Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: EdinburghFixed on 10 December, 2013, 09:27:10 pm
-
What's my #1 gripe?
Other cyclists who seem to have confused the fact that it's sensible to try and avoid large vehicles with culpability if one of their drivers mashes you to deth.
http://mccraw.co.uk/cycling-wisdom-and-culpability/
-
I agree with the main point of your blog that the responsibility for safety must lie with those most likely to be the cause of danger, and that much of the recent activity around cycling and safety has failed to do that.
I would take issue with your comparison with sexual assault though. It's always going to be an highly sensitive issue for many, and the comparison you make runs the danger of inadvertantly perpetuating a dangerous myth. Rape is a deliberate, wilful act of violence against individuals. HGV incidents involving cycling casualties may be many things - careless, negligent, incautious, complacent - but they are rarely, if ever, deliberate acts intentionally perpetrated to harm individuals. To compare the two risks suggesting that sexual assault can also happen 'by mistake' - a commonly used defence made by those who carry out the violence.
I realise to imply as such was never your intention, but there may be more sensitive ways of making the point.
-
I see the point you're making. My view is that all road users make mistakes. All the time cyclists and motor vehicles share the same space there will be incidents, and the vulnerable road user will come off worse. Where society has got the balance wrong in my view is the low value it places on the consequences of making a mistake that results in serious injury or death on the roads. That's the bit I think that needs to change.
-
I see the point you're making. My view is that all road users make mistakes. All the time cyclists and motor vehicles share the same space there will be incidents, and the vulnerable road user will come off worse. Where society has got the balance wrong in my view is the low value it places on the consequences of making a mistake that results in serious injury or death on the roads. That's the bit I think that needs to change.
I think it's this view that allows juries to let someone off. "Oh he made a mistake - it could happen to any of us" We need a social sea change where mistakes are seen as such BUT the end result of selfish antisocial driving is seen as the result of criminal negligence rather than a "mistake".
-
Not sure about the juries point - having served on a jury there are very clear directions given. Inconsiderate, careless, dangerous driving are all different and get treated accordingly.
For the attitude of society to change there needs to be better behaviour on all sides - I see reckless cycling all the time and have been guilty of it myself. Does that help the cause? Nope. Consequences of reckless cycling undoubtedly less on the motor vehicle driver when an incident occurs, but the motorists generally don't see it that way.
-
Not sure about the juries point - having served on a jury there are very clear directions given. Inconsiderate, careless, dangerous driving are all different and get treated accordingly.
For the attitude of society to change there needs to be better behaviour on all sides - I see reckless cycling all the time and have been guilty of it myself. Does that help the cause? Nope. Consequences of reckless cycling undoubtedly less on the motor vehicle driver when an incident occurs, but the motorists generally don't see it that way.
I've done jury service as well. I just think juries who are drivers are easily swayed by a good defence legal beagle. I don't think behaving better will make any difference, though I don't condone it. We are an "out group" and all get blamed for the sins of the few. Contrast this to the frequent misdemeanours of drivers e.g mobile phone abuse where the blame is placed on the culprit - not across the entire group.
-
There we differ. I strongly believe better behaviour is needed all round. A position that it's OK for cyclists to break the rules when it suits them but motorists need to be whiter than white is untenable and damaging.
-
I would take issue with your comparison with sexual assault though. It's always going to be an highly sensitive issue for many, and the comparison you make runs the danger of inadvertantly perpetuating a dangerous myth....
To compare the two risks suggesting that sexual assault can also happen 'by mistake' - a commonly used defence made by those who carry out the violence.
It's interesting that you take the comparison in quite the opposite direction.
My point was that if you are jumped by a rapist hiding behind a tree, the blame lies with the rapist even if the police have been handing out advice to vulnerable women. I'm suggesting that we should see cycling/HGV advice in the same way - that there's nothing wrong with it but it doesn't follow that the perpetrator gets let off the hook just because the government rolls out "watch out for HGV" stickers every so often.
If the reader believes that running over cyclists inadvertently is OK, they might conclude "accidentally" going out to a park at midnight with a knife looking for lone women is also OK? I'm not convinced this is really a risk of this particular article, although I understand what you're saying as a general point.
-
I'm not sure I want to perpetuate this side-track, but it seems to me that a lot of sexual assaults are 'accidental' because of the cultural acceptance of really vague definitions of consent (it's not usually rapists in bushes, it's drunk and/or abusive partners). In a way that could be compared to a lot of traffic 'accidents' because of the cultural acceptance of really vague levels of care.
-
There we differ. I strongly believe better behaviour is needed all round. A position that it's OK for cyclists to break the rules when it suits them but motorists need to be whiter than white is untenable and damaging.
Dan,
We've recently spent 14 pages discussing this very point. It looks like you registered just as that debate finally fizzled out. PLEASE have a look before dredging it up again - it's been covered in some detail!
2 threads:
This one: https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=78081.msg1602359#msg1602359
And - probably more relevantly - the following. Here's the post I felt summed things up diplomatically yet succintly:
Too many people on bikes seem only to want to show that they don't care for their own or others' safety
There is a very small minority, most in London from everything I've read, who regularly weave between cars, ride at full pelt with pedestrian's crossing, and go through Red Lights. There is an equal if not greater number of motorists who also jump red lights, which includes stopping in the advance boxes for cycles.
From personal observation , outside of London RLJ's are a very rare occurence indeed, both for bikes and cars. Daily on my commute I do see people riding bikes on the pavement. They are often travelling slowly, in the evening a few of them have poor or no lights. They are courteous to pedestrians. Other than breaking the law, they are not causing a real problem to pedestrians. There is no real "those cyclists are knobs" sentiment from those driving, as we've all got used to bikes on pavement due to the rise of shared cycle / pedestian paths.
From a personal point of view. I think demonstrating a courtesous, well considered representation of how a person in a car or on a bike should behave; gives a good impression to those passing on their bikes or in their cars, and hopefully means they will be better intentioned when they next encounter another car or cyclist on the road, which leads to a safer encounters.
and it's very difficult to convince drivers that they should give a shit when faced with such anarchy. It's not good enough to say, 'cyclists don't hurt anyone therefore they don't need to play by the rules'.
It is not good enough to blame your behaviour on that of others, and all car drivers have a resposibility to give a shit, else they should not be licensed to be on the road. It should not be difficult to convince a driver a motor vehicle to behave responsibily, courteously and safely. In fact you shouldn't need convincing, it's bloody obvious you should. I don't base my behaviour on that of the man down the road who beats his wife.
You assume cyclists are one group when they are not, they are a disparate mix of people who choose to ride a bike to get around, get to work, for leisure etc. It is a fallacy to assume that the behaviour of a person in London has any connection with me because of his mode of transport. It no good ranting on about what "cyclists" must do. I am only responsible for my own behavior not of that reckless kid in London. So by all means expound what you believe gives a good account of yourself, but do not expect that to make one bit of difference about what that kid does in London. we can only lead by example.
An example of this same fallacy might to see a man rob a bank with a getaway car. Over the years I hear about many more bank robbies and they always have a get away car. I make the false assumption (fallacy) that all car drivers are bank robbers. In any subsequent argument I then say, well you should stop robbing banks then, else I can't respect you. Of course, the person I'm speaking to probably doesn't rob banks, but already I have his or her back up. So to say cyclists should do this or motorists should do this is just falling into the same fallacies. What we can ask is; what is an unsafe behaviour or attitude and what influences or directs that behavior? One we understand and agree the key underlying drivers (no pun intended) of the issues, we are in a better place to make a real difference.
Speeding
You've banged on about cyclists exceeding speed limit when they do not. You wonder why some might have told you to go procreate with yourself? You made no effort to understand for how long this exceeding the limit takes place, under what circumstances, and why did the poster consider it safe? You have a dogmatic belief that when a 30 mph limit may be imposed on motor vehicles for safety reasons; it is also not safe for a person on a bike to exceed that limit. When others point out that that is not the case, you fall into dogma, without trying to explore the reasons why they think that.
By all means have a discussion but let's not fall back on dogma. A healthy debate is good, as long as it is that, healthy.
Empathy
There's a lot to be said for cycle, drive, or ride a mile in my shoes. The more modes of transport you experience from a first person perspective the more empathy you have to those who choose to use those alternate form in their everyday. A person who cycles and drives behaves better towards both groups. A person who has a relative who horse rides (or indeed rides themselves) is better behaved around horses whether in a car or on a bike. If you sit in the cab of a HGV you better appreciate the challenges they face and are better accomodating.
How we get more people to experience different modes of transport needs to thought about. I believe this could be one of the biggest single things we could do to bring about change for the better.
-
There we differ. I strongly believe better behaviour is needed all round. A position that it's OK for cyclists to break the rules when it suits them but motorists need to be whiter than white is untenable and damaging.
Just to put a final word on this - simply asking truck drivers not to spin the wheel unless they've ensured their nearside is clear is not asking them to be superhuman or "whiter than white".
It's a simple, realistic, very achievable demand for the British public to make of the professional drivers in our streets.
We cannot excuse criminal negligence towards one dead person because someone else living in the UK broke a law and has the same skin colour as the deceased. Or rides the same bike.
-
There we differ. I strongly believe better behaviour is needed all round. A position that it's OK for cyclists to break the rules when it suits them but motorists need to be whiter than white is untenable and damaging.
I'm not sure if that's directed at my comment but if it is my position is clear. Blame me for my sins of omission and commision. I have no, none, zero responsibility for the sins of others. Why should I ? I do not condone their behaviour as I said earlier but in none of my other everyday activities am I deemed to be in the wrong simply because of that activity.
-
What's my #1 gripe?
Other cyclists who seem to have confused the fact that it's sensible to try and avoid large vehicles with culpability if one of their drivers mashes you to deth.
http://mccraw.co.uk/cycling-wisdom-and-culpability/
I think it's sensible to avoid large vehicles end of; does that make me some sort of weirdo? FWIW I don't give a shit about culpability I just want to stay alive :)
-
So what you are saying is: if the woman I saw yesterday had got squashed she would not in any way have been responsible for her own demise. Even though she was squeezing down the side of a lorry at a set of traffic lights, in a gap too narrow to cycle down ( she had to scoot ) & which had railings to prevent her escape. ( the lights went green about 3 seconds after she got past the lorry.) The lorry driver would've been wholly to blame?
-
So what you are saying is: if the woman I saw yesterday had got squashed she would not in any way have been responsible for her own demise. Even though she was squeezing down the side of a lorry at a set of traffic lights, in a gap too narrow to cycle down ( she had to scoot ) & which had railings to prevent her escape. ( the lights went green about 3 seconds after she got past the lorry.) The lorry driver would've been wholly to blame?
to whom are you addressing that question? please quote where appropriate it looked like you were responding to my post
-
So what you are saying is: if the woman I saw yesterday had got squashed she would not in any way have been responsible for her own demise. Even though she was squeezing down the side of a lorry at a set of traffic lights, in a gap too narrow to cycle down ( she had to scoot ) & which had railings to prevent her escape. ( the lights went green about 3 seconds after she got past the lorry.) The lorry driver would've been wholly to blame?
Say there are only ~100 lorry drivers who kill each year and 60,000,000 members of the public who are at risk. My argument is simple. Those tiny proportion of lorry drivers are 100% responsible if they fail to ensure their nearside is clear and kill a member of the public.
It doesn't matter how silly the victim is. We do not rely on sixty million members of the public catering to shit truck driving instead of getting the driver to check their nearside.
If you are operating heavy machinery with a huge death record on the public streets, you are absolutely and ultimately responsible for ensuring the nearside is clear.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't warn people of the dangers of shit truck drivers, quite the reverse. As I wrote in the OP, you can warn women of knife-wielding rapists hiding in a park without in any way suggesting they are responsible if they need to walk home instead of getting a cab. This woman you refer to was being very unwise, relying on the truck driver doing their job and checking their nearside when she could have kept her life in her own hands. However, the truck driver would have been wholly to blame.
-
Sorry, I don't agree.
One of the problems we have is that non-cyclists seem to feel that people on bikes are largely responsible for their own demise. In reality the reverse is true. Most incidents on the road are a combination of errors or lack of awareness by both parties. In a lot of cases the bulk of those errors are made by the driver, hence they are responsible for the 'accident'. However, you don't help the situation by refusing to accept that, on those minority occasions when the cyclist has been stupidly reckless, the individual on the bike is to blame. I'm not going to excuse someone being an idiot just because they happen to ride a bike. In response to your question I am perfectly happy to be blamed by other cyclists if my actions warranted it.
-
Up the nearside of large vehicles is exactly where a lot of cycle lanes are. If someone brings a twenty ton vehicle into the urban realm, where the driver knows there are lots of people on bikes, it's up to the driver to check.
-
Up the nearside of large vehicles is exactly where a lot of cycle lanes are. If someone brings a twenty ton vehicle into the urban realm, where the driver knows there are lots of people on bikes, it's up to the driver to check.
ALL vehicles in the urban realm - cyclists included - need to comply with this if we're to reduce the carnage:
https://www.gov.uk/highway-code
Rules 72 and 73 are particularly relevant. Most of the time cyclist's should be aware of the danger posed in the left turning HGV situation and take action accordingly.
Lack of knowledge and poor training of cyclists is a big factor in this I reckon. How many schools are teaching the highway code w.r.t cycling as standard curriculum? Not many. They all should in my view.
-
but cyclists going up the inside of lorries isn't usually how fatalities occur. The two deaths at Bow were the lorries hitting the cyclist from behind, the Camden fatality was the lorry swinging out of its lane to turn left. An awful lot of lorries overtake then swing left, the cyclist has done nothing wrong.
-
but cyclists going up the inside of lorries isn't usually how fatalities occur..............
I'd be happy if one fatality were saved from this cause by improved training of cyclists. I did also say ALL road users need to stick by the rules.
There are far too many vehicle drivers who don't take due care - and they're the ones capable of inflicting the serious damage. Decent enforcement on all sides would help, but is not an easy thing to sell politically - as can be seen on the discussions on other threads about cylcists "suffering" from enforcement action.
-
I'd be happy if one fatality were saved from this cause by improved training of cyclists.
Then it becomes largely a box-ticking exercise. "Train" a few cyclists, save one life, job done. Never mind all the other deaths then, all the ones that are mainly caused by careless driving. Just concentrate on training the cyclists.
FFS.
-
No,
Lack of training of cyclists is part of the problem, cyclists being reckless is part of the problem, the culture of careless driving being acceptable is part of the problem etc etc
Lots of things need change to improve safety. Taking action on the things that can be done, should be done as far as I'm concerned.
-
How many schools are teaching the highway code w.r.t cycling as standard curriculum? Not many. They all should in my view.
All of the 8 primary schools I have any involvement with deliver Bikeability (levels 1 and 2) to all pupils in upper KS2. We were also given information about how to access further training, including parent and child training where a bikeability tutor would help families find appropriate cycling routes to school and ride that route with them, training the kids in how to ride and the parents in how to ride and supervise. My son's PE lessons in the first term of secondary included a series of cycling lessons - on bikes provided by the school, so that no child would be excluded by reason of not have a bike to use and to ensure that all the bikes were adequately maintained.
-
Lack of training of cyclists is part of the problem, cyclists being reckless is part of the problem, the culture of careless driving being acceptable is part of the problem etc etc
You say that as if they're all an equal proportion of the problem. They aren't. Some things are a far, far greater part of the problem than others.
And some parts of the problem are so small as to be insignificant.
-
What is really pissing me off these days is the increasing number of vehicles, of a variety of descriptions, displaying "Cyclists stay back!" signs. I'm pretty sure that such a sign is going to instil in the driver of that vehicle the notion that he no longer has to take quite so much care of cyclists as he has already warned them that he is liable to squash them.
-
How many schools are teaching the highway code w.r.t cycling as standard curriculum? Not many. They all should in my view.
All of the 8 primary schools I have any involvement with deliver Bikeability (levels 1 and 2) to all pupils in upper KS2. We were also given information about how to access further training, including parent and child training where a bikeability tutor would help families find appropriate cycling routes to school and ride that route with them, training the kids in how to ride and the parents in how to ride and supervise. My son's PE lessons in the first term of secondary included a series of cycling lessons - on bikes provided by the school, so that no child would be excluded by reason of not have a bike to use and to ensure that all the bikes were adequately maintained.
Sadly not the case round our parts. MrsC, a committed bike commuter and primary teacher, is still trying to convince her school to offer Bikeability. There's a complete lack of interest, probably because it would do nothing to help achieve any Ofsted-able targets.
-
What is really pissing me off these days is the increasing number of vehicles, of a variety of descriptions, displaying "Cyclists stay back!" signs. I'm pretty sure that such a sign is going to instil in the driver of that vehicle the notion that he no longer has to take quite so much care of cyclists as he has already warned them that he is liable to squash them.
I find these signs a tad annoying too, but you and I would probably never try and go up the inside of an HGV. Maybe they might work for the dozier among us. I hope so. I wonder if I can get one for my bike which says 'HGV/PSV stay back' for when I've got to the stop line ahead of them?
-
"Motorists Stay Back!"
Can you imagine the absolute apoplexy from many drivers?
::-)
-
I'm not commenting on specific incidents, but in general, huge numbers of cyclists don't ride in a position that makes them more visible and hard to be overtaken at danger points. They're not doing anything wrong, but they're being unwise. That's where cycling education should be useful. It needn't interfere with tougher controls over drivers at the same time.
-
How many schools are teaching the highway code w.r.t cycling as standard curriculum? Not many. They all should in my view.
All of the 8 primary schools I have any involvement with deliver Bikeability (levels 1 and 2) to all pupils in upper KS2.
Hooray! some good news, thanks for the information. I must admit I'd assumed that all areas are like mine (Southampton) where the offer is there for schools to take up Bikeability if they want, only for pupils that are interested. That approach won't get all the kids in good habits from an early age. Level 3 is the one that will save most though I reckon - although that's delivered a later in the school career and is not something you commented on in your post.
-
In my view these discussion always conflate two issues that really need to be separate.
The first is what you expect of others, both in terms of their behaviour - compliance with road rules and courtesy - and their inclusiveness. By that I mean the gamut of how cycling is treated: how planners cater for cyclists, how legislation is crafted etc
The second is what you expect of yourself.
We can rant on about the issues and campaign and pressurise for improvement (which I take to be at the core of the OP's point), we can argue the effectiveness of things like segregation, ASL provision, the only thing you can directly alter is yourself.
The most hackles rise when discussing the second: "You shouldn't have to" "victim blaming" etc etc etc, ad infinitum
I'm going to preface the next comments by saying that it is quite possible that the population of this particular forum may not be entirely representative.
Somehow most people think that with a bare minimum of formal training and application of their own intelligence, their roadcraft is perfect, and beyond criticism. Whether it is driving a car or riding a bike, they are GOOD. Even if they don't think they are good, they think their compensation for failings is adequate. Unless you have some external validation of that, the chances are you are not as good as you could be. I don't know of one rational person who has done advanced driving training, or adult cycle training and not come away better (excluding from that knobheads who don't listen). Look at the threads passim about speed awareness courses (only a small part of the whole) and you'll see just what I mean when it comes to driving. Cycling? we're all too good and too experienced, aren't we. Having taken advantage of the free adult training that you can get, certainly anywhere in a London borough, I can tell you the same is true with that, too (thanks, Wooly!)
So, how many of you have taken advanced driving training, even though you are piloting around that dangerous lump of metal? (something I think should be compulsory for anyone going onto L/HGV licenses) How many have taken adult cycle training? That training doesn't absolve the rights and responsibilities that are covered in the expectation of others - and experience tells us it is only a small percentage of people who will take the additional care to develop their competence - but it does give you the tools to help keep you out of trouble, on the bike and in the car.
So, while I actually agree with the OP, that's over the first part of the discussion, the expectation on others. I'm off to start a poll to see what people's attitudes to training are.
-
Nice post Ham,
Amen from me.
-
Nice post Ham,
Amen from me.
We agree on that, at least. :)