Recent HGV/cyclist accidents

This is not intended to be flame bait, but the two most recent deaths have been women cyclists.

Possibly coincidentally there have also been a number of articles in womens magazines talking up the benefits of cycling, both as a recreation and for commuting.

So the readers are getting the positive message which is great, but no mention is made of how to tackle junctions safely- i.e. never going to the left of a large vehicle.

I think writing to these publications (I have a copy of Zest with a large "get on your bike" section for example) and asking them to highlight the "safe way/suicide way" issue, and promote cycle training etc would be a good idea.

Please note that I am in no way impugning female cyclists, I just want us all to be safe out there, and the two most recent deaths (and I think statistically more women are hurt- Oliver?) would suggest that awareness raising should be directed this way initially.

Something needs to be done. Lets not dwell on Male / female etc... Lets just go out and show in force that we care. How about all attending critical mass, then leading it/ a large group of us to parliament square where we all camp out over night in protest with bikes chained up in a huge circle it will get the media attention and hopefully make someone listen finally.

Failing that how about a Guerilla marketing campaign with billboard posters being put up highlighting the danger, I would be willing to put these up if someone can get them printed.

I think that something that could not be confused with anything else would be better?

Critical mass, to the non-cyclists just pisses people off, so it might confuse the message to associate the two.

I think we need to avoid preaching to the converted.

The bill-board idea is good, I think it would be better if it could be official however- which would require sponsorship from (possibly) bike companies, bike shops, TFL etc.

official would be boring and not get attention, all we need are people who are willing to do it.

its amazing what you can get away with if you wear a high vis jacket.

I take your point, but I still think that trying to get the message out to the people who would not normally receive it needs to be done.

For example Cycle Girl in the Sunday Times inGear supplement wrote about Eilidh, but again you would have to be interested in cycling to read that in the first place.

If you just use a bike to commute to work then you are not likely to read cycling specific things?

For example my girlfriend has just said that she is only aware that she should not go down the left hand side of lorries because of me/this forum. Without that she would assume that going down the left is the safest way, often because that is where the cycle lane is. It's that that we need to combat. My female flatmate is the same- "surely the cycle lane is there for a reason- that has to be the safest place to be".

theres riding bikes and then theres riding bikes in LOndon.

To ride in London it should be mandatory, and good sense to get simple provisional training about how to ride safely. However i do think that people are not aware or don't see the importance of it.

London roads are just mental, proper bonkers, and if your not up for it, you should not go near a bike whatsoever.

Whether your a woman or man makes no difference.
Deaths are cause by lack of experience and lack of knowledge.
Never ride near inside of lorries. Those 5 words would saves lives if everyone knew it.

Agreed, Dylan.

I recognise and agree with the strong views of a number of prominent and vocal forumengers that a duty of care should reside with the driver of the HGV. Having said that my observations, whilst subjective, lead me to believe that a disproportionate number of fatalities result from a rider being crushed on the left of a lorry. In saying this, Im not apportioning blame - rider on the left, lorry on the right.

Anyone who rides regularly on Londons streets would see numerous examples of a rider unsafely going up the inside, and other examples of a lorry going unsafely up the outside of a rider. In many cases, there is a percieved lack of awareness on the behalf of both parties.

Riders need to know the dangerous practices and situations, whether or not your ideals in relation to duty of care dictate that this should be the case. Clearly, in the light of recent news the ideal is not the reality. A two-pronged approach to education is required.

People should talk about this. Its sad that an accident is the catalyst, but this is no reason to stifle awareness raising debate.

It's a fair point. Without knowing the exact details of how these two deaths happened, there does seem to be a trend.

I'll be getting the mrs to post something about it on her lady-nerd forum. Can't hurt to warn people (of both sexes).

I think statistically more women are hurt- Oliver?

A much higher proportion of women's fatalities are from collisions with HGVs than for men--but women are, statistically speaking, the safer riders.

Statistics are a red herring here, though. The problem needs to be tackled at source.

maybe we should write to papers like the londonpaper, the times and the guardian for example, and ask them for a piece on cycling, road safety and HGV blind spots?

This may sound stupidly simplistic- but what is "source"?

Is it as simple as if you are not to the left of an HGV then it cannot squash you (whilst turning left)?

That's a pretty simple message to try to get over.

oh my god.

Statistics are a red herring here, though. The problem needs to be tackled at source.

The source ref for previous post

This may sound stupidly simplistic- but what is "source"?

Is it as simple as if you are not too the left of an HGV then it cannot squash you (whilst turning left)?

That's a pretty simple message to try to get over.

What happens if the HGV screams pasts you and then turns left on top of you.

What happens if the HGV overtakes you then gets halfway past and starts pulling in to the curbs and leaves you no where to go?

Not that simple is it

'Tackling the danger at source' means the sort of prevention that doesn't just involve 'managing' the problem:

http://www.rdrf.org/

http://www.roadpeace.org/index.asp?PageID=124

...ah. Just remembered I also vaguely know a journo who writes for Zest or Flirt or some such, so I will pester her to get across a 'ride your bike healthily and safely' type article.

Surely "managing the problem" and also tackling at source are complimentary?

I am not saying that we should allow HGV drivers to abdicate responsibility for their actions- nothing could be further from the truth, but we would be guilty of living in a utopian dream if we thought that we can educate all drivers at once, therefore managing the problem is a necessity surely?

Surely "managing the problem" and also tackling at source are complimentary?

Sadly not.

Why? (Meant in all seriousness)

I am not saying that we should allow HGV drivers to abdicate responsibility for their actions- nothing could be further from the truth, but we would be guilty of living in a utopian dream if we thought that we can educate all drivers at once, therefore managing the problem is a necessity surely?

No. All that you need is political will and it can happen almost immediately.

'Managing' the problem is what has got us into the present mess in the first place, BTW. Read the literature on it, particularly Robert Davis' 'Death on the Streets' or 'Murder Most Foul', the re-printed classic by JS Dean, available from RoadPeace, and you'll understand. There's a good summary and ordering information on this page:

http://www.roadpeace.org/index.asp?PageID=299

Why? (Meant in all seriousness)

See the links I've posted.

But it is quite clear that the political will does not exist.

But it is quite clear that the political will does not exist.

Correct. Hence no more acceptance of sticking-plaster measures that do more harm than good.

Why would educating people about the danger of passing a lorry on the left do more harm than good?