Yet Another Cycling Forum

Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: Jacomus on 01 August, 2012, 09:48:01 pm

Title: Cyclist down
Post by: Jacomus on 01 August, 2012, 09:48:01 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19087826

Just caught this article flash across the top of the screen, it seems that a cyclist has died after a collision involving an Olympic bus.

 :(
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: hellymedic on 01 August, 2012, 09:53:08 pm
 :( :(
RIP
Condolences to all those left behind.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 01 August, 2012, 10:23:04 pm
Sad news
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 01 August, 2012, 10:39:45 pm
shit shit shit shit shit shit

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=61229.msg1277396#msg1277396

Being able to point to that really just makes me feel so, so bad.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 01 August, 2012, 11:04:55 pm
What's the betting the cyclist will be blamed..?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jurek on 01 August, 2012, 11:07:22 pm
shit shit shit shit shit shit

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=61229.msg1277396#msg1277396

Being able to point to that really just makes me feel so, so bad.

Why?
There's absolutely no reason why you should.
Really.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 01 August, 2012, 11:14:18 pm
Yes I know. But.

It's almost as if I saw it happening, not in a clever way, either.

Title: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 01 August, 2012, 11:40:33 pm
Pronounced dead at the scene. RIP

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/cyclist-dies-after-collision-with-olympic-bus-outside-the-olympic-park-7999418.html
Title: Cyclist down
Post by: citoyen on 01 August, 2012, 11:51:10 pm
Yes I know. But.

It's almost as if I saw it happening, not in a clever way, either.

Lots of people saw it happening. Several people cited that specific junction as a danger spot. We all hoped we'd be wrong.

Locog have blood on their hands.

d.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Valiant on 01 August, 2012, 11:57:38 pm
:(
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Zipperhead on 02 August, 2012, 12:10:21 am
Yes I know. But.

It's almost as if I saw it happening, not in a clever way, either.

Lots of people saw it happening. Several people cited that specific junction as a danger spot. We all hoped we'd be wrong.

Locog have blood on their hands.

d.

Reading the link that Wendy posted elsewhere the junction design had nothing to do with it, nor do Locog have blood on their hands.

http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some_poor_bloke_for_his_last/
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 02 August, 2012, 06:06:46 am
Very sad.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on 02 August, 2012, 06:51:01 am
Quote
Bradley Wiggins calls for helmets to be compulsory as a bus driver is arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://news.sky.com/story/967839/cyclist-killed-after-being-hit-by-olympic-bus

Oh dear.  Not helpful.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: marcusjb on 02 August, 2012, 07:11:36 am
Awful.  RIP and my thoughts are with his family and loved ones.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 07:20:27 am
Quote
Bradley Wiggins calls for helmets to be compulsory as a bus driver is arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://news.sky.com/story/967839/cyclist-killed-after-being-hit-by-olympic-bus

Oh dear.  Not helpful.

From the eyewitness account it doesn't sound as though a helmet would have helped.

He may be the UK's greatest cyclist, but I do wish Wiggins would STFU on the helmet issue.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 02 August, 2012, 07:34:18 am
From the livery, it does appear to be an out of  town bus.

And no, you can't eliminate junction design from the equation, that area is shite, but we are so painfully far from the mindset that would design areas for the safety of vulnerable road users that it is irrelevant in the context.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 07:41:23 am
Quote from: Regulator

From the eyewitness account it doesn't sound as though a helmet would have helped.

He may be the UK's greatest cyclist, but I do wish Wiggins would STFU on the helmet issue.

Quite.  On a morning when the news should still be positive about cycling, and getting people on the roads after a glorious pair of medals (which would be a significant factor in the improvement of safety in itself), the item was about helmet compulsion and signed off with the number of annual cyclist deaths.

Thanks for playing to media prejudice, Bradders. :facepalm: ::-)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Tigerrr on 02 August, 2012, 08:46:18 am
What an awful tragedy.  The story from the person who was there is just so sad.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 02 August, 2012, 08:57:40 am
Witness accounts on RoadCC. Sounds horrific:

http://road.cc/content/news/62783-cyclist-killed-olympic-bus-witness-accounts-and-wigginss-input

Can't see a helmet making any difference.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Tigerrr on 02 August, 2012, 09:06:41 am
Bradleys comments as quoted reflect really poorly on him - so I assume he's bee selectively misquoted.
Even an ill informed ego-opinionated pro cyclist would not be such a twat to victim-blame a dead guy on a helmet liability/defendability basis, when it was a lower body crush under the wheels of a bus. He'd be a dickhead to do that, and it would be intensely offensive to the victims family for him to be trying to make cheap debating points out of such a tragedy.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 09:14:57 am
In fairness, Bradley was a bit ambushed, and talked about laws to better protect cyclists.  Unfortunately, he cited helmet compulsion as one, and, naturally, that's the one the media have picked up and gone with.  But Wiggins is experienced at talking to the press, and I have no doubt that Brailsford puts all hos riders through media training, so he really should have known better than to put his foot in it, which takes the shine off hos success slightly, by changing his legacy.

I blame endorphins.  He had earned them.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 02 August, 2012, 09:16:01 am
Bradleys comments as quoted reflect really poorly on him - so I assume he's bee selectively misquoted.

I would love to think so, but based on the link above, he's been a bit of a dick:

"Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.

"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘well, I have done everything to be safe."

"It is dangerous and London is a busy city. There is a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes."


(I've copied the whole quote over, that's the best I can do  O:-) )


Quote
Even an ill informed ego-opinionated pro cyclist would not be such a twat to victim-blame a dead guy on a helmet liability/defendability basis, when it was a lower body crush under the wheels of a bus.
He probably doesn't know the cause of death. LOTS of people have blamed the victims in these situations, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: numbnuts on 02 August, 2012, 09:22:20 am
Condolences to family and friends RIP
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on 02 August, 2012, 09:27:26 am
So sad. May he rest in peace.

Bradleys comments as quoted reflect really poorly on him - so I assume he's bee selectively misquoted.

I'm going to make the same assumption.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: geraldc on 02 August, 2012, 09:29:36 am
The guy rides bikes downhill at 70mph, he has colleagues who die in bike crashes, I think he's entitled to his view on helmets, just as we are. It's just he has a higher profile.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on 02 August, 2012, 09:31:06 am
I've only just checked BBC News. Appalled at the prominence of that headline.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Oscar's dad on 02 August, 2012, 09:31:11 am
I think some of us are being a bit unfair to Bradley.  He was asked for an opinion in an open press conference and given a tragedy had clearly taken place he felt compelled to comment.  I can't imagine he had much time to rally his thoughts but I can imagine he had a few other things on his mind!  All he did was express his opinion.  I agree with some of the things he is reported as saying and disagree with other bits.

I don't believe Wiggins has ever set himself up as a spokesperson for cycling so to criticise his opinions expressed off the cuff is a little unfair, especially bearing in mind the day or indeed the month he has had. 

I have also heard him quoted as saying he hasn't had media training.  Given some of the good and funny things he has said and done recently I think this is true.
Title: Cyclist down
Post by: citoyen on 02 August, 2012, 09:31:37 am
Reading the link that Wendy posted elsewhere the junction design had nothing to do with it, nor do Locog have blood on their hands.

Ok, so it seems the victim in this instance is at least partly responsible for his own demise. And maybe my initial response was more emotional than rational. But it's still relevant that Locog have failed to make adequate provision for cyclists travelling to and from the Olympic sites, and that concerns have been raised about that particular junction.

d.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 09:34:15 am
The guy rides bikes downhill at 70mph, he has colleagues who die in bike crashes, I think he's entitled to his view on helmets, just as we are. It's just he has a higher profile.

He's entitled to his views.  But he expressed them inappropriately (given the timing) and either in ignorance of the facts of the case or deliberately ignoring them, and is seeking to force them onto other cyclists.

I don't care if he's won the Tour de France or some Olympic gold medals.  On this occasion (and it's not the first time) he's shown himself to be a dick.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 09:35:40 am
I think some of us are being a bit unfair to Bradley.  He was asked for an opinion in an open press conference and given a tragedy had clearly taken place he felt compelled to comment

Why?  If he had any sense he wouldn't have commented.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Polar Bear on 02 August, 2012, 09:37:37 am
Unfortunately Lizzie A has joined Wiggins.   How utterly stupid are these elites?

Sincere condolences and RIP.  :'(

 
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimC on 02 August, 2012, 09:42:12 am
In fairness, Bradley was a bit ambushed, and talked about laws to better protect cyclists.  Unfortunately, he cited helmet compulsion as one, and, naturally, that's the one the media have picked up and gone with.  But Wiggins is experienced at talking to the press, and I have no doubt that Brailsford puts all hos riders through media training, so he really should have known better than to put his foot in it, which takes the shine off hos success slightly, by changing his legacy.

I blame endorphins.  He had earned them.

The media training point may be apposite. I wonder if Sky, British Cycling or UK Sport have a 'party line' on helmet use? I don't see Brad as being a guy who would normally tread a party line, but it may be so. I certainly think his judgement will be coloured by the kind of cycling he does, and he needs a bit of education about what normal people do at normal speeds!
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 09:46:13 am
What would have been wrong with expressing sadness and giving condolences, but saying he was unable to comment, as he didn't know the details of the case?  Next question, please.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 09:49:12 am
What would have been wrong with expressing sadness and giving condolences, but saying he was unable to comment, as he didn't know the details of the case?  Next question, please.

Exactly!
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 02 August, 2012, 09:52:17 am
I've only just checked BBC News. Appalled at the prominence of that headline.

I had to send comment:

Quote
I have been cycling for over forty years, and as great an athlete as he is, Bradley Wiggins couldn't be more wrong on helmets and cyclist safety.

Helmets should absolutely NOT be compulsory. Helmet compulsion makes cycling more dangerous for all cyclists because cyclist numbers are greatly reduced. See Australia for this. They introduced compulsory helmet law, and overnight over 90% of children who cycled to school stopped doing so. Australia is now one of the most obese nations in the world and they are discussing repealing their helmet law.

Read more Here: http://www.cycle-helmets.com

In the case in question I'm assuming Bradley Wiggins was not in full possession of the facts. The cyclist who was killed passed a bus on the inside when that bus was preparing to turn left. A first-hand witness account (read it here: http://road.cc/content/news/62783-cyclist-killed-olympic-bus-witness-accounts-and-wigginss-input ) states the cyclist's lower half was crushed and tangled in the machinery under the bus. No helmet in the world would have saved that poor young man's life.

Helmet compulsion is bad for cycling, and bad for health, because it discourages cycling, reduces cyclist numbers, increases obesity rates, increases cardio-vascular disease rates, increases diabetes rates, and makes the roads more dangerous because fewer drivers are cycle aware.
The answer is not more and more restriction on cyclists, the answer is better road infrastructure, better driver training, and the introduction of presumed liability driver insurance.
It is no coincidence that the countries with the lowest obesity rates and the safest cycling in the world are also the countries with no helmet compulsion, better road infrastructure, and presumed liability insurance: the Netherlands and Denmark.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 09:54:08 am
A good response Andy - bar one little thing.  The Netherlands and Denmark don't have 'presumed liability insurance', simply a presumption of liability.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Oscar's dad on 02 August, 2012, 09:54:14 am
What would have been wrong with expressing sadness and giving condolences, but saying he was unable to comment, as he didn't know the details of the case?  Next question, please.

In hindsight, that would have been a better answer.  Even Brad would probably agree with that this morning given the storm his comments created.  But, like us, he and anyone else is entitled to express views.  If Brad had set himself up as a cycling spokesperson or launched some sort of cycling safety campaign then we could legitimately have a pop at his comments.

The bigger message (*)here is "Don't get on the inside of large vehicles".  I don't see that in the press but doing so is far more dangerous than wearing or not wearing a helmet.

(*) Even if this had nothing to do with last night's tragedy it's still a valid message.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Oscar's dad on 02 August, 2012, 09:56:26 am
A good response Andy - bar one little thing.  The Netherlands and Denmark don't have 'presumed liability insurance', simply a presumption of liability.

Agreed. well put Andy.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 09:56:39 am
What would have been wrong with expressing sadness and giving condolences, but saying he was unable to comment, as he didn't know the details of the case?  Next question, please.

In hindsight, that would have been a better answer.  Even Brad would probably agree with that this morning given the storm his comments created.  But, like us, he and anyone else is entitled to express views.  If Brad had set himself up as a cycling spokesperson or launched some sort of cycling safety campaign then we could legitimately have a pop at his comments.



That's exactly what he's done with his comments.  And he's done so without knowing the facts, either of the incident or, more widely, about helmets.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on 02 August, 2012, 09:58:42 am
The bigger message (*)here is "Don't get on the inside of large vehicles".  I don't see that in the press but doing so is far more dangerous than wearing or not wearing a helmet.

That's the sad thing - that important message is just getting swamped by irrelevant guff.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Zipperhead on 02 August, 2012, 09:59:48 am
Reading the link that Wendy posted elsewhere the junction design had nothing to do with it, nor do Locog have blood on their hands.

Ok, so it seems the victim in this instance is at least partly responsible for his own demise. And maybe my initial response was more emotional than rational. But it's still relevant that Locog have failed to make adequate provision for cyclists travelling to and from the Olympic sites, and that concerns have been raised about that particular junction.

d.

Partly responsible? I'll happily take this over to POBI, but based on that account partly is not a word I would use. He put himself in a position of extreme danger and unfortunately suffered the consequences.

We as cyclists have to take  responsibility for our own actions, in the same way that we ask other road users to take responsibility for theirs.

Stand outside the Houses of Parliament any weekday and you will see large numbers of cyclists ignoring red lights, riding through pedestrians who are crossing, and generally riding stupidly.

If we as cyclists are seen to be bleating about "the roads are not safe, big vehicles are not safe", then what do you think the government are going to do about it? Do you think that they are going to insist that all junctions are surveyed and rebuilt, all large vehicles are fitted with extra mirrors, cctv and windows to spot cyclists? Drivers are given additional training? Or do you suppose they will just make it mandatory for all cyclists to wear helmets and hi-vis all the time "for our own safety"
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 02 August, 2012, 10:00:17 am
But, like us, he and anyone else is entitled to express views.  If Brad had set himself up as a cycling spokesperson or launched some sort of cycling safety campaign then we could legitimately have a pop at his comments.
With respect, I've got no time for this blinkered view.

Wiggo is the most famous cyclist on the planet right now, with more access to the media than President Obama. Whatever he says, gets reported. Right now he IS a cycling spokesman.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: marcusjb on 02 August, 2012, 10:11:17 am
But, like us, he and anyone else is entitled to express views.  If Brad had set himself up as a cycling spokesperson or launched some sort of cycling safety campaign then we could legitimately have a pop at his comments.
With respect, I've got no time for this blinkered view.

Wiggo is the most famous cyclist on the planet right now, with more access to the media than President Obama. Whatever he says, gets reported. Right now he IS a cycling spokesman.

Totally agree with Matt - whatever he says at the moment is going to get air and print time.

So, I wish he had been more considered about what he has said (the whole 'cycling is dangerous' thing riles me more than 'everyone should wear helmets'), but he wasn't.  I just hope that somewhere in the press the opposing viewpoints are allowed their time.

None of which helps this poor rider of course.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Morrisette on 02 August, 2012, 10:15:14 am
The eyewitness account of that accident actually made me go cold reading it. That poor guy. Completely horrific.

***

Completely agree with AndyK, good comment.

The problem is that Bradley Wiggns will be listened to on this because right now he is so high-profile. If he is going to call for anything it should be much harsher penalties for dangerous drivers, enforcement of existing driving laws and a blanket ban on driving able-bodied kids to school. Get people off the road who can't be trusted behind the wheel of a car, and not for six months or three points - for a long time. No special pleading that they need a car to be able to live - no, you don't.

A helmet would not make my commute any safer, the thing that would do that would be a higher standard of driving - stop turning aorund to yell at your kids, look where you're going, drive slower, get off the phone, and generally just concentrate on what are doing and where you are aiming your tonne of metal.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Speshact on 02 August, 2012, 10:19:11 am
just emailed BBC asking them to illustrate their 'Bradley call for helmet law' story with the image shown here:
http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/08/bradley-wiggins-wins-cycling-gold-for-britain.html
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 02 August, 2012, 10:36:38 am
Totally agree with Matt - whatever he says at the moment is going to get air and print time.
My time has come!  ;D
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Oscar's dad on 02 August, 2012, 10:42:27 am
So, some kid decides to drag themselves away from the telly and devote themselves to a sport. Some years down the track they do really well and win big time on the world stage.  Upon reaching this point they are expected to be polished media performers who only offer well informed, well argued points of view that won't upset anyone and generally make the world a better place.

We expect a lot don't we?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ewan Houzami on 02 August, 2012, 10:45:35 am
I was watching the interview on Sky as he made his points about safety (straight after his BBC appearance) and he was starting to ramble a bit tbh, (a couple of vodka tonics on board wouldn't have helped, and you actually see how shy and insecure he can be in these moments). I felt he was trying to keep onside with the press - opening mouth without engaging brain sort of thing. It was almost as if he was saying what he wanted people to hear and that last night wouldn't have been the most appropriate time to go off on a rant over inane questions about road safety. So he was trying to be nice, and I can't imagine anyone in the room at that precise time the question was asked, was aware of what had just happened with the Olympic bus. Although he did manage to squeeze in a couple of 'fucking's and a 'shit' (I could have expressed that better) for which Sky had to apologise afterwards.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 02 August, 2012, 10:56:00 am
So, some kid decides to drag themselves away from the telly and devote themselves to a sport. Some years down the track they do really well and win big time on the world stage.  Upon reaching this point they are expected to be polished media performers who only offer well informed, well argued points of view that won't upset anyone and generally make the world a better place.

We expect a lot don't we?
I for one don't expect - or want - our sports heroes to be polished media performers. I love Brad, all the more so for his candid comments.

One quote I liked was after the tour, regarding his doping outburst. Summat like:
"I didn't lose my rag - I just said exactly what I thought."

I'm keen to hear something similar about helmetgate.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: robgul on 02 August, 2012, 11:03:09 am
Reading the link that Wendy posted elsewhere the junction design had nothing to do with it, nor do Locog have blood on their hands.

Ok, so it seems the victim in this instance is at least partly responsible for his own demise. And maybe my initial response was more emotional than rational. But it's still relevant that Locog have failed to make adequate provision for cyclists travelling to and from the Olympic sites, and that concerns have been raised about that particular junction.

d.

Partly responsible? I'll happily take this over to POBI, but based on that account partly is not a word I would use. He put himself in a position of extreme danger and unfortunately suffered the consequences.

We as cyclists have to take  responsibility for our own actions, in the same way that we ask other road users to take responsibility for theirs.

Stand outside the Houses of Parliament any weekday and you will see large numbers of cyclists ignoring red lights, riding through pedestrians who are crossing, and generally riding stupidly.

If we as cyclists are seen to be bleating about "the roads are not safe, big vehicles are not safe", then what do you think the government are going to do about it? Do you think that they are going to insist that all junctions are surveyed and rebuilt, all large vehicles are fitted with extra mirrors, cctv and windows to spot cyclists? Drivers are given additional training? Or do you suppose they will just make it mandatory for all cyclists to wear helmets and hi-vis all the time "for our own safety"

Exactly.  I have every sympathy for the victim and his family ... BUT play with fire and expect to get burned.  Riding up the inside of trucks or buses (whether they are signalling to turn or not) is pretty dumb in my book.

There is no complete answer BUT common sense and being aware forms a great part of cycling safely.

By chance I heard yesterday that the DfT has just issued an "invitation to bid" to all Highways Authorities for funding to "improve junctions dangerous to cyclists" .... inspired, if that's the word, by The Times/Sunday Times journalist death and the newspaper's pressure messages.

As Ian, Head of Deliverance in 2012, would say "That's all good then" ... well, yes but just £15 million .  IN TOTAL!! ... the paperwork will cost that.

Rob   (Helmet wearer, no earphones - campaigner to cut pavement & RLJ riders' bikes in half, on the spot - and ticket vehicles that stop in ASL boxes too)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 02 August, 2012, 11:06:23 am
just emailed BBC asking them to illustrate their 'Bradley call for helmet law' story with the image shown here:
http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/08/bradley-wiggins-wins-cycling-gold-for-britain.html
Here's another goodie :
(http://fotos.miarroba.es/fo/a311/2D4FD0CCA0234F68B3BA264F68B390.jpg)

(nicked from CTC forum)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 02 August, 2012, 11:20:15 am
Cycling *is* dangerous.  Walking down the street is dangerous.  Travelling on the Tube is dangerous.  Chopping wood is dangerous. Boiling a kettle is dangerous.

Face it, much of what we do everyday has huge potential for danger for ourselves or others but it is the processes and procedures around safely negotiating a dangerous environment/activity that reduces the risk to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP).  It’s that ALARP principle by which we do most normal things.  We will never make ourselves ‘completely safe’ and nor should we try.  Yes, you can wrap people up in cotton wool but all you are doing is making them more flammable.

What we need to do, as others have mentioned, is get all road users working within the procedures that keep us all safe rather than seeking a magic solution like helmets and hi-viz, which in reality is a poor excuse for failure by people to ride, drive or walk safely

I respect the choice around helmet debate (and hi-viz for that matter) and make my own personal decision depending on the riding I am doing at the time and think others should be free to do the same.  It is clear however from existing evidence that compulsion would do much to deter people from taking up cycling or in some cases continuing to cycle.  As well as increasing the entry cost of the activity, it emphasises the dangerous nature of cycling but gives reassurance that will be misplaced for many types of incident.  Of pretty much all of the fatal incidents in London involving cyclists that I have been made aware of the full details of a helmet would have been of no use.

Where I think they do come in handy are the many unreported small crashes and falls that for obvious reasons we don’t hear about; “Person falls over, minor head injuries averted, film at eleven” not being a major news item.  Great for avoiding minor injuries but ineffective for most situations threatening fatal or severe injury.

There’s a guy I see quite often in the Richmond Park/Roehampton area who always wears full safety gear.  He rides a touring bike, wears a boiler suit and has on full MTB body armour, hi-viz and a full-face helmet.  He wears this stuff all year round.  I asked him once why he wears all that stuff and he said “To be safe”.  He never looks round and is totally clueless about road position and he is an exaggerated but real example of reaction to misplaced safety messages.  Riding confidently and safely should be the message not victim-blaming ourselves out of existence.

If we should be seeking to make anything compulsory it should be free cycle training for children and adults, incorporating training for adults within the driving test.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 02 August, 2012, 11:30:12 am
I rarely blog, but this time had to have a bit of a ramble (http://vexedveloist.blogspot.co.uk).
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: urban_biker on 02 August, 2012, 11:46:07 am
Cycling *is* dangerous.  Walking down the street is dangerous.  Travelling on the Tube is dangerous.  Chopping wood is dangerous. Boiling a kettle is dangerous.

Face it, much of what we do everyday has huge potential for danger for ourselves or others but it is the processes and procedures around safely negotiating a dangerous environment/activity that reduces the risk to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP).  It’s that ALARP principle by which we do most normal things.  We will never make ourselves ‘completely safe’ and nor should we try.  Yes, you can wrap people up in cotton wool but all you are doing is making them more flammable.

What we need to do, as others have mentioned, is get all road users working within the procedures that keep us all safe rather than seeking a magic solution like helmets and hi-viz, which in reality is a poor excuse for failure by people to ride, drive or walk safely

I respect the choice around helmet debate (and hi-viz for that matter) and make my own personal decision depending on the riding I am doing at the time and think others should be free to do the same.  It is clear however from existing evidence that compulsion would do much to deter people from taking up cycling or in some cases continuing to cycle.  As well as increasing the entry cost of the activity, it emphasises the dangerous nature of cycling but gives reassurance that will be misplaced for many types of incident.  Of pretty much all of the fatal incidents in London involving cyclists that I have been made aware of the full details of a helmet would have been of no use.

Where I think they do come in handy are the many unreported small crashes and falls that for obvious reasons we don’t hear about; “Person falls over, minor head injuries averted, film at eleven” not being a major news item.  Great for avoiding minor injuries but ineffective for most situations threatening fatal or severe injury.

There’s a guy I see quite often in the Richmond Park/Roehampton area who always wears full safety gear.  He rides a touring bike, wears a boiler suit and has on full MTB body armour, hi-viz and a full-face helmet.  He wears this stuff all year round.  I asked him once why he wears all that stuff and he said “To be safe”.  He never looks round and is totally clueless about road position and he is an exaggerated but real example of reaction to misplaced safety messages.  Riding confidently and safely should be the message not victim-blaming ourselves out of existence.

If we should be seeking to make anything compulsory it should be free cycle training for children and adults, incorporating training for adults within the driving test.

Agree 100% with everything you said. I personally wear a helmet 90% of the time. But I like the ability to choose not to for that 10%. In fact in the odd occasion I've forgotten to put my helmet on for the ride to work. I really wouldn't want to be pulled over by the police in that situation. Compulsion is simply wrong headed.

Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: rower40 on 02 August, 2012, 12:06:37 pm
Condolences and RIP respectively. (and respectfully)
Quote from: BBC
It has not been revealed whether the victim was wearing a helmet...
From the eye-witness account, a helmet would have been useless.  And we don't even know if the deceased was wearing one.
But improved cycle training might have had some effect; my Cycling Proficiency Test (showing my age :-[) was instrumental in my developing the road-sense to know not to undertake large vehicles.

So why o why is the be-sideburned one telling cyclists to wear helmets?  Why not campaign for Cycling to be part of the National Curriculum?  Or a pre-requisite of a Driving Licence?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: duncan on 02 August, 2012, 12:16:38 pm
So why o why is the be-sideburned one telling cyclists to wear helmets?  Why not campaign for Cycling to be part of the National Curriculum?  Or a pre-requisite of a Driving Licence?

Probably he was expecting questions about his time-trialling, was caught off guard, and ended up talking about something he'd not really thought through.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: urban_biker on 02 August, 2012, 12:24:01 pm
Too true - I suspect the helmet debate is not one that sporting cyclists have very much. Since helmets have been compulsory for sport for some time I suspect he just thought he was stating the bleeding obvious and being as uncontroversial as possible. Duh!
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 02 August, 2012, 12:31:48 pm
Give the man a break, he's done more to popularise cycling over the last two weeks than any other individual you can name. He has raised the profile of cycling way up the news agenda and into public consciousness. If he isn't perfect, none of us are, and he'd just been through the most physically and emotionally charged experience of ANYBODY's life. And he was on the way to getting utterly bladdered:

Quote
Bradley Wiggins ‏@bradwiggins
Well what a day, blind drunk at the minute and overwhelmed with all the messages, Thank You everyone it's been emotional X

Get over it.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Oscar's dad on 02 August, 2012, 12:35:43 pm
Exactly.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: hubner on 02 August, 2012, 12:38:03 pm
I hope Wiggins is going to backtrack on what he said, but maybe it's simply that he really does believe in compulsory helmets.

I see cyclists ride up the the left hand side of large vehicles all the time, even when it's at the front of the queue at lights and the gap is so small they can't pedal, then they'll go straight through the red light. 99.99% of the time they'll get away with it, but eventually one of them will be killed.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe free cycle training, but you would need to offer some sort of incentive otherwise people are not going to go.

Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Biggsy on 02 August, 2012, 12:38:23 pm
Wiggins has said the same things before quite some time ago (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=49003.0), so he's had time to think and listen.  I'm not going to be soft on anyone in the public eye calling for compulsary helmets.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: RJ on 02 August, 2012, 12:40:21 pm
Fortunately, we don't (yet) have law-making by soundbite or tweet.

(Now, if Brad had made similar comments to a HoC select committee, the implications would have been a bit different).

I blame the journos for raining  on his parade  :demon:

Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jurek on 02 August, 2012, 12:40:46 pm
Boris has just been on the radio saying there's no plan to make helmets compulsory...

RIP the unfortunate cyclist.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: hubner on 02 August, 2012, 12:48:13 pm
Give the man a break, he's done more to popularise cycling over the last two weeks than any other individual you can name. He has raised the profile of cycling way up the news agenda and into public consciousness.



Err...he's a racing cyclist and has recently won a couple of races. Most people don't give a toss about cycling, all they care about is Wiggins happens to be British and can wet themselves over the reflected glory.

Has he done anything to make the roads safer, or to make cycling a normal everyday way to get around and not just something weirdos (or pro cyclists in their cossetted bubble) do?

Cycle sport has been in the news, but that's a different world from the cyclists in real life out there on the streets.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: hubner on 02 August, 2012, 12:58:27 pm
Boris has just been on the radio saying there's no plan to make helmets compulsory...

What Johnson says and what he plans are two entirely different things. The motoring lobby must be jumping up and down at another opportunity to push for compulsory helmets.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: tonycollinet on 02 August, 2012, 01:02:05 pm
The only reason I know not to go down the side of HGV's is because I read it on here. That message needs to go out to the general non forumming public - and it needs to go out LOUD.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 02 August, 2012, 01:04:42 pm
The only reason I know not to go down the side of HGV's is reading on here. That message needs to go out to the general non forumming public - and it needs to go out LOUD.

The only problem is that the message gets drowned out by the idiots calling for compulsory helmets, hi-viz, insurance, etc. for cyclists.  Rational solutions don't get the media interest...
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Tim Hall on 02 August, 2012, 01:05:47 pm
The motoring lobby must be jumping up and down at another opportunity to push for compulsory helmets.

Why? How would what cyclists are forced to do affect the motoring lobby?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: nicknack on 02 August, 2012, 01:09:00 pm
The motoring lobby must be jumping up and down at another opportunity to push for compulsory helmets.

Why? How would what cyclists are forced to do affect the motoring lobby?

Because they know that will force a lot of cyclists off the road.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: RW on 02 August, 2012, 01:09:18 pm
That's awful, so tragic, no words can express.  No helmet would have saved him.  Not riding up the inside would have.  I'm so sorry that this sounds like me blaming the cyclist.  This was the thing that I had to get over when I saw the guy under a  truck in Victoria Street, yes it was awful to see, but had he waited behind he'd have been safe.

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.


Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Butterfly on 02 August, 2012, 01:29:13 pm
I rarely blog, but this time had to have a bit of a ramble (http://vexedveloist.blogspot.co.uk).
Thanks AndyK. I hope you don't mind, I've linked to that on Facebook.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 02 August, 2012, 01:30:55 pm

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.

Thanks for the pointer but it looks to be Stagecoach, probably from outside London? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stagecoach_Group_bus,_new_corporate_livery,_Banbury,_2006.png

We are unlikely ever to know if it was a factor but it seemed almost inevitable to me that something like this would happen, with so many drivers not used to London roads and habits. Doesn't make it better in the slightest; the wrong place at the wrong time.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: RW on 02 August, 2012, 01:41:14 pm
The only reason I know not to go down the side of HGV's is reading on here. That message needs to go out to the general non forumming public - and it needs to go out LOUD.

The only problem is that the message gets drowned out by the idiots calling for compulsory helmets, hi-viz, insurance, etc. for cyclists.  Rational solutions don't get the media interest...

There's been a lot of work done on this by TfL, trying to put out the message that cyclists shouldn't go up the inside of large vehicles.  The research on the effectiveness of comms with these messages tended to show that it was experienced cyclists who were most likely to ride up the inside.  This resulted in a lot of heated exchanges between myself and the person responsible for the research, who was not at all sympathetic to cyclists or cycling and was of the "blame the cyclist" mindset.  My view was that, that couldn't possibly be true and what's the definition of experienced.  I'm not so sure now.



FWIW I was never allowed near any research to do with cycling apart from managing the boris bike customer satisfaction survey. 
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mcshroom on 02 August, 2012, 01:43:02 pm
It isn't red so it's probably not a London service bus, but the design will be the same as ones Stagecoach operate in London (other than not being red), and the driver is just as likely to be a local driver as one from outside of the area.

Lets not jump to conclusions
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: RW on 02 August, 2012, 01:49:04 pm

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.

Thanks for the pointer but it looks to be Stagecoach, probably from outside London? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stagecoach_Group_bus,_new_corporate_livery,_Banbury,_2006.png

We are unlikely ever to know if it was a factor but it seemed almost inevitable to me that something like this would happen, with so many drivers not used to London roads and habits. Doesn't make it better in the slightest; the wrong place at the wrong time.

Thanks for pointing that out.  But as you say, clearly a London type bus from outside London, driving a non standard route.  Rail replacement buses tend to have a disproportionate amount of bridge hitting incidents.

Something must be done though.  Too many people have lost their lives or have been seriously injured.  There needs to be a shift in behaviour as great as that to do with smoking or drink driving.  How that is to be done is beyond me.

Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: geraldc on 02 August, 2012, 01:52:58 pm
That whole area is confusing. You have segregated cycle paths running on the pavement, with crossings at pelican crossings, and then the Olympic lanes. I can see how a bus driver could be lulled into a false sense of security.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 02 August, 2012, 01:53:26 pm
The comments under that BBC article have gone the usual way; road tax, insurance, helmets, get off the roads… and all the 'editors picks' are pro-helmet.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ewan Houzami on 02 August, 2012, 02:00:31 pm
Thankfully the BBC asked one of BC's head honchos on the lunchtime news. His opininion echoed Boris'; studies have shown that compulsory magic hat (love that term btw) wearing dissuades people from taking up cycling. Of course the image they showed was one with the crushed bike lying next to the bus, and surprisingly not the one with intact lid. Nobody even considered asking whether wearing a lid in this case would have saved the poor cyclist's life.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Eccentrica Gallumbits on 02 August, 2012, 02:33:54 pm
That's awful, so tragic, no words can express.  No helmet would have saved him.  Not riding up the inside would have.  I'm so sorry that this sounds like me blaming the cyclist.  This was the thing that I had to get over when I saw the guy under a  truck in Victoria Street, yes it was awful to see, but had he waited behind he'd have been safe.
Victim blaming is awful, but sometimes the person who is killed or injured is killed or injured because of their own actions. Not every death or injury is always the fault of somebody else. Yes, all long vehicles should have additional mirrors so that they have no blind spots, and yes, all drivers should check all their mirrors. But not all long vehicles have additional mirrors yet, and if that post linked to in this thread is true, the poor guy went up the left of a stationery bus and was in the driver's blind spot when it started to move. That's not the driver's fault. The only person who put the cyclist into the danger zone is the cyclist. He could have waited behind and been safe.

The fact he put himself into a place where he was killed doesn't make it less awful or less sad or less tragic, and it doesn't mean that vehicles shouldn't have additional mirrors. A couple of years ago a lad died in Edinburgh because he'd been riding his mini-moto illegally on a shared footpath/cyclepath where it had no right to be and he went into a tree and died. That was entirely his fault. It was still awful and sad. Just on Tuesday I thought I was about to witness a death when a cyclist behaved absolutely stupidly forcing himself into a tiny gap between the left of a van and some railings (in almost exactly the same spot Iain Wilson was killed). He was lucky - the van driver saw him and stopped. If he had been killed, it would have been awful and sad but it would have been as a result of his own actions.

Sometimes cyclists do stupid or naive things and sometimes they die because of it. I hope that very soon all long vehicles will have additional mirrors to remove the blind spots. It won't stop some cyclists doing stupid things though.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mcshroom on 02 August, 2012, 02:45:48 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Interesting place for this article to appear. I notice that Mr Wiggins has stated he didn't call for compulsary helmets now on twitter.
Title: Cyclist down
Post by: citoyen on 02 August, 2012, 03:58:16 pm
Partly responsible? I'll happily take this over to POBI, but based on that account partly is not a word I would use. He put himself in a position of extreme danger and unfortunately suffered the consequences.

At least partly responsible. Taking that eyewitness account at face value, he was extremely reckless.

Broadly, I agree with what you say. Some cyclists need a serious whack round the head with the clue stick.

d.

Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 03:58:56 pm
But not one that crushes their lower body and kills them.
Title: Cyclist down
Post by: citoyen on 02 August, 2012, 04:03:16 pm
But not one that crushes their lower body and kills them.

Absolutely. He seems to be a victim of his own foolishness, but the price is too high. Also, there's the bigger picture to consider - why he was in that situation at all, mixing with buses at a badly designed junction... It's a complex issue. I could sit here writing my thoughts about all the various aspects of it all day but I'm not going to - there's cycling on the telly!

d.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 02 August, 2012, 04:09:45 pm
London might be an exception when it comes to how bus drivers drive their bus's.
Round here bus drivers imo are quite simply bullies.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: shyumu on 02 August, 2012, 04:10:44 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Interesting place for this article to appear. I notice that Mr Wiggins has stated he didn't call for compulsary helmets now on twitter.

I've clicked on that link but I just get cats in teacups.  But I note that not one of the cats is wearing protective clothing in case someone pours tea into those teacups.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mcshroom on 02 August, 2012, 04:14:04 pm
You wouldn't have a certain filter for Dail Mail pages installed would you ;)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: shyumu on 02 August, 2012, 04:16:09 pm
You wouldn't have a certain filter for Dail Mail pages installed would you ;)

I've just checked my pulse and it is normal... I think the filter must be working.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: hellymedic on 02 August, 2012, 04:21:11 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html)

Is that any better?
Still haven't fully got to grips with this MacBook...
[Edit] Link works for me.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 02 August, 2012, 04:29:18 pm
I rarely blog, but this time had to have a bit of a ramble (http://vexedveloist.blogspot.co.uk).

Very nicely put Andy
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: shyumu on 02 August, 2012, 04:35:46 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html)

Is that any better?
Still haven't fully got to grips with this MacBook...
[Edit] Link works for me.

If you can see any online Daily Mail articles then perhaps you need this (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/kitten-block/)

My blood pressure has been saved from many an inadvertent click.

---
Nice blog post Andy
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: andygates on 02 August, 2012, 05:17:01 pm
What we need is some simple public service announcements, with our lovely new celeb riders, showing how to ride safely on the road.

Someone like Cav saying "I'm always in a rush and I can handle myself, but even I don't go into the DEATH ZONE" and pointing out the Bad Place on the inside of long vehicles. 
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Riggers on 02 August, 2012, 05:21:30 pm
Not a bad idea Master Gates.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Chris S on 02 August, 2012, 05:27:11 pm
Someone like Cav saying "I'm always in a rush and I can handle myself, but even I don't go into the DEATH ZONE" and pointing out the Bad Place on the inside of long vehicles.

The sad truth is - in many such places, there is a friendly bike symbol and nice green (or blue) paint on the road to show you the way into the DEATH ZONE; as was the case yesterday I believe.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ewan Houzami on 02 August, 2012, 05:29:20 pm
Looks like they've pulled the article from the main page of the Mail and replaced it with the stereotypical, incitement-to-rage, Bradders says wear a helmet one. Attracting the usual headbanging 'I PAY MY ROAD TAX' twits.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Basil on 02 August, 2012, 05:30:47 pm
The sad truth is - in many such places, there is a friendly bike symbol and nice green (or blue) paint on the road to show you the way into the DEATH ZONE; as was the case yesterday I believe.

Like dumb-ass drivers who drive into fields or lakes because their sat-nav told them to?

Thinking would be a good start.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 02 August, 2012, 05:33:10 pm
What we need is some simple public service announcements, with our lovely new celeb riders, showing how to ride safely on the road.

Someone like Cav saying "I'm always in a rush and I can handle myself, but even I don't go into the DEATH ZONE" and pointing out the Bad Place on the inside of long vehicles. 

A bit like the Alvin Stardust Green Cross code.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKQO6BVzyA

Or perhaps the Les Gray out of Mud version, in honour of the Opening Ceremony 'Tiger Feet' interlude, it also explains the origin of the Gold trim on the uniforms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V52TvRwK0Bg
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: andygates on 02 August, 2012, 05:36:21 pm
Novice cyclists have been cultured to look for facilities and use them in preference to the wild-west of the road.

The sad thing is, you graduate from novice when you've plenty of road time, so they say greener for longer.  It's like those four-year-olds still on breast milk.  And yeah, if they're encouraged by paint into the DEATH ZONE and don't know it for what it is (mixing it at a stale red? stay one car back. who teaches that any more? who even teaches the concept of a stale light that's about to change?)....  ...where was I? 

Same old rant.  Same old body count.  Wiggo's not wrong there: it's horrid and it isn't changing. 
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: RJ on 02 August, 2012, 05:55:11 pm
What we need is some simple public service announcements, with our lovely new celeb riders, showing how to ride safely on the road.

Someone like Cav saying "I'm always in a rush and I can handle myself, but even I don't go into the DEATH ZONE" and pointing out the Bad Place on the inside of long vehicles.

 :thumbsup:  Scripted, natch.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimO on 02 August, 2012, 06:19:36 pm
What has had the largest effect upon me, of this particular incident, is reading the account (http://road.cc/content/news/62783-cyclist-killed-olympic-bus-witness-accounts-and-wigginss-input) of the Reddit user who said he (or she) was behind the cyclist, and saw pretty much the whole thing, including being there right at his end.  I've never seen anything like that, and will be quite happy if I manage to never do so, but that has to have had a pretty profound effect.  After reading it, I know I'll be even more nervous about the very rare occasions when I do go up the inside of a bus or HGV (on the rare occasions when traffic is barely moving or stationary, and I know that I can safely get past the large vehicle, and it's safer than going past on the outside), or indeed, when I'm anywhere in the vicinity of such vehicles.  This is probably not a bad thing, because nasty stuff can happen, regardless of how careful we and motor vehicles drivers are.

It does sounds horribly like this cyclist didn't do himself any favours by his behaviour, and it does make me wonder how we can get people to be more sensible?  I've seen people come close to coming undone when going up the inside of a left turning vehicle, and did have a brief shout at a couple of people on the last FNRttC who wove between some cars turning left into a garage, when it was almost as easy to wait, or go around the outside.

Presumably because bicycle are more manoeuvrable and can fit into smaller spaces, people think it's sensible to go through these gaps, but often it's asking for trouble.  TfL has been putting up some advertising to try and get people to realise that HGVs have a huge blind spot.  Given the number of people I see stepping out into the road, from behind a parked vehicle, whilst wearing iPods or talking on the phone, I do wonder if we're suffering from some huge failure to recognise that the world is generally out to get us, so it's a good idea to be aware of what else is in your vicinity.  Are people taking less care than when I was younger, or am I just suffering from a case of "When I were a lad ..."  I seem to recall seeing public information films with characters like the Green Cross Code Man (http://tinyurl.com/c23rn2c) and Tufty the Squirrel (http://tinyurl.com/32v7k7c) when I was younger, but less so in recent years (but then again, I don't watch children's TV quite as much either!)

I can't say Wiggins putting his foot in it worries me too much.  Yes, he probably shouldn't have said it, and he gave the media the sort of soundbite they were looking for, but he's not particularly qualified to make public opinions on such, so personally I don't care.  There is an argument that given how well he has the public ear at the moment, he has a responsibility to take more care over what he says, but on the scale of public cock-ups, this has nothing on getting caught in bed cheating on his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever with a page 3 girl, or being in court after having been stopped for driving at 120mph under the influence of illegal drugs.  He's just won the Tour-de-France and a seventh Olympic medal, I think he's allowed to occasionally say things that he probably shouldn't have, and largely because he was probably caught unaware of events by the media.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 02 August, 2012, 06:25:52 pm
What we need is some simple public service announcements, with our lovely new celeb riders, showing how to ride safely on the road.

Someone like Cav saying "I'm always in a rush and I can handle myself, but even I don't go into the DEATH ZONE" and pointing out the Bad Place on the inside of long vehicles.

I would say a David Beckham type figure would have a bigger impact than any cyclist for publicity. Whats needed is a few celebs to leave their range rovers at home and be seen getting around town on a bike.
Racing cyclists are not the people to carry the message.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: ian on 02 August, 2012, 06:34:53 pm
Novice cyclists have been cultured to look for facilities and use them in preference to the wild-west of the road.

The sad thing is, you graduate from novice when you've plenty of road time, so they say greener for longer.  It's like those four-year-olds still on breast milk.  And yeah, if they're encouraged by paint into the DEATH ZONE and don't know it for what it is (mixing it at a stale red? stay one car back. who teaches that any more? who even teaches the concept of a stale light that's about to change?)....  ...where was I? 

Same old rant.  Same old body count.  Wiggo's not wrong there: it's horrid and it isn't changing.

I'm not sure it's just paint. Cyclists head for the front of any traffic queue with the same inevitability of bubbles rising to the surface of a liquid. It's the same primal urge that makes drivers have to overtake a cyclist, no matter what. They know they can, so they do. I stop behind any vehicle at the lights and cyclists will continue to effervesce by me. The other day, I stopped behind a bus, rather than sidle up a handlebar-wide gap by its side in the hope I'd pop out ahead of it before the light changed. Chap following me bumped his bike up over the pavement to get around, and back on the road to go up the side of the bus, wedging himself between it and the railings as it pulled away. The rear wheels of the bus brushed by his pannier bag and he wobbled off, unfazed, in its wake.

I don't know the answer. Publicity might make people think, but it seems commonsensical to me not to squeeze between tonnes of growling metal, but then I'm thinking about this differently. Most people seem to see an obstacle that they can surmount, so they do so. It is the same mindset that afflicts drivers when they must overtake me on the local blind corner. They can, they do. Most times nothing bad will happen. Feedback sets in. Risky behaviour that fails to lead to bad outcomes steadily becomes perceived as non-risky. Sure, on some elemental level, if you sat them down in the room of common sense and asked them to analyse their actions, they'd probably agree that they were doing something stupid. In practice, they'll still continue to bubble to the front.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: teethgrinder on 02 August, 2012, 07:09:03 pm
I used to habitualy ride up the inside of trucks and whizz along the door zone at 30mph in my many tens of thousands of miles covered as a teenage cyclist who rode on the local velodrome and was a regular at local club TTs as well as being a keen club rider and tourist. (luckily, I wore a helmet in those days  ;))
It took me a surprisingly long time to realise how stupid that was. Probably from my mid to late 20s. It was pure ignorance. I was very sharp at avoiding collisions with people pulling out from side roads etc, so I was never a risk taker and always had it in mind to be carefull. I did know that I should watch out for car doors opening, but it was reading the CTC magazine which educated me, especially about going up the inside of trucks.
So I think Andy's idea is a very good one. If a keen club cyclist doesn't know any better, then how would a newbie?
If I saw someone do what I used to do, I think I'd spoil my underpants! :o
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: teethgrinder on 02 August, 2012, 07:23:13 pm
I would love to think so, but based on the link above, he's been a bit of a dick:

"Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.

"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘well, I have done everything to be safe."

"It is dangerous and London is a busy city. There is a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes."


(I've copied the whole quote over, that's the best I can do  O:-) )

That wasn't the whole quote, at least as far as I remember from hearing it on Jeremy Vine* today.
Wiggo was a dick? I can see why some are saying that from what they've read. When I heard the quote, it sounded to me as if he was caught on the backfoot. I think that his claim that he wasn't in favour of helmet compulsion could very well be genuine and I won't go as far as to call him a liar. He did seem to stumble upon his words a bit.
Sure, he could have done better. Not commented. But he's an athlete first and foremost. He was being interviewed and talking about what must be the best moment of his life while he is on Cloud 9. I doubt that he is aware of how much clout he really does have with his words, but suspect that he is now becoming more aware.
Personally, I'll cut him some slack and I think that in time it'll die down quite quickly. His TDF victory and Olympic success will be his identity over and above anything else and his stumbled words are tomorrows fish and chip wrappers.





*and before you think that it was all anti cycling, you should "listen again" first. Generally, the pro helmeters were preaching anecdote while the anti compulsion; which was very strongly headed (tee hee) by Mail on Sunday journalist who could very well have been a spokeperson for the views of very many here on YACF; were basing their arguments on facts.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: T800 on 02 August, 2012, 08:21:49 pm
I think some damage has been done. Now there will always be people who, having heard the clips of Wiggo that the BBC chose to air today, will throw the line at me "Wiggo says you should wear a helmet so it must be the sensible thing to do" and that cycling without one is reckless and it's your own fault if you get knocked off your bike (regardless of the nature of any injuries you may or may not sustain) if you were so foolish as to not wear a helmet. I've heard that a lot over the years, most recently with the name used/cited being James Cracknell, when I argue against compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists.

I wear a cycling helmet most if the time, and have done for over 20 years. I think I probably started out with the assumption that using them was the sensible thing to do and that they must have been designed to reliably prevent head injury. It may not have helped that when I was younger I'd seen the results (brain matter on the floor in A&E) of a car versus pedestrian head injury incident at a nearby pedestrian crossing. The same logic that sees riders use those horrible bits of green tarmac that guide you up the inside of large motor vehicles to get to an ASL, I suppose -- they're there so it must be right to use them. Indeed shortly after buying my first one I put a serious dent right in the top of it when I hit the road head first after going head over heels after hitting a pedestrian who'd stepped out in front of me (while for some weird unconscious in-the-moment reason attempting to throw the bike away from me to avoid hitting her with metal). That left me with some interesting facial injuries from the straps and a vague sense of either having avoided a nasty head injury or having missed the opportunity to tuck my head and avoid it hitting the road surface at all. After seeing Boardman crash and slide across the road head first into a stone wall on the 1998 Tour, I still thought that a good fitting helmet was potentially a bit of a life saver. I led my fianceé to the accessories section of the LBS on our return from Ireland and the guys there were happy to sell her a Giro. It wasn't until about 12 or 13 years ago that I started to read more about the topic, mostly thanks to a better Internet connection, and shifted to the belief that it was still probably worth wearing one, but largely in the expectation that it may be of some use in reducing the need for scalp sutures in the event if an off, not for preventing brain injury.

I do wonder, though, if by wearing a helmet I'm sustaining or increasing the belief among members if the public in general that use of a cycling helmet is a must and that they do prevent serious brain injuries.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Eccentrica Gallumbits on 02 August, 2012, 08:39:34 pm
Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: teethgrinder on 02 August, 2012, 08:40:05 pm
I think some damage has been done. Now there will always be people who, having heard the clips of Wiggo that the BBC chose to air today, will throw the line at me "Wiggo says you should wear a helmet so it must be the sensible thing to do" and that cycling without one is reckless and it's your own fault if you get knocked off your bike (regardless of the nature of any injuries you may or may not sustain) if you were so foolish as to not wear a helmet. I've heard that a lot over the years, most recently with the name used/cited being James Cracknell, when I argue against compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists.

I think that people have allready made up their minds, one way or another and that Wiggo, at worst, will just be the new argument or "evidence" for helmet compusion, even if it wasn't what he was trying to say.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 08:46:58 pm
Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Zipperhead on 02 August, 2012, 08:51:00 pm
Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

I'm sure most of the drivers of them are aware of the blind spots - but if a cyclist goes up the inside of such a vehicle, into the blind spot, who is at fault? The driver or the cyclist?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: hellymedic on 02 August, 2012, 08:51:52 pm
Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

Maybe they should have a coloured light projection system that projects the footprint of the lorry's blind zones (even the worst acne never has spots that large!) onto the surrounding road or road user.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 08:54:35 pm
Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

I'm sure most of the drivers of them are aware of the blind spots - but if a cyclist goes up the inside of such a vehicle, into the blind spot, who is at fault? The driver or the cyclist?

I'm equally sure a lot of them don't bother looking where they can see without moving their head position, let alone check the blind spots. 
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Toady on 02 August, 2012, 08:58:20 pm
Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.
Many have a sign saying "if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you" which enables you to work out the blind spots.  Or at least the blindest spots.

By the way BW has issued a clarification

Bradley Wiggins‏@bradwiggins

Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest
I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident
I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcountformuch
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jaded on 02 August, 2012, 08:59:36 pm
It's not the going up the side per se, it is the rush to get one up on other road users without being aware of or thinking about the consequences. Going up to the front of a queue of traffic because you can is unlikely to be a logically thought through process. Much as speeding to get somewhere quicker is unlikely to be a logically thought thruogh process. The mixed messages don't help. "It's safer to be at the front!" Not if you are still a few cars back just before the lights change it isn't.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Valiant on 02 August, 2012, 09:20:05 pm
Aswell as edumacating the cyclists, they should install those parking sensor things that go beep when you get too close.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: red marley on 02 August, 2012, 09:34:43 pm
I think it is somewhat over-generous to suggest that Wiggo was "caught out" by the media or had a soundbite quoted out of context.

He and all Team GB, especially the high profile members, will have had extensive media training. His current Olympic and TdF position, while fantastic, is not totally unexpected. I think there is a responsibility that comes with that, to know that what he says will have wider impact.

His more recent tweets that suggest he was not advocating a change in the law is misleading pedantry. Looking at his original interview at the beginning of July (see the 'Oi, Bradley! No!' thread), he says pretty much the same thing as he did yesterday:

Quote from: Wiggo Interview: http://www.thefootdown.co.uk/2012/07/12/bradley-wiggins-fred-perry-interview/
Cycling is fantastic, it’s healthy and everything but people have to help themselves a little bit as well and they have to realise sometimes that they are on the road on a bike and there is a certain amount of responsibility they have to take like wearing a helmet, not wearing an iPod* and all those things. I think certain laws may have to be passed as well, maybe having a rear light, wearing a helmet, once cyclists start helping themselves like that then they’ll have more protection and rights against drivers. If someone gets killed in a bus lane on a BoJo (Boris Bike) with no helmet and their iPod on then they haven’t really got a leg to stand on.

This is not just a statement about the technicalities of the law or insurance liability; he is clearly equating the irresponsibility of not having a rear light with that of not wearing a helmet. Of course he is entitled to believe that, but I think he has a responsibility to be more informed before sharing that view publicly, especially in response to a recent death where there is absolutely no evidence that helmet wearing or lack thereof had any relevance.


* While personally, I would not feel safe in an urban environment with an iPod, there is an extra irony with this particular piece of advice coming from a man who has spent most of the last month cycling with race-radio earphones taped to his ear.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Martin109 on 02 August, 2012, 09:39:13 pm
  I seem to recall seeing public information films with characters like the Green Cross Code Man (http://tinyurl.com/c23rn2c) and Tufty the Squirrel (http://tinyurl.com/32v7k7c) when I was younger, but less so in recent years (but then again, I don't watch children's TV quite as much either!)

I believe that the film unit which used to make such excellent films has been wound up because of cuts.  I may be wrong, and stand to be corrected.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 02 August, 2012, 09:41:06 pm
Everything good has been cut, so that's a safe bet.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on 02 August, 2012, 09:45:00 pm
May I be the first on this thread to call Mr Wiggins - to coin a phrase - a 'f*cking c*nt'  ;)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimO on 02 August, 2012, 10:58:13 pm
Please consider that this is a thread inspired by an incident in which someone has just died.  Whilst it has produced some useful discussion, which has diverged somewhat from the original subject, I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to make too light of things.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Bledlow on 02 August, 2012, 10:59:28 pm
Mr C Boardman just said something about cycling & road safety on Newsnight - and it was about the risk to cyclists from motor vehicles, not helmets.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 02 August, 2012, 11:01:02 pm
Chris Boardman deserves a lot of praise
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wowbagger on 02 August, 2012, 11:08:26 pm
I was very impressed with Chris Boardman's good sense. He agreed that helmets have their place in cycling but that compulsion wasn't a good idea as evidence on their value was inconclusive. He talked about the finite space that exists on Britain's roads and that hitherto policy had been based upon getting cyclists safely out of the way of cars. What is now needed is to get cars out of the way of cyclists but that's something that politicians just don't know how to do. He specifically did not comment about last night's tragedy.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: RJ on 02 August, 2012, 11:19:42 pm
He and all Team GB, especially the high profile members, will have had extensive media training.

Yebbut - media savvy ain't  "essential" in the sporting champ job description; it's not a reason to get the gig.  "Desirable" - well, maybe.

"Essential"?  Very very good at your discipline(s).  Endosaurus.

I was very impressed with Chris Boardman's good sense. He agreed that helmets have their place in cycling but that compulsion wasn't a good idea as evidence on their value was inconclusive. He talked about the finite space that exists on Britain's roads and that hitherto policy had been based upon getting cyclists safely out of the way of cars. What is now needed is to get cars out of the way of cyclists but that's something that politicians just don't know how to do. He specifically did not comment about last night's tragedy.

Agreed.  (In terms of presentation, he is, of course, now a sports-media pro).
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 02 August, 2012, 11:44:52 pm
Perceptions of cycling safety affect me in the sense that I've been making videos about the 24 hour TT for a number of years. It's difficult to film without it being obvious that there are trucks on the A41 and A49. Not surprising, as they are trunk roads. The most alarming interactions take place at a transport cafe where those two roads meet. I decided a few years ago that I'd include the trucks, as I didn't want to misrepresent the hazards that an individual rider might face, I wouldn't want anyone to be freaked out by the unexpected. There's a danger that the hazards are over-emphasised, I'm open to advice on whether I should raise or lower the amount of traffic content. US viewers often comment on the lack of helmets, I don't really see that as the significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh01K1cQ-0c&feature=g-upl
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on 03 August, 2012, 06:55:23 am
I was borderline about voting for Wiggins at SPOTY but he definitely won't be getting it now.  I hope he's rethinking his decision to refuse the media training that Sky were wanting him to do.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Polar Bear on 03 August, 2012, 08:26:08 am
Unfortunately Lizzie A has joined Wiggins.   How utterly stupid are these elites?

As I pointed out earlier, Lizzie has also said on live broadcast radio (radio five live yesterday morning) that helmets should be made compulsory.   Just because she hasn't grabbed gold doesn't make the collective voice less prominent.

I'm guessing that Team SKY / GB have had the 'magic hats are good' mantra well and truly forced down their collective throats rather than having the 'we must wear them because they are mandatory' line.   I think Brailsford should be challenged on the issue to see what the borg collective view is, then educated good and proper.

My thoughts by the way remain with the friends and family of the deceased.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimC on 03 August, 2012, 08:38:52 am
Aswell as edumacating the cyclists, they should install those parking sensor things that go beep when you get too close.

My Volvo Chelsea tractor has parking sensors, and if I'm stopped or in a very slow in a traffic queue, their sensitivity increases. If a bike or pedestrian (or a car!) comes within 3 or 4 feet of either end of the vehicle, the system bleats at me and reminds me to look at whichever end the warning comes from. The car has a reversing camera, and it would make sense that the picture would come up on the screen if the rear sensors are triggered, but sadly that doesn't happen. But the technology is there.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jakob on 03 August, 2012, 09:11:40 am
Helmet do significantly reduce head injuries.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=61735.msg1280935#msg1280935
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jacomus on 03 August, 2012, 09:23:17 am
Aswell as edumacating the cyclists, they should install those parking sensor things that go beep when you get too close.

My Volvo Chelsea tractor has parking sensors, and if I'm stopped or in a very slow in a traffic queue, their sensitivity increases. If a bike or pedestrian (or a car!) comes within 3 or 4 feet of either end of the vehicle, the system bleats at me and reminds me to look at whichever end the warning comes from. The car has a reversing camera, and it would make sense that the picture would come up on the screen if the rear sensors are triggered, but sadly that doesn't happen. But the technology is there.

I am sure that this would go some way to mitigating the problem. Firstly, by taking away the potential for the excuse 'oh, they were in my blind spot' and secondly, by alerting drivers that a cyclist has inserted themselves into the kill zone. Which some people will still do, no matter how hard truck operators try to prevent it... which reminds me of this incident:

Seen this morning:

A London Concrete cement truck, one of the really large four axle ones, was sat at a set of lights. Indicating left. He had pulled in so close to the kerb that the wheels were sat on the outside line of the double yellow lines. Big yellow sign on the back "Danger. Cyclists, don't ride up the left of this vehicle" or some such warning. On the left rear mudflap. "Danger. Do not pass on the left." A big yellow and black sign on the side of the vehicle "Caution: Keep Clear"* and a recorded voice announcing at quite high volume "Caution. Keep clear. This vehicle is turning left. Beep-boop-beep-boop. Caution. Keep clear. This vehicle is turning left." over and over again.

Johnny Cyclist rolls up, pauses for a second, and squeezes alongside the truck. Space was so limited that he had to cant the bike over to the left and scoot himself along with his foot on the pavement. He stopped almost exactly half way along the truck.

Knowing the cycle of the traffic lights I made a dash to get to the cab and warn the driver as I had a bad feeling that the cyclist would be right in his blind spot. I was stymied by a van on the RHS of the cement truck and as I was scrambling to get off the bike and approach the truck on foot the lights changed.

The truck didn't move.

I got infront of the truck and went to make the left turn, wide in the road, ahead of it. I looked along the side of the truck in time to see the driver's head poking out of the passenger window and hear the tail end of some abuse directed at the cyclist, who was by this time clambering up onto the pavement.

Cyclist off the road the truck pulled away and I cycled the last few meters to the office.

That was a bit scary.


[EDIT]* I couldn't see this sign at first, but when I looped round ahead of the truck and looked back I noticed it.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 03 August, 2012, 09:26:08 am
Helmet do significantly reduce head injuries.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=61735.msg1280935#msg1280935
Only if you include bruises and minor scrapes. Gloves reduce as many injuries.

have you read that topic?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jaded on 03 August, 2012, 09:35:32 am
Helmet do significantly reduce head injuries.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=61735.msg1280935#msg1280935

I think that you mean that a piece of research says that helmets do significantly reduce head injuries.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimO on 03 August, 2012, 09:52:29 am
Seen this morning:

... tale of someone fairly blatantly ignoring lots of explicit and deliberate indicators not to go up the inside of an HGV ...

I guess there will always be a few idiots who choose to ignore the blindingly obvious dangerous situations, regardless of how well indicated they are.  I suppose the main question is, why do people choose to ignore the warning signs (literally sometimes), and what can be done to limit that.  Do they need less subtle ones?  Do they need to be bigger and more obvious?

I guess there's a requirement for some sort of deeper psychological understanding of why people don't avoid a dangerous situation that's being fairly clearly indicated to them, but I'm damned if I know what can be done.  That particular situation seems to have had pretty much everything except a set of dancing girls chanting "You're going to die if you do that". :-\ ???
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 03 August, 2012, 09:53:48 am
NEVER underestimate the stupidity of people.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 03 August, 2012, 09:55:16 am
I was borderline about voting for Wiggins at SPOTY but he definitely won't be getting it now.  I hope he's rethinking his decision to refuse the media training that Sky were wanting him to do.

Damn, and he was counting on you too.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Martin109 on 03 August, 2012, 10:04:08 am
What we need is some simple public service announcements, with our lovely new celeb riders, showing how to ride safely on the road.

Someone like Cav saying "I'm always in a rush and I can handle myself, but even I don't go into the DEATH ZONE" and pointing out the Bad Place on the inside of long vehicles.

  I seem to recall seeing public information films with characters like the Green Cross Code Man (http://tinyurl.com/c23rn2c) and Tufty the Squirrel (http://tinyurl.com/32v7k7c) when I was younger, but less so in recent years (but then again, I don't watch children's TV quite as much either!)

I believe that the film unit which used to make such excellent films has been wound up because of cuts.  I may be wrong, and stand to be corrected.

Seen this morning:

... tale of someone fairly blatantly ignoring lots of explicit and deliberate indicators not to go up the inside of an HGV ...

I guess there will always be a few idiots who choose to ignore the blindingly obvious dangerous situations, regardless of how well indicated they are.  I suppose the main question is, why do people choose to ignore the warning signs (literally sometimes), and what can be done to limit that.  Do they need less subtle ones?  Do they need to be bigger and more obvious?

I guess there's a requirement for some sort of deeper psychological understanding of why people don't avoid a situation that's being fairly clearly indicated to them, but I'm damned if I know what can be done.  That particular situation seems to have had pretty much everything except a set of dancing girls chanting "You're going to die if you do that". :-\ ???

I had a partly sleepless night thinking about this, and got to wondering - with the making of punchy, informative public education films now all but ceased and, on the other hand, the proliferation now of sites like YouTube and Vimeo, maybe it's up to us to put our heads together about the making of a suitable film.

I believe there are several media and film people on yacf, there are CTC luminaries, technical wizards.  I know a TV cameraman in Manchester I could talk to.  Maybe it's possible to speak to prominent figures such as Cav and Boardman to see if they might be willing to give a little of their time for free in such a cause.  Andy's idea above is a brilliant one - can we not make it happen?

Shall we have a brainstorm?

[Edited for typo]
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: ian on 03 August, 2012, 10:12:24 am
NEVER underestimate the stupidity of people.

To be fair, most people under the age of 30(ish) are effectively immortal. Well, they believe themselves to be, which is all the reassurance they need. Besides, they've haven't died yet, so it must be true. Having mulled it over,  I think yes, you can educate against this behaviour. They may not think a particular behaviour is immediately dangerous, but you inculcate an abstract 'I shouldn't do that' with enough publicity. Now might be a good time, while cycling has such a positive spin.

(Probably the wrong place, but I don't really get the helmet fixation from either side of the argument.)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 03 August, 2012, 10:17:40 am
Most people under 30 haven't lost a parent, even (i'm 47 and still have the full complement), so the immortality is reinforced.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wowbagger on 03 August, 2012, 10:28:21 am
Recent rides across London have given us first-hand experience of how easy it is to fall foul of incompetent cyclists.

Our trips between Lpoo St and Euston at both ends of our June holiday involved in being overtaken on the wrong side on at least three occasions. We were heavily laden, therefore even slower than usual, but we we cycling as a close-knit group of three, mostly in the bus lane. On the way out, around 10pm, some young idiot overtook Jan on the left and then had the temerity to stop and berate us for our lack of cycling acumen. On the return, in the morning rush hour, another overtook us at speed and then had a forced dismount as he leaned over on a wet manhole cover.

My impression from this, admittedly extremely limited, cross section of the cycling community was that there is cudos in risk-taking and that anyone who cycles with safety in mind is therefore to be scorned. I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mcshroom on 03 August, 2012, 10:32:03 am
I think it's more to do with this idea of immortality (and in many cases being completely oblivious of the risks they are taking)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 03 August, 2012, 10:33:27 am
That’s one possible explanation but I think it’s fear related.  I think that a lot of the self justification that leads to a lot of bad cycling and driving behaviour is rooted in a (possibly subconscious) fear of the activity and the inherent dangers. 

In a previous job I spent a fair bit of time observing driver and cyclist behaviour at certain busy junctions and I have to say that one thing that became apparent was just how uncomfortable a lot of drivers appear to be with actually driving.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 03 August, 2012, 10:35:37 am
My impression from this, admittedly extremely limited, cross section of the cycling community was that there is cudos in risk-taking and that anyone who cycles with safety in mind is therefore to be scorned. I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.
This isn't a new thing. Kids have always started out riding bikes in a less-than-sensible way. BMX was an 80s thing (possibly earlier?), and kids rode similar bikes (in a similar way) long before the acronym had been invented.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: ian on 03 August, 2012, 10:49:25 am
Don't discount peer pressure either. I mean, what kind of serious Hoxton-birthed ninja cycle courier is going to amble up to a red light and patiently wait.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: tom_e on 03 August, 2012, 10:59:45 am
Don't discount peer pressure either I mean, what kind of serious Hoxton-birthed ninja cycle courier is going to amble up to a red light and patiently wait.

I suspect this one applies to drivers also.  You can't see round the bend, but the car in front has overtaken the cyclist, the car behind is obviously being held up by you, and there isn't anything coming at the moment.  What are you doing, slowcoach?  Sure, it isn't directly said, but it's probably in the minds of all the drivers concerned.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimC on 03 August, 2012, 11:09:11 am
Recent rides across London have given us first-hand experience of how easy it is to fall foul of incompetent cyclists.

Our trips between Lpoo St and Euston at both ends of our June holiday involved in being overtaken on the wrong side on at least three occasions. We were heavily laden, therefore even slower than usual, but we we cycling as a close-knit group of three, mostly in the bus lane. On the way out, around 10pm, some young idiot overtook Jan on the left and then had the temerity to stop and berate us for our lack of cycling acumen. On the return, in the morning rush hour, another overtook us at speed and then had a forced dismount as he leaned over on a wet manhole cover.

My impression from this, admittedly extremely limited, cross section of the cycling community was that there is cudos in risk-taking and that anyone who cycles with safety in mind is therefore to be scorned. I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.

Hmmm. Young men (mainly) take risks and believe themselves foolproof and immortal. I doubt this is a phenomenon only evident since the start of BMX cycling...
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: David Martin on 03 August, 2012, 11:15:00 am
snip scary anecdote of lemming..

This is one case where a helmet would help. Not a normal helmet but one which weights about 200kg so the stupid idiot can't actually get to the road to commit suicide by skip lorry.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mcshroom on 03 August, 2012, 11:16:54 am
snip scary anecdote of lemming..

This is one case where a helmet would help. Not a normal helmet but one which weights about 200kg so the stupid idiot can't actually get to the road to commit suicide by skip lorry.

How about a helmet with a broom handle the width of a car stuck to the top?

Actually that could make a good "give us room" campaign :demon:
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 03 August, 2012, 11:23:11 am
I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.

I think it may be people new to cycling who cycle with the same attitude they are used to having when driving. I have noticed a distinct increase in 'cycle rage' and just plain rudeness from other cyclists over recent months.
I listen to the local radio station in  the mornings, one of the breakfast time-slot presenters has recently bought herself a bike to use for commuting along the seafront cycle path (at 5.30am). She was saying last week how two 'lycra louts' (her description) berated her for cycling slowly, saying 'You're in the cycle lane learn to bloody use it properly!' I assume she wasn't keeping as far left as they would have liked. (My reply to them would have been get in the bloody road if you want to cycle fast.)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: rafletcher on 03 August, 2012, 11:38:22 am
I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.

I think it may be people new to cycling who cycle with the same attitude they are used to having when driving. I have noticed a distinct increase in 'cycle rage' and just plain rudeness from other cyclists over recent months.
I listen to the local radio station in  the mornings, one of the breakfast time-slot presenters has recently bought herself a bike to use for commuting along the seafront cycle path (at 5.30am). She was saying last week how two 'lycra louts' (her description) berated her for cycling slowly, saying 'You're in the cycle lane learn to bloody use it properly!' I assume she wasn't keeping as far left as they would have liked. (My reply to them would have been get in the bloody road if you want to cycle fast.)

Indeed. Some while ago we (my wife and I) were walking on Brighton seafront. There is there a cycle lane - it bisects the pedestrian path. This was a bust saturday. My wife started to cross the cycle lane, but I manged to granb her - as a fixie went past at I would guess 20-25kph. After all he WAS in the cycle lane...
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Bledlow on 03 August, 2012, 11:43:01 am
BMX was an 80s thing (possibly earlier?),
I remember the boy next door having a BMX bike when I was still at school. I took my A levels in 1975.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wowbagger on 03 August, 2012, 11:48:30 am
There was a govt. doc (PPG something or other - I read it once when preparing for a public inquiry) which recommended 18mph as a maximum speed on cycle paths.

Personally I think that's much too fast where there are peds about. 12mph is plenty. Any faster and I'd use the road.

Re BMX: there are still loads of BMX bikes about, ridden by people of pretty well all ages, it seems, and some facilities where the protagonists can practise their leet skilz.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 03 August, 2012, 11:49:37 am
Andy, I agree.  It's the person, not the vehicle.  Much though I would love it if riding a bike turned everyone into a leftie, lentil-eating, Buddhist, it just doesn't, and the asshole on a bike is the same as the asshole in a car, just substantially less lethal when he leaves his BMW at home.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 03 August, 2012, 11:59:33 am
...and the asshole on a bike is the same as the asshole in a car, just substantially less lethal when he leaves his BMW/Audi at home.

I agree (with one minor edit)... ;)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: clarion on 03 August, 2012, 01:31:24 pm
I accept the edit.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 03 August, 2012, 01:42:08 pm
I accept the edit.

 ;D
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Kim on 03 August, 2012, 02:32:38 pm
I guess there will always be a few idiots who choose to ignore the blindingly obvious dangerous situations, regardless of how well indicated they are.  I suppose the main question is, why do people choose to ignore the warning signs (literally sometimes), and what can be done to limit that.  Do they need less subtle ones?  Do they need to be bigger and more obvious?

I guess there's a requirement for some sort of deeper psychological understanding of why people don't avoid a dangerous situation that's being fairly clearly indicated to them, but I'm damned if I know what can be done.  That particular situation seems to have had pretty much everything except a set of dancing girls chanting "You're going to die if you do that". :-\ ???

It's the Dancing Pigs Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs).  Given the choice between safety that their own experience has so far taught them isn't that big a deal and making progress, lusers will chose to make progress - in exactly the same way they'll happily install malware on their computer because they saw a friend link to it on FriendFace.

Until someone invents a less stupid luser, you can't fix the dancing pigs problem with bigger, clearer warnings.  You have to solve it transparently.

I'm not sure how you do that for this situation.  Well, I can think of a couple of ways: removing the HGVs from the roads, or providing a safe route for cyclists to bypass the queueing traffic.  But nothing that's cheap and easy.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimO on 03 August, 2012, 02:37:49 pm
I had a partly sleepless night thinking about this, and got to wondering - with the making of punchy, informative public education films now all but ceased and, on the other hand, the proliferation now of sites like YouTube and Vimeo, maybe it's up to us to put our heads together about the making of a suitable film. ...

Whilst I applaud the enthusiasm, it's not just the making of a film, it's also the broadcasting of it.  In the good old days, I presume the Beeb had some sort of requirement on it to put stuff like this out during the Childrens TV section of broadcasting, hence many of us being familiar with it.  Now, they may be less required to do so, although I know little of this.

You may still get bods like The Cycle Show to broadcast it, but I don't think they're necessarily the target audience.  That does also bring up the question, who is the target audience?  Should you get this message across to the very young, or wait until people are old enough to understand the subtleties more? ("Don't cycle up the inside of a left turning vehicle" is possibly a bit more of an involved message than "Don't cross when there's a car coming").
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: David Martin on 03 August, 2012, 02:44:23 pm
'Share the road, not the lane' should be the catchphrase..
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 03 August, 2012, 02:48:18 pm
My impression from this, admittedly extremely limited, cross section of the cycling community was that there is cudos in risk-taking and that anyone who cycles with safety in mind is therefore to be scorned. I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.
This isn't a new thing. Kids have always started out riding bikes in a less-than-sensible way. BMX was an 80s thing (possibly earlier?), and kids rode similar bikes (in a similar way) long before the acronym had been invented.

I seem to remember a trekker or tracker style bike that was the norm amongst the youth mid to late 70's. At least that was the nickname given to them, nearly all converted road bikes with motorcycle (scrambler) style handle bars.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Kim on 03 August, 2012, 02:52:52 pm
You may still get bods like The Cycle Show to broadcast it, but I don't think they're necessarily the target audience.  That does also bring up the question, who is the target audience?  Should you get this message across to the very young, or wait until people are old enough to understand the subtleties more? ("Don't cycle up the inside of a left turning vehicle" is possibly a bit more of an involved message than "Don't cross when there's a car coming").

Adverts on the back of buses would seem like a good way to reach the target audience.

Preferably something better than the recent ambiguous effort (http://www.birminghamcyclist.com/forum/topics/anyone-seen-these-bus-back-adverts-think-they-will-do-any-good?commentId=3004025%3AComment%3A69384) by Travel West Midlands.  (Not helped, of course, by getting the URL wrong)


ETA: They've updated their website.  It seems that it was actually intended to warn drivers of the presence of cyclists.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 03 August, 2012, 03:09:33 pm
I had a partly sleepless night thinking about this, and got to wondering - with the making of punchy, informative public education films now all but ceased and, on the other hand, the proliferation now of sites like YouTube and Vimeo, maybe it's up to us to put our heads together about the making of a suitable film. ...

Whilst I applaud the enthusiasm, it's not just the making of a film, it's also the broadcasting of it.  In the good old days, I presume the Beeb had some sort of requirement on it to put stuff like this out during the Childrens TV section of broadcasting, hence many of us being familiar with it.  Now, they may be less required to do so, although I know little of this.

You may still get bods like The Cycle Show to broadcast it, but I don't think they're necessarily the target audience.  That does also bring up the question, who is the target audience?  Should you get this message across to the very young, or wait until people are old enough to understand the subtleties more? ("Don't cycle up the inside of a left turning vehicle" is possibly a bit more of an involved message than "Don't cross when there's a car coming").

This is the internet, where we're going we don't need roads broadcasting.  Make it good enough and it goes viral.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: TimO on 03 August, 2012, 03:14:10 pm
This is the internet, where we're going we don't need roads broadcasting.  Make it good enough and it goes viral.

True enough, although if you knew exactly what makes something go viral, you could make a fortune!
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: mattc on 03 August, 2012, 03:18:14 pm
kittens and nudity*. To you Sir, no charge.

(*ideally not in the same video).
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 03 August, 2012, 03:27:11 pm
This is the internet, where we're going we don't need roads broadcasting.  Make it good enough and it goes viral.

True enough, although if you knew exactly what makes something go viral, you could make a fortune!

If you could get Tom Waits to agree to it, I have always thought any road safety ad themed with the song 'On the Nickel' would hit people hard. Powerful lyrics if juxtaposed with tragedy.

Edit: I'm full of ideas but I'm a lazy fucker.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jaded on 03 August, 2012, 04:00:19 pm
Educate a proportion of the cycling population and it will become very hard for the minority to carry out the dangerous manoeuvres, as there will be a phalanx of stationary cyclists behind the large vehicles.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 03 August, 2012, 04:16:09 pm
'Share the road, not the lane' should be the catchphrase..

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: teethgrinder on 03 August, 2012, 04:43:49 pm
kittens and nudity*. To you Sir, no charge.

(*ideally not in the same video).

Are you saying that we either need to train some kittens to wear clothes and ride bicycles, or get some naked people to do it?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 03 August, 2012, 05:47:43 pm
It is interesting to note that the City Police when they give out a ticket to a cyclist going through red light etc, give the cyclist an option of going on their education course. Which is all about the danger of cycling around HGV etc, no lecturing about going through red lights, gives the opportunity of sitting in a cab whilst a bike moves around it.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 03 August, 2012, 06:14:05 pm
Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?
Also there is a notorious stretch of road around here that is narrow and quite frankly scares the shit out of me every time I have to ride along it. The other week I was followed by a German registered HGV for nearly one mile and never once did it attempt to pass me, something that has never happened afaic remember with a british registered truck who normally get three quarters of the way past before squeezing you into the gutter.
Lets be honest the standard of driving in this country by those who can cause the most damage is shocking. Perhaps others see it differently to me.
Going back on topic how can a completely new development like the Olympic Park not have a decent segregated cycle path around it  :-\
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 03 August, 2012, 06:21:08 pm


I seem to remember a trekker or tracker style bike that was the norm amongst the youth mid to late 70's. At least that was the nickname given to them, nearly all converted road bikes with motorcycle (scrambler) style handle bars.

Trackies. Any old frame, knobbly tyres, cowhorn bars. Mine was made with an old steel BSA frame, heavy as hell but unbeatable downhill!
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 03 August, 2012, 06:22:32 pm


I seem to remember a trekker or tracker style bike that was the norm amongst the youth mid to late 70's. At least that was the nickname given to them, nearly all converted road bikes with motorcycle (scrambler) style handle bars.

Trackies. Any old frame, knobbly tyres, cowhorn bars. Mine was made with an old steel BSA frame, heavy as hell but unbeatable downhill!

Aye, thats em  :D
Those bikes went through hell, but refused to die  8)
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: geraldc on 03 August, 2012, 06:24:34 pm
Countries that cycle a lot, cycle a lot slower than we do in the UK, ride sensible bikes and don't wear helmets.  There's less of a race element, and they also turn a blind eye to people riding 2 up.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 03 August, 2012, 06:52:07 pm
My impression from this, admittedly extremely limited, cross section of the cycling community was that there is cudos in risk-taking and that anyone who cycles with safety in mind is therefore to be scorned. I wonder whether this attitude is fostered by the fact that an awful lot of young cyclists have their first experiences on BMX bikes, where risk-taking and ever more daring manoeuvres seem to be the name of the game.
I'm rather cautious actually.

That's my coat, the hi-viz one with built in elbow pads and spine protector.

Now that's out of the way; most of the ideas in this thread are good and valid IMO (but BMX is a symptom not a cause). Risk-taking of youth, habitualisation because you get away with it usually, peer pressure, cycle lanes channelling you up the kerbside, etc.

Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?
Also there is a notorious stretch of road around here that is narrow and quite frankly scares the shit out of me every time I have to ride along it. The other week I was followed by a German registered HGV for nearly one mile and never once did it attempt to pass me, something that has never happened afaic remember with a british registered truck who normally get three quarters of the way past before squeezing you into the gutter.
Lets be honest the standard of driving in this country by those who can cause the most damage is shocking. Perhaps others see it differently to me.
Going back on topic how can a completely new development like the Olympic Park not have a decent segregated cycle path around it  :-\
Similarly in India, where the standard of driving is appalling, buses and trucks will check their mirrors and get their driver's mate (cheap labour helps, obviously) to look out of the window when turning left because they know not only bicycles but motorbikes and even small cars will be shooting through the gap. I don't know how that compares with the Dutch, but perversely, it could be that the more riskily most people behave, the safer the cautious are and vice versa.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: AndyK on 07 August, 2012, 10:01:45 am
Evening Standard suggests changes to the road layout were partially responsible: http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/08/safety-measures-were-removed-from-olympics-junction-10-days-before-cyclist-death.html
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 07 August, 2012, 11:30:18 am
Evening Standard suggests changes to the road layout were partially responsible: http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/08/safety-measures-were-removed-from-olympics-junction-10-days-before-cyclist-death.html

The changes to 'safety measures' was the removal of the ASL.  I hardly consider that an ASL is a safety measure in the real world...
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 07 August, 2012, 11:44:24 am
Precisely:

Quote
The cyclists’ box was removed by TfL (not the ODA as previously reported) 10 days earlier, meaning riders were not encouraged to position themselves in front of traffic at the lights.

oh, and:

Quote
Mr Harris, who had ridden across South East Asia, was wearing a helmet.

and especially

Quote
his family said they did not want his death to be used for “political point-scoring” after a row was sparked about whether cyclists should wear helmets
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: rafletcher on 07 August, 2012, 12:54:50 pm
Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?

No, but their culture is very much the cycle has right of way, there are (probably) thousands of kilometres of segregated cycle paths - with their own traffic lights. And most cycling is of the utility variety, generally slower, and nothing at all to do with racing/audax etc. etc. just a way to get from a to b in a very flat country.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 07 August, 2012, 12:57:01 pm
Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?


Probably because the road markings outside many Dutch schools give priority to cyclists (look for which way the 'dragon's teeth' are facing) - plus they have the presumption of liability.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jaded on 07 August, 2012, 02:20:22 pm
Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?

No, but their culture is very much the cycle has right of way, there are (probably) thousands of kilometres of segregated cycle paths - with their own traffic lights. And most cycling is of the utility variety, generally slower, and nothing at all to do with racing/audax etc. etc. just a way to get from a to b in a very flat country.

Is most of their utility cycling also not geared to getting one over everyone else in the queue?
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 07 August, 2012, 05:49:03 pm
Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?

No, but their culture is very much the cycle has right of way, there are (probably) thousands of kilometres of segregated cycle paths - with their own traffic lights. And most cycling is of the utility variety, generally slower, and nothing at all to do with racing/audax etc. etc. just a way to get from a to b in a very flat country.

Tbh I found myself on a road a lot more than you might imagine. And going by what has been posted elsewhere the culture of the bicycle had to be got back from the car, and the law seems to have been the big influence rather than respect.
There are also some rather big club runs, much bigger than anything I have ever seen in the UK.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Domestique on 07 August, 2012, 05:51:01 pm
Not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way but
I am uneasy about the we must educate cyclists around hgv etc.
I was watching under tens last month in Holland happily riding out of the school gate and straight onto the road, am I right to assume they have greater street awareness than their British counterparts?


Probably because the road markings outside many Dutch schools give priority to cyclists (look for which way the 'dragon's teeth' are facing) - plus they have the presumption of liability.

Whatever it is, its truly amazing to see  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Regulator on 07 August, 2012, 08:33:42 pm
I'm of to Holland in a couple of weeks.  It's always nice to be there and feel 'normal'...
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Ham on 11 August, 2012, 03:30:19 pm

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.

Thanks for the pointer but it looks to be Stagecoach, probably from outside London? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stagecoach_Group_bus,_new_corporate_livery,_Banbury,_2006.png

We are unlikely ever to know if it was a factor but it seemed almost inevitable to me that something like this would happen, with so many drivers not used to London roads and habits. Doesn't make it better in the slightest; the wrong place at the wrong time.

I rode past the transport hub today, there were quite a few in that livery, all appeared to be from Manchester.
Title: Re: Cyclist down
Post by: Jasmine on 11 August, 2012, 05:25:34 pm
Also there is a notorious stretch of road around here that is narrow and quite frankly scares the shit out of me every time I have to ride along it. The other week I was followed by a German registered HGV for nearly one mile and never once did it attempt to pass me, something that has never happened afaic remember with a british registered truck who normally get three quarters of the way past before squeezing you into the gutter.
Lets be honest the standard of driving in this country by those who can cause the most damage is shocking.

I don't think it is necessarily that British HGV drivers are worse than the Europeans.  On many of my rides I encounter a high proportion of European lorries (A55 near Holyhead; lorries going to/from Ireland).  Some of the scariest overtakes I've ever had (apart from the 2 that actually hit me) have been from Dutch lorries.  Really really shockingly bad, brushing my shoulders.  This from a left hand drive vehicle were theoretically they would have a better view of me (I would be directly in their eye-line). I have found Eastern European and Irish lorries drivers to be as bad.  On my route, the British lorries drivers are good drivers, as are German ones. 

There is a HGV driving school in the area and if every British lorry driver drove the way they do then the roads would be a safer place. They always wait on double whites, narrow roads and difficult hills.  They wait far enough behind that it doesn't feel like you are being pressurised (without that revving engine noise that precedes a dangerous close overtake).  I can't say the same for driving instructors for car drivers...