Cycling and Risk Taking survey

Done.

done

Done.
Lousy, patronising, slanted questions.
I dislike the inherent victim blaming.
Not impressed.
If the designer is 'one of the good guys' he shows little understanding of how some potentially lethal scenarios can occur. They certainly don't all take place at traffic lights. Addressing issues like roundabouts, pinch points and multilane junctions might be a start.

Helen, you're right that there are some badly-constructed questions in this (e.g., putting options with 'pass either side' in it, which knocks two very different options into one, assuming that everybody has driven a motor vehicle, and question 17 should be left out altogether (positioning is not that important relative to the kerb--it's positioning relative to other traffic that counts)), but I wouldn't agree that it is important in such a survey to take account of different highway situations. It is sufficiently general to cover them all.

The survey is extremely dodgy and is full of victim-blaming.

The only scenario painted is one where the cyclist places themselves in harm's way.

The whole "blind spot" excuse shouldn't be accepted, it's often a legal ploy. If a driver admits he was unable to see around the vehicle because he hasn't fitted mirrors that cost £30 then the driver ought to be held culpable if they're involved in a death.

done

Done done done.

contrary to the claims of many, very few accidents happen as a result of cyclists RLJs* suggesting it to be safe (very counter intuitive). I feel it is worse in terms of the PR battle we're fighting.

• I may have mis-read this fact
  

Done. It's not ideal but at least someone's trying.

Done.

How is it victim blaming? It's a survey to gauge cyclists' perception of risk isn't it?

Done

done
forwarded on at work

The survey is extremely dodgy and is full of victim-blaming.

The only scenario painted is one where the cyclist places themselves in harm's way.

The whole "blind spot" excuse shouldn't be accepted, it's often a legal ploy. If a driver admits he was unable to see around the vehicle because he hasn't fitted mirrors that cost £30 then the driver ought to be held culpable if they're involved in a death.

How is it victim blaming? It's a survey to gauge cyclists' perception of risk isn't it?

The survey focuses on cyclist behaviour at junctions, and it is therefore no surprise that it attempts to explore all possible scenarios that occur at junctions. It does not paint only scenarios where the cyclist places him- or herself in harm's way, but offers in each option a number of safe positionings (although, as I said above, the 'either' options aren't clear).

It is certainly true that the 'blind spot' excuse is unacceptable, but in what way was that part of the survey? I couldn't discover it.

Also, it is not victim-blaming to be clear that there are a number of clearly recorded instances in which cyclists negotiated the proximity of a high-sided vehicle incautiously at junctions, much as it is quite clear that there are also cases in which a significant or primary aspect of fault lay with the motor vehicle driver.

How exactly the crashes occurred is irrelevant to the importance of advising cyclists clearly not to go down the inside of a lorry, or that lorries can swing out to the right before making a sharp left turn. It is very important to spread that message in order to prevent deaths, as it is still not known widely enough.

It is true that many people immediately rush out to blame exclusively the victims, and that tendency must be stopped. Collisions must be investigated properly. Traffic law must change to enable better convictions. There's a lot work to do and I wouldn't claim that pointing out this risk to cyclists is the most important part of this work, but I'm perfectly comfortable with it if it prevents deaths.

contrary to the claims of many, very few accidents happen as a result of cyclists RLJs* suggesting it to be safe (very counter intuitive). I feel it is worse in terms of the PR battle we're fighting.

• I may have mis-read this fact
  
  

In Idaho, the law is that cyclists should treat "Stop" signs as "Give Way" signs and red lights as "Stop" signs, allowing them to proceed if the road is clear.

Makes a lot of sense to me as it moves cyclists out of the way of left (or in Idaho, right) turning lorries.

Done

done

...
How exactly the crashes occurred is irrelevant to the importance of advising cyclists clearly not to go down the inside of a lorry, or that lorries can swing out to the right before making a sharp left turn. ...

This point worries me, as it seems to imply that these sharp turns are the most dangerous ones, and i'm not convinced.

Imagine a lorry going along a straight road a reasonable distance from the kerb then around a corner and onto another straight section, ending up again at a reasonable distance from the kerb. Follow the curve traced by the rear wheels. For the gap between the lorry's wheels and the kerb to close, the wheels have to follow a *gentler *curve than the kerb *. But pulling out to the right first allows lorries to turn their rear wheels *sharply *around corners. It's when the lorry *doesn't *pull right first that the gap closes without warning.

Given enough road space ahead and to their right, articulated lorries can turn their trailer wheels on the spot. These dramatic road-filling manoeuvres happen at lower speeds and present a hazard that is fairly obvious. **

Non articulated lorries do have geometric limits on the turn radius of their rear wheels, but these are often pretty small. For both types of lorry, the main reasons to take rear wheels around a gentler curve than the kerb are probably lack of road-space to the right, and speed - gentler turns can be taken faster.

I think a better warning would be:
[INDENT]As lorries turn, their rear wheels can close up to the kerb without warning, even while a gap remains at the front.[/INDENT]

*a sharp turn can close the gap if the lorry ends the turn next to the kerb.
**If you draw lots of diagrams following what all the wheels do, you see that when the lorry swings right first, the gap at the trailer wheels doesn't start to close until after the front of the lorry is obviously turning left.

In Idaho, the law is that cyclists should treat "Stop" signs as "Give Way" signs and red lights as "Stop" signs, allowing them to proceed if the road is clear.

Makes a lot of sense to me as it moves cyclists out of the way of left (or in Idaho, right) turning lorries.

Great if you get to the junction before the lorry, but what if the lights change while you are over- or under-taking a lorry to take advantage of this law?

Done.

done

done...

Great if you get to the junction before the lorry, but what if the lights change while you are over- or under-taking a lorry to take advantage of this law?

I can't see the how that would work.

done.

one obvious point they seemed to miss in the bike vs. stationary lorry scenario (not sure if this has been said already) was with the risk factor of "passing on either side and stopping in front of the lorry" the risk factor of stopping in front of a stationary lorry totally depends on how far in front you are and if the driver can see you. not knowing if the surveyor assumes that the driver can see the cyclist or not makes an accurate level of risk difficult to judge and the question difficult answer.
obviously overtaking the lorry in the first place is a risk in its self, that risk being much higher if you pass on the nearside.

Done, the questions are quite vague. Only the lorry scenario aswell, theres other risks to consider. I'm guessing everyone put very high or high risk for everything but waiting behind the lorry or riding on ze pavement, if not your a badass.

Seriously, it's not about weather or not blind spots are an excuse it's about judging the risk. If you don't take the risk then you aren't going to get crushed. LGVs have massive blindspots that change when they move.
Also I am constantly surprised how few people can read what an LGV is about to do from it's road position. I get really worried every time I hear 'but he was indicating left when he swung out' or some such, simple education really could save a lot of lives and tears.

Also, who says that the only risk at play is the Lorry? Riding on the pavement = risk of hitting peds. Which is high.