Cycling and Risk Taking survey

Done

done

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

I don't know exactly how this works, either, Tom, but there have been a few crashes in which cyclists have been caught out by this type of manoeuvre. I think it may be that because of their assumption that the lorry was going to go straight ahead, they got closer to it. You'd have to ask an expert, though.

right weve all done it now, can we have the results please?
what, ? it will take 6 months, half the readers will have flounced, the thread will have been erased and double denim will be in fashion.
(sorry for lowering tone Oliver)

done!

double denim will be in fashion.

Already is.

Diddly

I don't know exactly how this works, either, Tom, but there have been a few crashes in which cyclists have been caught out by this type of manoeuvre. I think it may be that because of their assumption that the lorry was going to go straight ahead, they got closer to it. You'd have to ask an expert, though.

Hummm - ok. It's certainly plausible that people not used to long vehicles could completely misread their intentions from their road positioning. I think what i'm worrying about is that focusing on that particular aspect sort of implies that other aspects are less serious, i.e. that if a lorry hasn't swung right it isn't about to do something dangerous, which is obviously not a valid inference. Maybe it's so obvious it doesn't need stating, but then why do so many people ride up the inside of lorries?

Perhaps something for a subsequent version of the survey to address?

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. .... etc.

In most of the fatal crashes the cyclist is hit by the very front corner of the left turning lorry. On most streets pulling over to the right before turning left is the only way to get a large lorry around the corner, it is not a question of speed. Very few cyclists realise how far to the right large lorries need to be, often it is around 3 metres from the curb. The lorry will beging by going straight ahead, it doesn't seem to be turning at all, then it will turn in very quickly catching the cyclist by surprise, knocking them down and running them over.
It is not the lorry you have to squeeze beside which is dangerous, it is the one that has moved to the right leaving a very large gap.

I just completed this.
I didnt find anything vague about it. I answered each question as honestly as I could.
I pointed out that I do not treat lgv's indications as gospel, ie I always wait to see which way it actually goes and always give it a wide berth in every situation.
Someone said the safest way is to overtake on the offside and stop in front of it...that is fucking madness.
The safest way is to treat it with the respect it deserves given that it is powerful enough to flatten a brick wall and its driver might not be able to fucking see you.
Good Luck fellow cyclists!

Done.
As people have pointed out, the options given in the lorry scenario are limited and the scenario itself is vague, but I think it might be a useful yardstick for roughly gauging people's inclinations.

Something much more specific in the future – a proper government backed study perhaps – would be grand.

But hats off to anyone who takes time and effort to try to help.

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.

So, a "yes" then?

done

Done

Done.

hats off to anyone who takes time and effort to try to help.

True indeed.

Done did it

Done. I always feel a bit shady about my answers to things like this. Throwing the data curve right out.

Done!

Done!

Done

Done..

but

tbh not enough options. What about those with more exotic riding skills. Apart from the field at bottom the form could have atleast had an option to detail with each question in a field labelled "If none of the above, what are you doing!"

Also it should have asked what kind of bike we ride, some bikes/riders handle situations slightly differently than others.

so who won ?

so who won ?

Sir Chris by about half a wheel from Wang.

done.

as a tool to attempt to understand cyclist behaviors it is a bit simple. alot of the questions need expanding. if road designers were obliged to ride a bike when they're designing cycle facilities it would make our lives alot safer.