being passed so closely that they can touch the car as it goes past. Drivers - you try it. Stand at the side of a busy road and put your hand out as cars & trucks go past; see if you dare touch them. The programme could have explained in simple terms just why riding secondary and primary are safety measures. It could have gone on to explain that cyclists riding down the inside of buses & lorries at left-turn junctions are on a suicide mission, much like those who don't find it necessary to wear visible clothing or lights at night. In short, it could have been a good useful programme of the sort that the BBC used to be renowned for making, and instead we got a cobbled together collection of clips and a couple of shouty people who did no-one any favours, in an attempt to justify calling it war. It was a shockingly bad programme that Leopard Productions should be ashamed of for making and the BBC should be ashamed of putting out. I wonder if we'll see a follow up that answers these questions, and more?
^^ THIS!
It could have been much more explicit about the dangers of going up the inside of vehicles which MAY be turning left and you don't know AND you are in the blind spot. I don't do it - is just asking for trouble, just hang back a little so you are behind them. Some cyclists are their own worst enemy, considering they WILL come off worst - as that poor women found to her daughters cost. If the driver must take more care then so should the cyclist, they are equally culpable in my eyes!
Comments
Re BIB. He ttried to make eye contact with the lorry driver (the best thing to do in that situation) and thought he had. The lorry slowed down approaching the roundabout. At that time there was no reason for the cyclist to slow down. He was already on the roundabout. Once he saw that the lorry was pulling out he braked. At no time did he say he carried on pedalling as the lorry pulled out.
Although the mother did some good with the cement lorries in terms of training and mirrors, where was the basic message to cyclists of not going up the inside of such vehicles?
Ah, I'd not remembered the road markings correctly. Even so, he would have been better nearer the middle of the lane than where he was near the white line dividing the lanes.
Re BIB. He came over badly, but regarding the main points:
1. the silver taxi overtaking too closely, and
2. occupying a primary position to prevent drivers overtaking him when there is not enough space to do so,
he was absolutely correct.
I think it was him who talked about his actions educating drivers. The irony was that on those two points there was actually no education at all. The driver of the silver taxi still does not realise he did anything wrong. The "if I can bang on your taxi, it's because you are too close" type of comment just fell on deaf ears.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/another-londoner-dies-in-cyclist-lorry-crash
I agree, good point.
I think the programme concentrated on the conflict, not on what is and isn't safe.
For example, in the couple of examples I mentioned above.
There was no real discussion as to what is a safe gap to leave when overtaking. Also, although the cyclists tried to explain why they take the primary position, I still don't think it was done in a way to educate drivers, as that wasn't the programmes style.
I didn't think much of the way a lot of the cyclists behaved by squeezing down such narrow nearside gaps, especially when the vehicle is turning left (although they did show the same footage several times, so there might not be many examples), but it's difficult to tell how dangerous or safe it was without knowing the junction layout, the cycle times of the lights, whether the gap opens into a safe space for the cyclist etc, all of which the cyclist might know.
In heavy, stop/start rush hour traffic unless the lanes are very wide, i tend to queue with the traffic, as I think it is safer. It does sometimes annoy the driver behind me though - even though all that would happen if I got over into the gutter would be that he would overtake unsafely and then sit on the tail of the car that had been in front of me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01p7q2l/?t=40m15s
Not that gives the driver and excuse, and as I said previously, we didn't know where droid was going or coming from.
I don't think they said it was normal road use, I am sure they talked of some sort of event. I did not realise it was for a film but it was made clear that it was done specially for something. Still does not justify it and much of it was things that are seen every day in places like London though not in one continuous race like that.
Not necessarily, a cyclist will often pass a car on the nearside when barely enough room for them so the slightest movement of the car can endanger them. They will often do this at speed so can be in the car's blind spot before the driver has seen them because he is concentrating on traffic all around him and cannot be looking everywhere at once..
That is what I thought, one earpiece only in a car. Made worse of course by some of the cyclists and pedestrians using full headphones specifically to keep road noise out.
Does not give the cyclist the right to ride straight at or close to a cyclist at speed. Imagine a motorist doing that, you slow down and prepare for the pedestrian to change direction. I do that even for pedestrians near the edge of the pavement. Ironic considerating the fuss the cyclists was making about vehicle drivers doing the same at cyclists.
But would all that 60% to 75% have happened if the cyclist have riden more sensibly? They may not to be to blame but often if they rode more carefully the accident quite likely would not have happened.
Driving my car I try to avoid accidents even ones that would not be my fault.
Another pedestrian decided his reply to this was to call me a "****ing ********".
Lovely.
That sounds a lot like blaming the victims.
There are plenty of numpies about, but most cyclists ride defensively purely because they know they are vulnerable and likely to come off worst if they come into contact with a motor vehicle. Despite this the stats you quoted are clear - the figures are for the motorists being SOLELY culpable, not some sort of partial blame where the cyclist is also partially at fault.
Edit. There is a lot less need or incentive for a motorist to drive defensivly, especially at typical urban speeds, where the worst that is likely to happen is a dented wing and a slight delay to the journey.
Well no, if they left their bike at home and got a bus instead then the accident wouldn't have happened either. Not sure your point. Isn't it better to address the faults of the drivers that made errors that caused the injury, rather than to suggest that cyclists shouldn't be there, which seems to be where your argument will lead if taken to conclusion....
If you don't like cyclists fair enough. There are enough out there who are complete chuffing morons who shouldn't be allowed out without a strait jacket; equally there are quite a few morons out there who have passed a test that apparently means they can drive properly. The roads have a fair share of idiots out there, and these idiots seem to be equally spread amongst car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, taxi drivers & cyclists.
The rest of us go about our lives driving & cycling obeying whatever rules happen to be in force and go months, years even without encountering problems.Why? Because most people just get on with it. Cycling isn't hard, neither is driving if you put your mind to it and think what you're doing. 11 pages most of which is tit for tat petty point scoring doesn't get us anywhere.
What a waste of a programme. It could have explained why cyclists don't like being passed so closely that they can touch the car as it goes past. Drivers - you try it. Stand at the side of a busy road and put your hand out as cars & trucks go past; see if you dare touch them. The programme could have explained in simple terms just why riding secondary and primary are safety measures. It could have gone on to explain that cyclists riding down the inside of buses & lorries at left-turn junctions are on a suicide mission, much like those who don't find it necessary to wear visible clothing or lights at night. In short, it could have been a good useful programme of the sort that the BBC used to be renowned for making, and instead we got a cobbled together collection of clips and a couple of shouty people who did no-one any favours, in an attempt to justify calling it war. It was a shockingly bad programme that Leopard Productions should be ashamed of for making and the BBC should be ashamed of putting out. I wonder if we'll see a follow up that answers these questions, and more?
Re bib. Good summary.
...but we still like posting 11 pages.
little vid re road position
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=0GC9Amu4Ld4
^^ THIS!
It could have been much more explicit about the dangers of going up the inside of vehicles which MAY be turning left and you don't know AND you are in the blind spot. I don't do it - is just asking for trouble, just hang back a little so you are behind them. Some cyclists are their own worst enemy, considering they WILL come off worst - as that poor women found to her daughters cost. If the driver must take more care then so should the cyclist, they are equally culpable in my eyes!