Lorries in London, it'd be alright if cyclists just saw their point of view.

Buffalo Bill First of all, I don't say that cyclists were infallible. That's obviously nonsense. No group of road-users is inherently infallible.

Where I have seen the evidence in cyclist/hgv/lorry fatalities, which is 5 cases, the lorry driver was culpable. Either failure to observe or failure to signal.

There is big problem with HGV cyclist collisions. The problem is partly a lack of awareness on the part of cyclists that simply riding along the road, following marked cycle paths and obeying the law will not keep you safe. But also there is problem with a basic lack of safety equipment on lorries and training in its use. The guy who killed Cynthia Barlow's daughter said that not only did he not look in the proximity mirror before turning, but that he also had never used it, and NEVER been trained its correct use.

There's also a problem with cyclists and other road-users saying that any cyclist (whether they know the circumstances or not) killed by a left-turning lorry is at fault or worse. The most notable case was the LCC borough organiser who described Seb Lukomski as an idiot and the uk.rec.cycling contributor who anonymously described him as a 'fuck-wit'. Attitudes like this endorse the view that a cyclist who dies as the result of a collision with a left-turning lorry must automatically bear the blame.

Which is how you are coming off, to me. Maybe I am getting you wrong.

I agree that lorry drivers etc need to be made aware of the dangers they pose to cyclists. In no way am I trying to disrespect the deaths of anyone but I am tired of a seemingly one-sided view that cyclists are never to blame, attitudes like that only encourage reckless riding.

Well, there are plenty of people out there who think that cyclists killed by lorries 'deserved' it, so you can sleep easy tonight.

No-one here has said cyclists are faultless.

MA3K No-one here has said cyclists are faultless.
You thought it but. lol

I AM faultless, don't know about the rest of you clowns.. :D

Alas I have to work in about an hour so sleeping isn't an option. I hope your sanctimoniousness keeps you warm tonight.

i still get the fear when i think about my near miss, what makes it bad is the fact that the driver had me in his sights for nearly a minute, i was in front of him waiting at the lights and for about 400 yards of road where i was in front of him at all times riding 1m from the kerb.
he was quite happy to drive into a gap between the kerb and a traffic island that clearly was only wide enough for him and not me, i heard the rumble of the lorry behind and in a split second made a decision to slam the brakes on (was on slicked mtb with disks) he shot past me at about 50mph i was doing about 30.
this was going downhill at the end of the harrow road and i unfortunately didn't catch up with him as he was heading to the A40
If i hadn't stopped he would have to choose between me or a traffic island and bollard, the attitude of tipper/lorry drivers and the way they behave means i probably wouldn't be able to type this.
what also pisses me of is you all probably have a similar story. going about your business and being intimidated off the road by 7+ tons of metal driven by fat idiots

MrSmith what also pisses me of is you all probably have a similar story. going about your business and being intimidated off the road by 7+ tons of metal driven by fat idiots

Too true.

MA3K [quote]MrSmith what also pisses me of is you all probably have a similar story. going about your business and being intimidated off the road by 7+ tons of metal driven by fat idiots

Too true.[/quote]

Indubitably.

English people like to queue. When someone overtakes and pushes past another road user, using any combination of transport mentioned above, the shit hits the fan.

Yeah but there aren't many 'English' people on London's roads any more, this isn't 1955.
This is a world city now, most of us are from some place else or have been away and come back.

MA3K Yeah but there aren't many 'English' people on London's roads any more, this isn't 1955.

TheDude - Where does this 'one-sided view that cyclists are never to blame' come from? I don't hear anyone spouting it other than you. Outside of internet chat forums ie in the real world the blame seems to be consistently - and usually indefensibly - laid anywhere but at the feet of the motorist when tragedies occur. We've seen this with the 5 deaths referred to above, we've seen this with the 500 quid fine doled out to the driver at Rhyl, and we all experienced this in a less lethal form virtually every day we're on the roads when some cock cuts you up / passes too close / left turns on you. And there's yet another example of this already in the MT thread that Bill's referred to - a first hand report of a rider being told by plod that they shouldn't be on the road.

Whenever this debate comes up someone always comes back with the same old straw man argument about how they've been disgusted at the lack of regard many of their fellow cyclists show for other road users when they jump red lights, ride on pavements, without lights etc etc. But at heart this is nothing more than a load sanctimonious self-loathing twaddle intended to deflect attention from what we all know - by daily experience - to be the real issue; the very real lack of rights and protection under the law that cyclists are afforded by the authorities and courts whenever a bicycle/vehicle collision occurs.

No it ain't, it would be racist to attach a negative value judgement to the statement and ya damn well know it.

MA3K No it ain't, it would be racist to attach a negative value judgement to the statement and ya damn well know it.
Yeah :P

LOL !

why is it always 'cyclist hit by car' never 'cyclist hit by motorist' ?

i wish london was full of belgians and the dutch they treat cyclists a bit different over there, it's the chocolate sprinkles that stop this becoming reality.

MA3K LOL !
This is lol

:D

Yeah: Global Thermonuclear War

OK, don't normally wade into such discussions, but here goes:
Every situation is different.
Every collision between motorist and cyclist will involve motorist/cyclist of differing abilities at what they are doing, combined with individual circumstances specific to the moment. Even perfectly competent drivers/riders have off days - who hasn't thought at one point or other, "Shit what was I thinking there?" The point is, it's impossible to look at incidents like these and generalise about "cyclists", "motorists", "cab drivers", "lorry drivers" or whoever.
However, it is possible to say that cyclists are more vulnerable than other road users, by virtue of the fact that they're not surrounded by a ton or so of metal. Therefore, if you're going to think about cycling, it's worth understanding this, and taking the necessary measures to protect yourself. I expect most people here do, but when green cycle paths are painted down the left hand side of many junctions, a less experienced person may be led to think that following them is a good idea.
So: if, (for example) an inexperienced cyclist is injured or worse by a left turning lorry who didn't see them, then I agree completely that the lorry is at fault. However, a more experienced cyclist wouldn't have found themselves in that situation. We know the law is an ass, but it's better to avoid potentially dangerous situations than to come a cropper knowing that you weren't in the wrong. The truth is, it can be dangerous out there. Personally, I try and take the time to explain how to avoid potential dangers to my less experienced cycling mates, and hope it does some good.

Sorry, that's quite tedious - is it time to ride the bridges yet?

TheDude Alas I have to work in about an hour so sleeping isn't an option. I hope your sanctimoniousness keeps you warm tonight.

My sanctimoniousness? Where have I said that I was morally superior to anyone?

brett
Every situation is different.
Every collision between motorist and cyclist will involve motorist/cyclist of differing abilities at what they are doing, combined with individual circumstances specific to the moment. Even perfectly competent drivers/riders have off days - who hasn't thought at one point or other, "Shit what was I thinking there?" The point is, it's impossible to look at incidents like these and generalise about "cyclists", "motorists", "cab drivers", "lorry drivers" or whoever.
However, it is possible to say that cyclists are more vulnerable than other road users, by virtue of the fact that they're not surrounded by a ton or so of metal. Therefore, if you're going to think about cycling, it's worth understanding this, and taking the necessary measures to protect yourself. I expect most people here do, but when green cycle paths are painted down the left hand side of many junctions, a less experienced person may be led to think that following them is a good idea.
So: if, (for example) an inexperienced cyclist is injured or worse by a left turning lorry who didn't see them, then I agree completely that the lorry is at fault. However, a more experienced cyclist wouldn't have found themselves in that situation. We know the law is an ass, but it's better to avoid potentially dangerous situations than to come a cropper knowing that you weren't in the wrong. The truth is, it can be dangerous out there. Personally, I try and take the time to explain how to avoid potential dangers to my less experienced cycling mates, and hope it does some good.

Sorry, that's quite tedious - is it time to ride the bridges yet?

Not tedious, but I have to point out that even experienced cyclists have ended up under the wheels of a lorry. I am thinking of Charlie Courtnoys. That's why even experienced cyclists should always pay atttention to what lorries are doing (or not doing).

mickster TheDude - Where does this 'one-sided view that cyclists are never to blame' come from? I don't hear anyone spouting it other than you. Outside of internet chat forums ie in the real world the blame seems to be consistently - and usually indefensibly - laid anywhere but at the feet of the motorist when tragedies occur. We've seen this with the 5 deaths referred to above, we've seen this with the 500 quid fine doled out to the driver at Rhyl, and we all experienced this in a less lethal form virtually every day we're on the roads when some cock cuts you up / passes too close / left turns on you. And there's yet another example of this already in the MT thread that Bill's referred to - a first hand report of a rider being told by plod that they shouldn't be on the road.

Whenever this debate comes up someone always comes back with the same old straw man argument about how they've been disgusted at the lack of regard many of their fellow cyclists show for other road users when they jump red lights, ride on pavements, without lights etc etc. But at heart this is nothing more than a load sanctimonious self-loathing twaddle intended to deflect attention from what we all know - by daily experience - to be the real issue; the very real lack of rights and protection under the law that cyclists are afforded by the authorities and courts whenever a bicycle/vehicle collision occurs.

I was referring to this forum specifically, and like I said in my first post I was playing the role as Devils advocate, trying to inspire debate, which I kinda have. All I said was if you break the law then your asking for trouble. I never condoned the actions of motorists who are oblivious to the dangers they pose to the cyclist and fully agree that cyclists should be afforded far greater rights when involved in an accident.

Buffalo Bill [quote]TheDude Alas I have to work in about an hour so sleeping isn't an option. I hope your sanctimoniousness keeps you warm tonight.

My sanctimoniousness? Where have I said that I was morally superior to anyone?[/quote]

Perhaps I misconstrued what I thought was a sarcastic comment. If I did I apologise.

I was being sarcastic. No apologies for that.

TheDude All I said was if you break the law then your asking for trouble.

So because some cyclists break the law some of the time, it's ok for other cyclists to get run over by lorries?

Absurd.

Nowhere in road traffic law does it say that cyclists should not follow cycle lanes. Indeed, the Dept for Transport was trying to amend the Highway Code so that it said that cyclists should always follow the lanes. One of the points that I made in my article, and has been made by other campaigners, is that following the lanes, and going into the ASLs, puts cyclists in exactly the spot where most London cyclists killed by lorries have been killed: on the left. If a cyclist does this, they will have broken no law. But will still be blamed for the collision.

That's the debate that we should be stimulating, along with a parallel debate about the wisdom of allowing inadequately equipped vehicles with inadequately trained drivers on the roads. Not the old red light red herring. Seb stopped at a red light. If he hadn't stopped at the light, he might still be alive today.