2010-03-09 - Rider Down/Fatality, Weston St x Snowsfield

Just a little thought, if it is in the planning conditions that the companies using HGV's have to use certain roads, and this one wasn't one, I'm going to imagine there is a huge case for suing/prosecuting?

This is of course is of no help to the family who would dearly love to have their loved one back.

My sympathy is with them, just the other day my girlfriend almost got knocked off her bike by a tipper truck as he decided for no apparent reason to serve into a cycle lane not realising she was there!

It irritates me profusely that when reported in the evening standard they made a point of saying the guy wasnt wearing a helmet.....as if it was his fault and a helmet might have saved him.

I saw that.
A sentence on how dangerous HGVs are when they use minor roads would have made more sense.

The other death this week was reported with the lady wearing a helmet and the witness stating how pointless it was against a HGV truck

So sad.

RIP.

what's needed is super fucking massive fines for the companies involved, like £5m. Ca$h is the only thing that will make them care- especially crippling amounts that would see them fold. That or have one of their loved-ones killed in the same fashion.

(i hate to make the last statement but in my heart i know it's true)

rip

this!

Thoughts and condolences to the family and friends of the cyclist. RIP

He was Muhammad “Haris” Ahmed, a 4th year medical student on his way to Guys.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23814255-friends-mourn-cyclist-killed-on-bike-safety-launch-day.do

Gutted for this to be happening again and again.
rip

one day you might have saved that lorry drivers life but instead he took yours.

R.I.P.

:(

This kind of incident must happen multiple times every day, it's amazing there are not more fatalities. Does anyone have the stats on HGV and cyclist fatalities in london when compared with cars and cyclists?

yeah.. am hoping it will be published soon.

thoughts and prayers.....

i think there needs to be a sea change in the way we all use our community.

a culture change.

like what happened with drink driving.

and smoking in public places.

and i think the best way to acheive the culture change is a (health and safety) move to 20 mph in all built up areas. and then within a few years walking and cycling would be the norm.

and driving would become a more of a minority and marginalised activity. and then the authorities could regulate and control it properly.

particularly as in these cash strapped times many people just cannot afford to drive etc.

So very sad, particularly as the victim was making a career out of helping and healing others. RIP.

the man killed was a medical student guys in his 4th year.

what a waste.

Hay hi there people, i work for keltbray driving one of there tipper trucks and have been going to the shard site for over a year, i'm also a cyclist and ride to work everyday but i'd like to put it to you from a driers point , first of trucks will never be banded from rush hour times or made to work at nighs because off the cost, also no one wants a big truck passing down back streets but there not braking the law by doing so. also trucks have digital tacos that record speeds and time spent driving, the police have told us the truck was not speeding and the guy on the bike had head phones on and never stopped at the give way at the junction where he was killed, and after viewing the cctv they think he never looked because he didnt hear the truck coming, the first the driver knew off any thing was when the bike hit the front and then it was to late for this poor guy.
Also as a lorry driver i get the hump with bikes when there is a bike lane and bikes dont use them, also when we come to traffic lights how they come up the inside to get to the front!!! when the lights go green as hard as you peddle the truck will be moving faster and having to over take a bike again is puts the bike rider in danger , then you come to another set off lights and the thing starts over again, i think thats why driver dont like cyclist, yeah i think some drivers are dicks and rude but we have to use the roads together, i think if everyone who rides a bike never come up the inside off a truck 90% off deaths wouldnt happen, most do when the truck turns left and this would cut that out, i would invite anyone to spend half a day with me driving and get to see things from where we are and what we can see and get to see what some cyclists are like, i know my grammer and stuff aint the best but i wanted to say something on this case

Murphy good to have you and your views here. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting trucks are breaking the speed limit, it is the inappropriate speeds in tight narrow streets that we objecting to. Have you ever had a mega truck rumble past 40cm next to you (within the upper speed limit)?

As a cyclist, I surprised that you do not realise that cycle lanes are non compulsory and in many cases, are a dangerous place to inhabit permanently- half a meter of green paint alone doesn't make you safe.

Most of these crashes happen in the morning peak, Festus. I doubt that they would simply be shifted to another time if HGVs were banned from the morning peak (which is one of the big asks).

There was an early evening death down Greenwich/Charlton way around a year ago. Getting these things off the road, say, in the mornings will increase the evening frequencies - especially during brighter summer evenings, no?

those painted cycle lane are usually more dangerous due to encouraging cyclists to undertake regardless of what vehicle is it in front of them.

Murphy, your points need to be answered so that you have a better understanding of cyclist behaviour and maybe you can encourage your colleagues to drive with more consideration.

First you say you "get the hump with bikes when there is a bike lane and bikes dont use them", and then you say you get the hump "when we come to traffic lights how they come up the inside to get to the front". You can't have it both ways. It is precisely the stupidly located bike lanes that lead riders up the inside at traffic lights. I should draw your attention to the fact that there is no compulsion on the part of bikes to use bike lanes - and given the useless and dangerous location of most of them its no surprise that experienced cyclists avoid them, choosing the much safer option of riding in (and as part of) the traffic. The only compulsion is on the part of motorists to keep out of those bike lanes bordered with a solid line.

You as a cyclist surely know that cyclists move to the front in order to stay safe, and make sure the have been seen, and to make sure they can see the hazards ahead. It's a lot less risk having only traffic behind you than having traffic both front and behind. Being in front also reduces the amount of poisonous filth you are forced to inhale. If you don't know this then I recommend you get some cycle training.

I'm not a fit or fast rider, but I assure you when the lights go green I will accelerate a lot faster than a big heavy truck, then I'll be travelling at speeds of between 16 and 25 mph depending on gradients and traffic. Being faster than motorised traffic is why I and so many others ride a bike! As you have already pointed out the futility of overtaking the cyclists, seeing as there's always another red light coming up, why don't you just take it easy and stay safely behind them instead of wasting fuel and endangering lives by pointlessly overtaking them.

If you think it's too costly to ban trucks during peak times you may be right. But what is the cost of training a doctor for 4 years (and 14 years schooling) only to have him killed by a truck? What is the cost of the lives he might otherwise have saved over a 40 or 50 year career? There is a cost calculation associated with road deaths, precisely so sums such as this can be done. If the saving of having fewer trucks killing cyclists is higher than the cost of drivers being paid to work nightshifts then there's no economic reason not to ban trucks in the peak hours.

Hello Murphy, thanks for posting. You are of course absolutely right that cyclists shouldn't go down the left-hand side of high-sided vehicles. As BlueQuinn has pointed out, cycle lanes are not compulsory and at the same time contribute to the problem of cyclists riding too close to the kerb, often leading to injudicious overtaking.

You may well be right about what happened in this case, but it's best not to speculate at this stage. Finding out what exactly happened is the task for the inquest (much as even that is often unsatisfactory) and hearsay is a poor basis for this. Also, can you imagine how the family would feel if they read your post and found fault ascribed so squarely to the victim? People read these forums (this one, for instance, as you've probably found out yourself, is quite easy to Google). No-one is saying that only one party in a crash is to blame, and the driver must be feeling awful regardless of what happened, but we simply cannot afford to jump to conclusions at this stage. I won't quite your post for that reason, if you want to edit it.

Rush-hour restrictions for heavy goods traffic are actually quite an achievable campaigning objective. In addition to the 'cost' incurred to society by the senseless deaths of young people, you also have to think of the time lost in congestion, etc. Yes, it would mean quite a lot of change--e.g., different working hours for drivers, or for personnel working at construction sites, but none of it is rocket science. I think similar worries were advanced when the GLA's night-time driving ban for HGVs came in, but that predates my awareness of it by a long time, and I can't really comment on it.

First you say you "get the hump with bikes when there is a bike lane and bikes dont use them", and then you say you get the hump "when we come to traffic lights how they come up the inside to get to the front". You can't have it both ways. It is precisely the stupidly located bike lanes that lead riders up the inside at traffic lights. I should draw your attention to the fact that there is no compulsion on the part of bikes to use bike lanes - and given the useless and dangerous location of most of them its no surprise that experienced cyclists avoid them, choosing the much safer option of riding in (and as part of) the traffic. The only compulsion is on the part of motorists to keep out of those bike lanes bordered with a solid line.

Couldn't have put it better.

You as a cyclist surely know that cyclists move to the front in order to stay safe, and make sure the have been seen, and to make sure they can see the hazards ahead. It's a lot less risk having only traffic behind you than having traffic both front and behind.

I disagree somewhat--there is often no additional risk associated with staying in the queue, as long as you're positioned in the primary position, as you'll still be very visible to people queued up behind you. It depends on the queue--you can't generalise completely. There will undoubtedly be the odd queue in which safety is a concern, but generally I wouldn't over-egg that point.

Being in front also reduces the amount of poisonous filth you are forced to inhale.

That's certainly a major concern, especially for people with an acute sense of smell, and people with bad lungs.

If you don't know this then I recommend you get some cycle training.

Yes, all drivers should have cycle training--it should become part of the driving test.

I'm not a fit or fast rider, but I assure you when the lights go green I will accelerate a lot faster than a big heavy truck, then I'll be travelling at speeds of between 16 and 25 mph depending on gradients and traffic. Being faster than motorised traffic is why I and so many others ride a bike! As you have already pointed out the futility of overtaking the cyclists, seeing as there's always another red light coming up, why don't you just take it easy and stay safely behind them instead of wasting fuel and endangering lives by pointlessly overtaking them.

Spot on, it's uneven speeds that create dangerous situations. Evening out speeds is the major task.

If the saving of having fewer trucks killing cyclists is higher than the cost of drivers being paid to work nightshifts then there's no economic reason not to ban trucks in the peak hours.

The proposal wouldn't necessarily be to have heavy goods traffic moved back to the night-time (that's caused a fair few problems in the past), but to have it more evenly distributed during the day. But how exactly to make it work is a subject for discussion.

There was an early evening death down Greenwich/Charlton way around a year ago. Getting these things off the road, say, in the mornings will increase the evening frequencies - especially during brighter summer evenings, no?

You're referring to the death of Adrianna Skrzypie. That was an absolutely horrifying and very unusual incident. The lorry was never traced--there were suspicions uttered at the time that it might have been travelling back to the Continent. I don't know if there is still any work ongoing trying to find out what it could have been.

Simply put, where there is HGV traffic, there will always be deaths--the danger is obviously not only to cyclists, but also to pedestrians. However, moving lorry traffic to times of day when there is less traffic overall would undoubtedly reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries. Peak times get people impatient--they accelerate to 'burst' speeds to try and make up for time that they've lost while stuck in congestion. This in turn obviously increases congestion (longer queues form more quickly, reducing time spent moving and increasing time spent stationary, leading to lower average speeds) rather than flowing more freely, at higher average speeds) and people get stressed.

Mind you, we can't allow the peak to spread evenly all throughout the day--that would only increase motor traffic in the long run--but it would be a definite step forward.

I disagree somewhat--there is often no additional risk associated with staying in the queue, as long as you're positioned in the primary position, as you'll still be very visible to people queued up behind you. It depends on the queue--you can't generalise completely.
That's certainly a major concern, especially for people with an acute sense of smell, and people with bad lungs.

On Motorcycle training you learn to place yourselves squarely behind the driver's seat in slow-moving queues, so as to be visible in the two mirrors most often used. This also puts you right behind the exhaust on many cars. (Once you've passed your test you filter to the front any time you can do so safely, for the reasons I stated, but also of course because you're faster, and because you can.)

On Motorcycle training you learn to place yourselves squarely behind the driver's seat in slow-moving queues, so as to be visible in the two mirrors most often used. This also puts you right behind the exhaust on many cars. (Once you've passed your test you filter to the front any time you can do so safely, for the reasons I stated, but also of course because you're faster, and because you can.)

Yes, this differs for pedal cyclists. The primary position is generally considered to be just to the right of the left-hand tyre tracks of motor vehicles. Note that, as with motorcyclists, this is relative to other traffic, not relative to the kerb.

I haven't cycled in London for years, living out in the sticks as I do... what is the reference to "ghost bikes"?