Guardian article(with links) about why female cyclists are more vulnerable to lorries

[dondare]

Being next to a lorry is not suicidal in itself, they can't move directly sideways. And being able to see the wing mirror does not mean that the driver has definately seen you.
The important thing is to understand how movements of the cab translate to movements of the trailer, and being where you won't get trapped whatever it does next.

 

[dondare]

Good night all.

 

[Brains]

I know two people killed in cycle accidents.
Both were very experienced cyclists
One was a London Courier
Other only had a bike as transport, never learnt to drive
Both were killed by left turning HGV's,
on the roads of London

Both were women

Therefore statistically from my point of view being a woman near an HGV is 100% more dangerous than being a man in the same position

 

[zoxed]

Being next to a lorry is not suicidal in itself, they can't move directly sideways.

What you say is true ("directly"), but in a practical sense they can go sideways: if you next to the trailer and the cab turns left, then as well as moving forwards the trailer side will move to the left squashing even a stationary cyclist. So it *is* a potential suicide position.

 

[Wheeledweenie]

Here comes the rant....

I'm so sick of articles like this one. At no point are the individual circumstances looked at (someone else did and concluded it could well be a statistical anomaly). I am of this opinion as several of the women killed were, by all accounts, confident and competent cyclists happy to take the lane.

Anyhoo, I can only think of my personal experiences when it comes to women cycling:

It seems to be true that most of the women I know (I include myself) are less spatially aware, but actually this, in my experience, means that we avoid nipping through narrow spaces as we're worried we're too wide. It therefore doesn't make any sense that it would mean we're more likely to squeeze up the left-hand side of a lorry.

As a woman, it's often assumed I'm going to be slower, I know this because I get left-hooked far more than my male cyclist friends and I often have male cyclists plant themselves in front of me at lights even though I've overtaken them before. I aint that quick, but at 15-20mph on my commute my speed is often commented on, it isn't when it's a man riding.

Men often attempt to force me up the insides of lorries. Three cyclists have hit me from behind because I've hung back behind a heavy vehicle that I haven't wanted to undertake. I've been sworn and tutted at. I don't care but I've seen other women feel like they have to move, even if it's dangerous, all to shave precious seconds off their 5-mile odyssey.

And finally... Most women I know are more easily intimidated by drivers than men. I cycle where I feel safe, and sometimes it's the centre of the lane. I'm happy to shout the odds with drivers who take exception, but more than a few women I know are upset or frightened by this kind of encounter. They are also more likely to assume it was their fault. This explains a lot of the kerb-hugging behaviour I see when out and about. Kerb-hugging leads to people being in the wrong lane when they hit a junction, generally the left-turn lane when they want to turn right or go straight ahead.

 

[dondare]

What you say is true ("directly"), but in a practical sense they can go sideways: if you next to the trailer and the cab turns left, then as well as moving forwards the trailer side will move to the left squashing even a stationary cyclist. So it *is* a potential suicide position.

Hence the second paragraph.

Being next to a lorry is not suicidal in itself, they can't move directly sideways. And being able to see the wing mirror does not mean that the driver has definately seen you.
The important thing is to understand how movements of the cab translate to movements of the trailer, and being where you won't get trapped whatever it does next.

 

[dondare]

There's a specific problem with trucks killing cyclists at junctions. This isn't about comparing kill figures for cars and lorries.

Something needs to be done about it. And telling cyclists that they shouldn't ride on the road isn't the right answer.

We need to reduce the number of large vehicles in inner cities. They're not essential, given the alternatives.

I totally agree with you, but we're in the minority.

 

[MacB]

aren't the railings themselves a big part of the problem, I've had to hop onto verges/pavements before now, would have been a bit of a bummer if there'd been railings there.

 

[Wheeledweenie]

Railings are a problem fro all genders, but the article was specifically looking at why more women were being killed. Hence my ranting....

 

[jimboalee]

As a general rule women tend to be less spatially aware & tend to find it harder to conceptualise the changing geometry due to movement compared to men*. I wonder how much of this causes women to make misjudgements & so the decision of where to put the bike on the road won't be as well informed compared to most men? Sure bad road position is no excuse but putting your self in a less visible position requires more attention from a driver who already is dealing with information overload.

* Certainly when dealing with driver training there is generally more coaching needed to get a woman to understand where a particular part of the car will end up. When doing demo lap lines marking most of the time women have a much harder time on absolutely nailing the reference clipping points while compared to men with the same level of general line & car handling style.

Agreed.

Ford Motor Company and JaguarLandRover research come to this conclusion.
My own questioning of lady drivers and cyclists also confirms.

 

[psmiffy]

No idea why more women are killed by lorries than men - my observation is that more men push up the inside of large vehicles than women - however, on occasions I have been waiting fairly close behind large vehicles and had people push past me to get down the inside - maybe some get pressurised by other cyclists?????? do not know the answer

 

[MacB]

Railings are a problem fro all genders, but the article was specifically looking at why more women were being killed. Hence my ranting....

I did get that but my comment was deliberately non-gender specific. I can see two changes that would make a big difference. Firstly removal of railings, regardless of how a cyclist gets there, being trapped is the problem. Secondly getting drivers to recognise the inside of any lane as a seperate lane to be crossed with care. In the same way that few drivers would turn left, from the right hand lane of a dual carriageway, without making sure the inside lane was clear first. The inside is where they're always going to put cycle lanes. So getting drivers to think of the inside as another lane, with priority over them, has to be a way forward.

Regarding the male/female aspect, I don't have enough experience cycling in London, and there's not enough cyclists around my way, for me to make any personal observations. The ladies I've cycled with so far have all seemed at least as competent as I am. I've read the various theories around cycling styles and confidence levels. But I don't know how well researched these are nor if they can be correlated to individual accident circumstances.

With lorries I do get a sort of, 'beware the giants in your midst and accept that a few ants will be squished', type attitude. I find the idea that a lorry can drive over a cyclist, in whatever circumstances, and not even know it's happened quite chilling. I also find the concept of blame on the cyclist quite chilling as well. I kind of feel it behooves the big people to avoid stepping on the little people. Rather than the little people having to stay out of the way. Blaming the little people for getting themselves squished, like they really wanted that, just seems a bit obscene.

 

[Origamist]

It's predictably poor journalism. You need to examine the casualty figures over a longer period (and not only deaths), conduct detailed analysis into the circumstances of each collision, take into account the numbers of male/female cyclists in London over the same period, consider other potential contributory factors (cyclist age, experience) etc.

 

[MacB]

They are, remember how much freight a truck can carry compared to a van.

Also costs more using more vehicles which in the end will be passed on to the consumer.

which can be extrapolated out to mean it's cheaper to lose a few lifes than pay a bit more for our trade.

I know that's not your intent but not everything can be broken down to debits and credits

 

[MacB]

Very grey area though isn't?

What's the price of ''a life'' and would be interesting to notes to the accounts containing a provision for ''loss of life''

well it would be a variable, we can't have brown people costing the same as white. Then you've got ugly folks, they've got to be worth less, old people 10 a penny, kids, can always make some more, as for girls, well my youngest told me last night that they were all silly. You'd actually have to make some sort of fixed asset register for humans