Coroner wants cyclists to be educated about danger of HGV's

[ianrauk]

How about also educating drivers as to why we do that !

Indeed.
I am happy to 'dominate' and 'take control of a lane' as I am a very experienced, bullish cyclist. However being that, doesn't stop arsey drivers trying to make a point. For less experienced and less bullish cyclists I can imagine it's very hard to have the courage to take charge of the road when needed and can be quite frightening, so continue to be bullied into the gutters.

 

[Sara_H]

Indeed.
I am happy to 'dominate' and 'take control of a lane' as I am a very experienced, bullish cyclist. However being that, doesn't stop arsey drivers trying to make a point. For less experienced and less bullish cyclists I can imagine it's very hard to have the courage to take charge of the road when needed and can be quite frightening, so continue to be bullied into the gutters.

Only the other day I got a looooooong beep from the horn of a driver behind me who obviously had no idea why I was in primary. Wouldn't mind, but I'd just signalled right and was going to be out of his way in approximately five seconds!

 

[MontyVeda]

education all round has got to be a good thing... even if it's just a little (inaccurate) image like my avatar .

Sarah_h's statement "it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. He's just done bikeability so he knows he can't ride on the pavement" Does bikeability not inform of the potential dangers on the inside of large vehicles? If not, why not?

I also agree that people should be educated as to why cyclists these days don't always ride in the gutter.

Bring back public information films I say. There used to be one with a mini nipping up the inside of a HGV and getting mashed up between truck and barrier.. if the advice was good enough for drivers, it's good enough for cyclists.

 

[Koga]

Sorry but this has to be said. It is the source of the danger that needs addressing first and foremost.

What is the source of the danger in your opinion ?

 

[mr_cellophane]

Sarah_h's statement "it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. He's just done bikeability so he knows he can't ride on the pavement" Does bikeability not inform of the potential dangers on the inside of large vehicles? If not, why not?

No it doesn't - Filtering is Level 3 which most schools don't do. I don't even think it is covered by Council's free training sessions.

 

[Koga]

I might have mentioned this once or twice before in other threads on the same subject. I reckon that it is the lorries.

OK, I do not follow all forums.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I might have mentioned this once or twice before in other threads on the same subject. I reckon that it is the lorries.

This is a perfectly reasonable point of view. It is often the lorries (and the obstructions to the driver's field of vision that their design entails) which are the primary cause of the person-squidging behaviour that brings so much tragedy.

Nonetheless, we all see on an almost daily basis cyclists who appear quite unaware of the dangers of riding up the nearside of a slow or stationary truck.

Many years ago I (a civilian, but in an uncivil place) was taught how to avoid minefields and snipers and so on. There is no doubt that the risk was entirely a function of the presence of mines and tripwires and claymores and snipers and bad people, but I didn't just say "Look, tell them to stop being horrid."

I thought the training worthwhile and it may have benefitted me. I do not liken lorries to landmines, but there is a similarity between the situations. Similarly, rabbits fear the shadow of the buzzard, they do not lobby for more door mirrors on buzzards.

Cyclists have choices about how they act and how they prepare themselves for the highway. Many, it seems to me, do not prepare themselves.

That doesn't mean that lorries are lovely, but we do have a degree of responsibility for our own safety.

 

[Sara_H]

education all round has got to be a good thing... even if it's just a little (inaccurate) image like my avatar .

Sarah_h's statement "it may be a 10 year old lad popping to football practice just down the road. He's just done bikeability so he knows he can't ride on the pavement" Does bikeability not inform of the potential dangers on the inside of large vehicles? If not, why not?

I also agree that people should be educated as to why cyclists these days don't always ride in the gutter.

Bring back public information films I say. There used to be one with a mini nipping up the inside of a HGV and getting mashed up between truck and barrier.. if the advice was good enough for drivers, it's good enough for cyclists.

No it doesn't. I've just done level 2 myself. It's the basics of pulling out and left and right turns in and out. It's very basic.
And my point is, I guess that anyone, bikeability or not, can ride on the road, and after the age of 10 are legally obliged to. Training is not required, and often not provided. And this is as it should be.
But requiring untrained cyclists to share roads with HGV's is madness. Segregated infrastructure.

 

[Cycling Dan]

I have to agree, when you talk about educating cyclists you get shot down as "anti-cyclist" yet a lot of deaths could be avoided.

Immigration is the same. It seems regardless of what you say these days you are branded as something.

 

[Davidc]

There's a need for education all round. I don't have a problem with cyclists needing educating about not undertaking, and not just lorries. The reality is that many serious and fatal collisions with cyclists are a result of this. At the same time action needs to be taken to educate drivers, and to find ways to remove blind zones around vehicles.

It's of concern that the issue of undertaking large vehicles isn't in level 2 bikeability, when it was a part of cycling proficiency in the 1950s (when I took it).

The UK version of segregated infrastructure is near to useless and often actively dangerous. Education of our road designers is also needed, complete with school outings for them to Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany.

Like ianrauk I've been cycling for a very long time and have little hesitation in taking the lane. It does require confidence though and does run a small risk of being deliberately rammed by members of the moronic fringe of drivers. Better educated and more aware drivers would lessen the risk to those cyclists without that confidence, who stay in the gutter.

 

[MarkF]

As I said on another thread, I see cyclists deliberately putting themselves in danger every rush hour, morning and night. I didn't used to see this but there has been a large increase in commuters in the past 3 years, good. But they haven't a clue how to go about keeping out of danger, not the faintest idea, a gap down the inside of an HGV is positive thing, an "opportunity" to them.

 

[MarkF]

At the same time action needs to be taken to educate drivers, and to find ways to remove blind zones around vehicles.

Shouldn't this be easy today with such cheap cameras and displays?

 

[Davidc]

Shouldn't this be easy today with such cheap cameras and displays?

Yes it should.

It's not just cyclists that suffer, pedestrians, motor cyclists, and car occupants all get killed and injured too because of these blind zones. It's not a minor problem and it's not difficult to do something, but as ever deaths and injuries on the roads are just accepted as inevitable.

 

[glenn forger]

The reality is that many serious and fatal collisions with cyclists are a result of this.

Any actual evidence for this? Undertaking by cyclists is not a significant causal factor in RTCs. Usually the cyclist is hit from behind or sideswiped.

 

[Boris Bajic]

You are comparing people going about their daily life with conditions in a war zone where, unpleasant though it is, the intent to wound, maim, or kill is a given.A sense of proportion maybe?

No, not at all. I am comparing the responsibility of the more endangered parties in an interaction to take some sort of action to optimise their own chances of survival rather than just saying the other lot bear the responsibility:

Cyclists in urban traffic, monitors and observers in conflicts, rabbits in meadows.

I thought that was quite clear in my post and apologise if it wasn't. I thought the rabbit/buzzard gag made the same point.

I will try to find a simpler or clearer way to express it.