Cyclists - Please stop at red lights

[Red Light]

As the HGV driver told me when I stepped up into his cab, they have a multitude of mirrors to look into and a very big blind spot.

Plenty of examples though of where subsequent police investigation has shown the cyclist would have been quite clearly visible in the drivers mirrors for some time before they moved off and killed them. In a number of cases the driver has been to busy looking at paperwork, using their mobile or being drunk to use their mirrors though.

 

[Brandane]

So why do people who have learned all that kill cyclists?

You would have to ask the individual drivers involved to answer that, as anything else would be speculation. Again though, I was only answering in reference to the incorrect statement you made.....

It is nonsense, there is no general program to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists.
The other way round is well publicised with warnings on the backs and sides of commercial vehicles.

 

[Red Light]

Why do so many cyclists audition for Darwin Awards?
http://www.sillycyclists.co.uk/

Seems most of those are not from the UK anyway. I've no doubt there are some silly cyclists out there but scouring the videos of cyclists globally to get enough material to pretend its endemic in the UK is a it desperate. And if a Darwin Award is what they are after, they seem to be complete failures at winning one.

 

[Red Light]

So why do people who have learned all that kill cyclists?

Because some people can't be bothered, don't think and on't care. It has emerged recently that a truck driver who killed a cyclist went on to kill a pedestrian, another who killed a cyclist while drunk and on the phone had had multiple convictions but was still being employed to drive. The driver who nearly wiped out BoJo and Lord Adonis when his rear dorrs swung open and picked up and hurled a car at them had held them together with a wire coat hanger. When 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police all twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way. The offences included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).

It doesn't need training, it need penalties serious enough to make them stop and think for a change. Addison Lee boasts about the training it gives its drivers, including about cyclists, but we all know they have a reputation of some of the worst drivers in London where cyclists are concerned.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1845455, member: 45"]Ok, now that I'm at a computer and not on my phone..

1. "dangerous" and "safe" are irrelevant terms. It's about level of risk.
2. WRT KSIs at junctions, it's not all about cyclists going down the inside of lorries. Though with regard to the women you keep going on about it's largely about being left-hooked as a result of being in a place where the actions of a lorry driver result in conflict.
3. It's not about your repetitious scenario of lorries pulling up behind cyclists and the conflict occuring when the lights change. The risk associated with that is minimal and you only keep bringing it up because it's the best you can come up with to try and argue against proper positioning at lights. It's a red herring which you need to drop if this is going to continue as a valid discussion.
4. RLJing won't safe many more lives. That's a nonsensical dramatisation driven by your desire to prove that the situation is how you want it to be.

I'll repeat -you're suggesting that those who cannot manage junctions safely within the current expected and accepted boundaries would be safer ignoring reds and placing themselves in the path of other vehicles. It's ridiculous to suggest that that would be ok because we could make sure they're trained in managing RLJing with reduced risk when the solution is much easier -training for drivers and cyclists in how to minimise risk within the accepted boundaries.

The problem of left-hooking lorries can be successfully addressed by awareness. There's absolutely no need to try (and it would be unsuccessful) to introduce a new practice (legal RLJing) into a culture that doesn't accept cyclists on roads as it is.

The fundamental risk presented on the roads is from road vehicles. That's taken as read by everyone. Until that it reduced then cyclists have a responsibility to accept what's going on on the roads and to make contingencies for that. Wrong that we have to, but completely necessary.[/quote]


The big problem with your case above is that RLJing is not by any measure dangerous and it is many more than myself who have suggested it would save lives including TfL, the House of Lords and the French. And most of what you wrote is speculation on your part and much of it demonstrably wrong. For example no-one is suggesting they pull away from a lorry into the path of another vehicle as you speculate but that they cross the junction as a pedestrian would by going in a gap in the cross traffic.

But coming back to the start of this thread, red light jumping as practiced by cyclists is not, from the evidence, the dangerous activity many try to portray it as and there are good indications that it might actually save more lives than it costs.

 

[BentMikey]

Redlight, I do agree that RLJing isn't dangerous, but it is unnecessary and poor behaviour. I agree that jumping a red is probably better than waiting between a lorry and pedestrian railings. What you're ignoring is that by far the best option of all is to wait in primary as per Cyclecraft.

I'm sorry, but Mr P is right here.

 

[her_welshness]

[QUOTE 1845455, member: 45"]

The problem of left-hooking lorries can be successfully addressed by awareness. There's absolutely no need to try (and it would be unsuccessful) to introduce a new practice (legal RLJing) into a culture that doesn't accept cyclists on roads as it is.

The fundamental risk presented on the roads is from road vehicles. That's taken as read by everyone. Until that it reduced then cyclists have a responsibility to accept what's going on on the roads and to make contingencies for that. Wrong that we have to, but completely necessary.[/quote]

No no no, it cannot be successfully addressed by just awareness. I hope that I am not taking your point out of context. 16 cyclists were killed in London last year, including a young lass in Bermondsey that was mown down by an HGV (I am also not counting the number of serious cycling injuries as well). This is despite huge campaigns in London by the GLA, LCC and many borough councils training their HGV drivers on awareness of cyclists. Its gone beyond now, something more radical has to be proposed. Am not sure about the legal RLJ-ing to be honest with you. I would go with what other European cities have implemented, which is a ban on lorry driving in central city areas at peak times.

 

[Brandane]

Oh sorry, I thought you were speaking on their behalf

No; merely fighting my corner when accused of posting "nonsense".

 

[her_welshness]

Redlight, I do agree that RLJing isn't dangerous, but it is unnecessary and poor behaviour. I agree that jumping a red is probably better than waiting between a lorry and pedestrian railings. What you're ignoring is that by far the best option of all is to wait in primary as per Cyclecraft.

I'm sorry, but Mr P is right here.

Not at the junction where you turn right onto Vauxhall Bridge it doesn't. I wait until the lights go to amber on the other traffic lights, as I was getting sick of punishment passes all the time.

 

[BentMikey]

I could be very confused, but I don't think I turn right onto Vauxhall Bridge? I usually turn left onto it in both directions.

 

[Brandane]

It is still nonsense. Lorries have stickers on them exhorting me as a cyclist not to pass on the left. No one has offered me a sticker to put on my back to exhort lorry drivers not to pass on my right.

Are you a Politician or what? Well versed in evading the point in any case. This is what you said was nonsense....

Probably much more successful than the latter, given that HGV drivers have to undertake compulsory training. Cyclists? Errrm; no. Unless of course they are among the tiny minority that read on-line forums.

It is not nonsense, as there is a training program in place to make HGV drivers aware of cyclists. They have to pass a test to go on the road. Whether or not they follow that training once on the road is up to the individual, but that is not relevant to your argument - the training IS there. Cyclists on the other hand are perfectly free to go out on the road without any sort of training.

If you want a wee sticker for your back, I'm sure you can get one made up. The Road Haulage Association had to do that to get the ones you refer to on HGVs, they didn't just magically appear.

 

[Francesca]

For breakfast?

oh yes.
how are you?

 

[Brandane]

Let's see if we can stretch it to 8

You must be REALLY impressed now!

 

[Francesca]

Bracing myself for some shopping.

you make it sound like its a bad thing...food shopping or something for yourself may I ask?

 

[Francesca]

The list is:
Laundry baskets, ironing board cover, cat bowls, chopping board (I broke the old one knocking new bearings into a hub), serrated knife to replace the missing one, sheets.......................................... I could go on. So bad thing but necessary

I agree, bad but necessary. You out on your bike(s) this weekend? enjoy the shop