Thanks for the link. Been there, done the pledge and writed an paragraff!
* Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors,
* Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors,
A freudian slip? Is that to stop the drivers talking nonsense?
Or is it to put a black pen through the speech bubble of the cyclist who is swearing at the driver after being nearly squished?
At least if we are going to have accidents, lets have polite British ones please.
+2Thanks for the link. Been there, done the pledge and writed an paragraff!
+1
Although I don't agree with all the details, it's great that a newspaper like The Times is doing this.
But what are "audible truck-turning alarms"?
That's what I assumed. But I wasn't sure, partly because I've never heard one and partly because...Although I don't agree with all the details, it's great that a newspaper like The Times is doing this.
But what are "audible truck-turning alarms"?
Presumably similar to the "this vehicle is reversing, bleep bleep bleep" types? "This vehicle is turning left, bleep bleep bleep"?
Heard one of those yesterday. The truck was in the right hand lane and the alarm came on with the indicators*. I held back as we went along the street. The truck neither turned left nor moved into the left hand lane. I could have been through and away from the danger if I'd ignored it. Equally, I could have been crushed.I can't see the point in them. Except, I suppose, as an arse-cover for the truck driver and operator.
* Which means that all those manoeuvres you see where the driver doesn't indicate? Uh-huh, most of them, right? They'll not have a warning. The drivers who use their indicators are not principally the ones I'm bothered about. :facepalm:
In the video with Gaz, 1:04 is my clip, nearly over the bonnet.
The reversing ones do, I think, offer some benefit to other people because the lorry is reversing and it is a useful warning. As are reversing lights... but I suppose in goods yards etc people might well be behind the lorry and looking away from it. A turning alarm might have a "step away from the vehicle" effect in those situations, but I can't see what it's going to do on the road - other than add extra noise.
In the video with Gaz, 1:04 is my clip, nearly over the bonnet.
Gaz (whoever he is, I don't know of him) comes across very well, measured, calm, reasonable and human. This is exactly what is needed rather than the shrill ranting that often accompanies this sort of thing.
You should never, ever reverse a large vehicle without a banksman where "people might well be behind the lorry".
If you did so in a goods yard/building site, H&S would be down on you like a ton of bricks.
Do the same on the public highway and H&S couldn't care less.
I can't see the point in them. Except, I suppose, as an arse-cover for the truck driver and operator.
I'm going to apologise in advance for the length of these post.
I will attend this ride. I have been becoming more and more upset at these cyclist deaths and I get the feeling we're all becoming a little complacent, almost like there's an acceptable level of fatalities, as long as
it's not us or someone dear to us, the way most of society deals with the annual loss of life on the roads generally (about 3,00 a year isn't it). Well, it isn't acceptable, especially when there are things that can be done to minimise the risk these big vehicles pose to us on the streets, regardless of what mistakes we might make on the road.
I was tired today when I left work. An early start at 7, preparing for a big whole school special assembly I
was delivering, followed by a day of teaching a class of lively ten year olds towards the end of a long busy half term and then delivering a training course leaves you pretty whacked. I should probably have got the bus home. Or had a strong coffee. But I didn't. Sometimes, even the most experienced of us make mistakes when we're tired.
I must have switched off for a moment on the way home. Prior to riding along a fairly quiet road which leads to Brockley Cross Roundabout I was as alert as usual heading along Old Kent Rd, up New Cross Rd,
getting in the right position to turn right onto the one way system. Then once past the traffic lights, the road gets a bit quiet. My tired brain must have thought Phew!Relax. Switch to automatic pilot. The next thing I remember is some robotic female voice saying over and over again something like "This vehicle is turning left." I was suddenly fully alert again, hands on the brakes just in time to stop myself heading up the inside of a large cement lorry turning left on to the roundabout. I would have been squished. I consider myself a careful, competent, experienced rider. But today I made a mistake. If the company that owned that vehicle had not taken some responsibility for the danger their vehicles can pose, I may not be writing this now and some of you would be shaking your heads, tut tutting about yet another woman cyclist going up the inside of a large vehicle. What did she expect? What we should all expect and be shouting for is for all lorries to have every kind of safety device available that minimises the threat they pose to any cyclist. The fact that this one did today may have saved my life.We don't always say it. Calm down, dear.
No don't. Stay angry. And do something about it.
You should never, ever reverse a large vehicle without a banksman where "people might well be behind the lorry".
If you did so in a goods yard/building site, H&S would be down on you like a ton of bricks.
Do the same on the public highway and H&S couldn't care less.
The HSE's influence is very apparent in the theatre industry. Day to day rigging and lifting practices must conform to a whole raft of legislation and regulation. Introduce performers into the mix and safety factors, specific training routines and procedures jump to a whole new level. Introduce a member of the public (or several hundred) to the area of lifting or rigging and there is absolutely no doubt about the operators' requirement to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It is, rightly so, terrifying.
Theatres can be dangerous places. So can construction sites. Far more members of the public are killed or seriously injured each year as a consequence of the construction industry than by theatre; despite the fact that millions more people attend theatre events than set foot on construction sites.
This is a huge hole in the HSE's purpose of protecting people from work related injury.
Another thing that has struck me is that I spend a fair amount of my time trussed up in my own PPE with rescue equipment to hand, ready to intervene should anything go wrong with the sequences as they are performed. I'll be part of a team of half a dozen people specifically trained for each sequence. Once we stabilise any situation we would hand over to a team of 30 more that are well rehearsed (i.e. each day) in looking after the welfare of 500 people. Much of the rescue equipment is expensive and is good for one use only. In light of this, the arguments surrounding the expense and logistical difficulties of fitting extra safety equipment to lorries strike me as even more ludicrous. Or do I have an unrealistic view of the commercial world because I work in a sector that isn't expected to make a profit?
Cycling on the whole is a safe and beneficial activity. It is possible to be even safer.
....
Yes we should support Cyclesafe but we should also be putting forward the message that cycling is really quite safe when put into context, is good for you (and everyone else), and could be far more pleasant for everyone witha bit of an attitude change.
Yes, on the whole it is. I've been cycling for over 40 years all over the country and elsewhere and have been actively encouraging many others to do so. But I, and many other London cyclists are angry at the
But we are in danger of getting an 'OMG cycling is soooo dangerous response'. Lets put this into perspective.
Every year in the UK more people win the lottery main jackpot than are killed cycling. More in the second prize than are seriouly injured. In fact, there are about the same number of cyclists having an injury requiring attention as those winning over 1000 GBP on the lottery.
Boris bikes: Millions of central london trips. Almost no serious injuries. The rate is below 1 KSI in a million
trips, well into the HSE 'so safe we are not bothered' area.
Cycling on the whole is a safe and beneficial activity.
But what are "audible truck-turning alarms"?
Thanks for that. If only we could get the HSE to deal with road crashes as they do with industrial incidents.Presumably the reason HSE are interested in theatres, building sites, etc but not roads, is that roads are not workplaces. Some vehicles may be workplaces and there are people who work on roads and streets, but that is not their primary purpose in the way it is for theatres etc.
You'll probably find that a similar proportion of people in a theatre are workers to that proportion of workers on the roads.Depends whether it's a performance or a rehearsal. :)
If you see what I mean.
By "abuse" I mean misuse. The lorry in your vid is sitting there with its indicator going, but it's not moving. It's not actually turning left. So its signal is misleading, as it's next to a side road on the left, and the alarm makes it audibly annoying. I note it's also parked (just about) on the zig-zags of a zebra crossing. :hand:
The Independent started a Save Our Cyclists campaign last year (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/save-our-cyclists-clamour-for-flood-of-avoidable-road-deaths-to-be-stemmed-2268135.html). Here's their latest article on the issue of cycling fatalities:That might actually be a better article than the Times one. I like their advice section, their top tips are [bit long]:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-ghost-bike-revolt-families-demand-action-on-cyclist-deaths-6348784.html
Roads Minister, Mike Penning, faced criticism over comments he made to the House of Commons Transport Committee, suggesting that cyclists running red lights were responsible for deaths and injuries. He said last week: "It would help save a lot of cyclists' lives and stop a lot of serious injuries if so many of you didn't go through a red light... Now that's not saying that we should make them all criminals and all pariahs and there are motorcycles that go through but it is so bloody dangerous."
[Automated reply:]
Well why read them then? O:-)
To labour a point about theatre (and many other industries) and the road, the theatre's duty of care to the public frequently extends beyond the boundaries of the building. When we operate in a public space we are just as stringently required to protect the public as if we were operating in our own premises.Are there legal barriers to the HSE caring about the trucks once they've left the theatre( or construction site, or distribution centre)? And if so, how do we remove them?!?
We frequently have to load and unload trucks across a busy footway.
Many theatres are in such congested and labyrinthine locations that it takes over a dozen people to safely manoeuvre an artic in to its bay. We are expected to anticipate and mitigate against the stupidity of the public.
A serious incident here could have the same repercussions with the HSE as if it occurred in our space. However the consequences of a terrible 'accident' occurring once the truck is five minutes down the road after leaving the theatre are far less severe for the vehicles operators.
Dear David Ruffley,
We don't have a city in Suffolk. Bury isn't a city, nor is Stowmarket, and I'd argue that Ipswich isn't either.
We do have cyclists though, and drivers. And often we don't have enough understanding by the drivers of the cyclists' point of view.
We do have a right to cycle on the roads- even if there's a cycle path alongside it, there is no such thing as road tax, we are entitled to courtesy and it's not illegal to ride without a helmet, or without wearing Hi-Vis.
Please could you support the Times Newspaper's campaign: Cities Fit For Cycling.
We have some of the finest countryside for cycling in, in Suffolk, and we should be making it better for people to cycle in. Not by making cycle routes, but by doing all we can to encourage motorists and cyclists to coexist safely.
Yours sincerely,
fboab
...legislation already exists for those working on roads and streets, from Food Hygiene for the kebab van to the various Road Traffic regulations that we're concerned with here. It's that legislation that needs enforcing, not other rules that need extending. We should be looking at Traffic Police and CPS not HSE.
The Times wants ... drivers in general to be re-educated in the importance of always keeping one’s eyes peeled for those on two wheels.Quoteand in the next paragraphQuoteOf course, if road safety can be improved to reduce the number of cycling deaths, then let’s do itAs if they hadn't just dismissed the most important and simplest way to do this.
The Times prints a correction re: 'road tax.Good link Andy; but of what is it a correction? ???
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece
The Times prints a correction re: 'road tax.I'm slightly puzzled that I haven't noticed that one in today's paper version.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311182.ece
Cyclists in Paris can ignore the red traffic light
A total of 496 were fined €35 for using a mobile telephone on their bicycle.
So we have Cracknell (an oarsman IICR) proselytising on behalf of funny hats, the old road tax troll-favourite and Jon Snow of all people calling for licensing.
Glad I ignored this News International marketing exercise.
They're introducing on an experimental basis what applies to all traffic in some countries.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311182.ece
Cyclists in Paris can ignore the red traffic light
They will only be allowed to ignore ones that have a yellow bike symbol, and then only turning right or going straight on.
Thank you for your recent email about The Times' Cities fit for Cycling Campaign.
I appreciate you taking the time to write to me about this matter and I agree that there needs to be improvements on our road network to make cycling safer. I also believe that more needs to be done to improve awareness amongst both drivers and cyclists using our busy road network.
As a member of the Transport Select Committee we have looked into ways to encourage people to cycle more and we are also in the middle of a road safety inquiry. Through this latest inquiry it has been pointed out that new EU legislation on HGVs has been implemented requiring blind spot mirrors to be fitted to all new vehicles and to retro-fit to old vehicles; which is something I support in the drive to make cycling safer.
I agree with you that improvements to the driving test are needed in a number of areas, not just regarding cycle safety.
I would also support the case for more dedicated cycle tracks, where possible, and better enforcement of traffic rules for both motorists and cyclists. On this point, I have noticed through my time as a pedestrian, in both York and London, some cyclists tend to have less regard for pedestrian crossings than motorists.
I have recently written to the Department of Transport on this matter and as soon as I receive a response I will be happy to send this on to you.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about this matter.
I would say your MP's experiences of who ignores pedestrian crossings are purely anecdotal.
I would say your MP's experiences of who ignores pedestrian crossings are purely anecdotal.
On the contrary; as worded it is difficult to find fault with that particular comment. Though it is perhaps not very helpful to the argument.
I would say your MP's experiences of who ignores pedestrian crossings are purely anecdotal.
On the contrary; as worded it is difficult to find fault with that particular comment. Though it is perhaps not very helpful to the argument.
True, but as worded it doesn't really mean much. It would also be true to say "Some motorists have less regard for pedestrian crossings than cyclists". The "some" may or may not be different in each case, but the statement can stand by itself either way round. Anecdotally, only yesterday I watched a "professional" driver set off through a light that had been red for some time, making contact with a pedestrian who had to leap out of the way. That was probably down to inattention/stupidity rather than deliberate, but that's probably more worrying.
I detest the light controlled crossings for they ceed power to the motorist.Some change quite quickly, most do not. A person from Bristol Cycling Campaign who's in contact with the council explained to me that most of the new ones work on a ten-second delay because if they change instantly, it's unsafe - people get used to them changing immediately and walk straight across without looking. Apparently. I find this explanation unconvincing, because if the lights start changing the instant you press the button, they still have to go through the amber phase and a second or so of red before the green man lights up. Another thing is that the Puffin design, with the red/green man on the button next to you rather than on the opposite side of the road, encourages crossers to look at the light rather than the traffic, IMO. In fact they make it hard to even see the approaching traffic because the box is at eye level on a pole between you and the traffic.
I would not have an issue if the lights changed when you pressed the button; but they do not. You stand there for random lengths of time as motorists who were in a different county when you pressed the button sail past you.
What ever happened to the British art of queuing eh?
I detest the light controlled crossings for they ceed power to the motorist.It's much more subtle than that.
I would not have an issue if the lights changed when you pressed the button; but they do not. You stand there for random lengths of time as motorists who were in a different county when you pressed the button sail past you.
What ever happened to the British art of queuing eh?
I too have had a reply from my mp's office.
I don't think his researchers actually read what I wrote.
The guy is a tosser of the first order but I'm going to continue the debate as otherwise he'll continue to get away with being a pointless parasite.
I commend The Times for highlighting this important issue and I know ministers will consider the points raised as part of their ongoing work to improve safety for cyclists.There is then two pages of coalition speil about road safety and how Britain remains a world leader.
3) Press the button & wait for the response. When a gap occurs in the traffic, cross anyway. Look back & see the lights change. Watch the cars queue for an already obsolete reason. Wonder why anyone (aka Highway Engineer/ politician overruling anyone with common sense) is stupid/ignorant enough not to realise why this is Not A Good Idea.This is what the Puffin crossings were designed to tackle (I think). Thanks to their infrared sensors they can detect if the person waiting to cross has already done so before the lights change or has crossed quicker than the allotted time - quite easy if you're young and fit and in a hurry - and so cancel or shorten the red phase. Of course this would be avoided if the lights changed as soon as you pressed the button. They can also extend the red light phase if you take longer than the allotted time to cross - probably more common than the quicker scenario. So they should be beneficial to pedestrians and traffic flow, compared to Pelicans. They still do make pedestrians wait for the light though - perhaps that's the worst thing about all light-controlled crossings, they show that drivers are more willing to stop for an inanimate coloured light than a person.
I had a discussion with an official, years ago now, about shortening the wait at a 'toucan' where a sustrans route crosses a rural road. I was told there was some minimum wait where the road's speed limit was 40mph+. I can't see any good justification for this.I detest the light controlled crossings for they ceed power to the motorist.Some change quite quickly, most do not. A person from Bristol Cycling Campaign who's in contact with the council explained to me that most of the new ones work on a ten-second delay because if they change instantly, it's unsafe - people get used to them changing immediately and walk straight across without looking. Apparently.
I would not have an issue if the lights changed when you pressed the button; but they do not. You stand there for random lengths of time as motorists who were in a different county when you pressed the button sail past you.
What ever happened to the British art of queuing eh?
Yes, at least in Britain we're not bound by law to wait for the green man on penalty of paying a fine - and I do know people who've been fined for it.
I do know, but I ignore this law anyway (when I'm in Poland) - unless there's a policeman around! In fact Polish pedestrians are increasingly following the 'British' pattern - I don't think it's all my doing! Also, drivers there are starting to follow the British pattern at zebras, ie stopping when someone is waiting rather than simply to avoid mowing them down. :thumbsup: At least in bigger places - I think it must be an effect of increasing traffic densities.Yes, at least in Britain we're not bound by law to wait for the green man on penalty of paying a fine - and I do know people who've been fined for it.
I horrified people in germany by crossing the road when it was perfectly safe, but not legal.
I didn't know :-[
Gaaarrgghh TG, you're one of those people I hate, aren't you ;) I get really wound up by people who press the button before actually looking to see whether or not they can cross - what's the point in delaying other people when you could just cross the road straight away?
Gaaarrgghh TG, you're one of those people I hate, aren't you ;) I get really wound up by people who press the button before actually looking to see whether or not they can cross - what's the point in delaying other people when you could just cross the road straight away?
I think we should all do this and extend it, so that whenever you pass a pedestrian crossing, you push the button whether you want to cross or not.
Gaaarrgghh TG, you're one of those people I hate, aren't you ;) I get really wound up by people who press the button before actually looking to see whether or not they can cross - what's the point in delaying other people when you could just cross the road straight away?
It's Pavlovian. Today it seems the majority of those under 40 cannot use a crossing unless they press a button and a little green man lights up. Even if the road is completely empty they will still press that button.
Here the Puffin crossing appears to be set to change only when there is a Puffin waiting to cross.Are you on Lundy? :)
Some teenage girls once stopped me in Streatham without crossing the road, so I told them to "have a salad". I felt a bit bad about being such a meanie, but it was funny hearing them: "Shut up! Shut up!".
Some teenage girls once stopped me in Streatham without crossing the road, so I told them to "have a salad". I felt a bit bad about being such a meanie, but it was funny hearing them: "Shut up! Shut up!".
So, how fat were they ???
Mr Ruffley,
Not long ago, I contacted you about cycling. I asked you to support the Times' Campaign. Your researchers replied with a very cut & paste-d stock response which did not address any of the specifics I raised.
It was therefore no real surprise to me that you did not sign the Early Day Motion, nor take part in the debate.
Are you completely unconcerned for the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users?
Are you happy that everything that could be done, is being done?
Perhaps you could justify this action (or rather, inaction) to me?
fboab
And as the editor of the Times is pushed out, who knows what will happen to this campaign.
The lorry driver who hit Mary Bowers has been given an eight-month ban and a £2700 fine. The jury convicted him of being guilty of careless (not dangerous) driving. He admits to being on his (handsfree) phone at the time he hit her.
She was in ‘direct sight’ through his windscreen for at least ten seconds, and after he jumped out of the cab when he heard her screams, he left the handbrake off and the vehicle continued to roll over her. He admits he ‘should have looked better’.
I feel sick.
During legal discussions, the judge had made clear that a guilty verdict would result in a custodial sentence.
After the jury verdict, the judge said that her “hands were tied” over sentencing, adding: “The irony is Mary Bowers has barely recovered but had she not survived, the situation would be very different.”
Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum 14-year sentence whereas causing death by careless driving carries a maximum five-year sentence. There is no custodial option for careless driving.
Outside the court, Beiu said that he was devastated by the incident. “I will regret it for the rest of my life. I will never drive lorries again,” he said.
When legislators, police, prosecutors, defenders, judges and juries are drivers, there is bound to be a bias in the system.Shouldn't the Man on the Clapham Omnibus get a say? :(
, and demands Jenny Jones apologises for saying cycling in London is "getting more dangerous (for cyclists)".