Death of French student struck by lorry while riding Boris Bike "accidental"

Shades wrote:

I'm not a London rider but perhaps these bike lanes etc give people a false sense of security. They're an 'aid', but ultimately it's you and the other traffic. There are times when I approach a junction and look at what type of vehicles are in the queue, do I think the lights are about to change etc, and just say to myself, "just stick yourself on the back of the queue"....and then someone (the 'occasional cyclist' as I call them - no helmet, high viz) just 'sails' up the inside, or outside, of the traffic completely oblivious to the risk they're under. They usually ignore the red light as well.

Don't judge other cyclists on their clothing choice. It has no effect on how they ride, or how experienced they are. I certainly don't become a bad cyclist if I'm just riding to the shop in normal clothes any more than I become a good cyclist when I'm in full lycra. Cycling infrastructure should be for everybody, and if it can't keep an 8 year old safe on their way to school and me safe on my way to work (in lycra mode) then it isn't good enough.

I agree about checking vehicles and sitting in the queue, but when the road tells you otherwise it's not surprising some people don't.

Shades wrote:

I'm not a London rider but perhaps these bike lanes etc give people a false sense of security. They're an 'aid', but ultimately it's you and the other traffic. There are times when I approach a junction and look at what type of vehicles are in the queue, do I think the lights are about to change etc, and just say to myself, "just stick yourself on the back of the queue"....and then someone (the 'occasional cyclist' as I call them - no helmet, high viz) just 'sails' up the inside, or outside, of the traffic completely oblivious to the risk they're under. They usually ignore the red light as well.

There is so much bollocks in this comment that to sit and point it out to you would be a waste of both our time because they are such simple things that if you dont get them now, you never will.

I find this kind of thing, inferring that someone was at fault because they didn't (for example) have a helmet on or they were not wearing high viz very, very callous and intimidating. Shifting responsibility onto the victim is really quite evil and nasty.

The overwhelming majority of people killed by motor vehicles (4000 per year) in London do not die in an impact. They die prematurely because of the horrendous air pollution. If a child with leukaemia succumbs to their illness because air pollution made it hard for them to breathe and recover, is it their fault for not wearing a face mask all day? Or if an old man has a stroke, is it his fault for not, avoiding the most polluted roads for the last 20 years, like a rat in amaze?

We all have collective responsibility here. But the blame needs to be shifted, and put squarely at the feet of those people blocking improvements to active transport in London. There are 7 million of us living here and it is totally unacceptable that some are driving on their own in otherwise empty vehicles in one of the most traffic congested cities in Europe.

I just cycled from Crystal Palace to Shoreditch in a shirt, jumper and low viz coat; I had a meeting so pedalled slowly as though I was walking. I didn’t break a sweat, and must have past 1000 cars sat in traffic during my 2 hour trip. People are suffering, and lives are being blighted, by the fact that some don’t have the intelligence and imagination to give up their cars. These habitual drivers need to be told that their selfishness is really hurting others.

Yes we need better cycle infrastructure, but that will only come when people understand that blocking any improvement to active transport is morally abhorrent. TFL and their lawyers should be ashamed of themselves and so should any politician that drags their feet or obfuscates on this issue.

Alexbb wrote:

I find this kind of thing, inferring that someone was at fault because they didn't (for example) have a helmet on or they were not wearing high viz very, very callous and intimidating. Shifting responsibility onto the victim is really quite evil and nasty.

Crikey, I've never thought of myself as "evil". I merely pointed out that wearing hi-vis can help avoid becoming the victim of a SMIDSY. I wasn't specifically referring to this tragedy but, each time an accident occurs, it makes me wonder whether hi-vis clothing may have made a difference in this, and other, cases.

What concerns me is the relentless low level ridiculing of those who wear hi-vis, and the potential this negativity has on people making an informed choice. If cyclists are "bullied" into not wearing hi-viz, (the odd ribald comment here and there, the occasional dorky photo, the thinly disguised quips by journalists), then the uptake of hi-vis is reduced, and the chances of not being seen are increased.

@Neil753
I don't intend to mock anyone else with different sartorial choices! There are no absolute standards in such matters! And everyone has the right to do whatever they think will help keep them safe.

But there is an argument that wearing hi-viz actually encourages non-cyclists to see cyclists as a weird out-group and thus makes it harder for them to get respect and makes it more difficult for people to imagine cycling as an ordinary mode of travel rather than a freaky special-interest hobby.

See Kevin McKenna's recent generic anti-cyclist rant in the Guardian about those lycra and high-viz wearing freaks (in a new spin on victim-blaming he claimed that high viz and helmets 'distracted' drivers and so caused accidents!).

As an aside - I doubt many evil people think of themselves as 'evil'! Apart from Dr Evil from Austin Powers, I guess. He probably wore the label with pride!

ribena wrote:

Its worth reading Tom Edwards feed mentioned in the article

https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards

"Pedestrian witness: cyclist was 6in ahead of lorry when I saw her wasn't enough room for her on kerb side"

"HGV driver #aldgate cyclist inquest: maybe if they gave out reflective clothes with hire bikes & helmets. coroner: but it was daylight"

Well said by the coroner.

As I was saying above; for the purposes of their 'evidence' relating to hi-vis, reflectives, etc, the witnesses are simply unqualified members of the public. The public believe that hi-vis etc are "needed" in order to be safe, even in daylight. This is clearly, demonstrably, incorrect.

mrmo wrote:

And in a parallel case we have a cyclist fighting a FPN for crossing the stop line when the ASL was blocked by a car. Maybe the point is that the young women are more likely to obey the letter of the law without realising the risk to life they are placing themselves in.

The only link between the 2 cases is the inadequacies of the infrastructure in how it helps cyclists. With high-quality integrated cycle infrastructure there's no need for ASLs as a cycles-only phase at lights does a similar job but allowing safer right turns from a wide, segregated cycle lane on the left.

teaboy wrote:

The only link between the 2 cases is the inadequacies of the infrastructure in how it helps cyclists. With high-quality integrated cycle infrastructure there's no need for ASLs as a cycles-only phase at lights does a similar job but allowing safer right turns from a wide, segregated cycle lane on the left.

Problem is, we only have the infrastructure we have. So whilst it does show that what we have is crap, that doesn't help us now. We have seem to be seeing a disproportionate number of women cyclists being killed at junctions??? The question is why?

As an aisde, how would a cyclist only traffic light work without an ASL into which the cyclists could position themselves to take advantage of the light? Or are you suggesting building parallel roads next to the existing roads? and how do you fit that into the current urban landscape??? ie between existing buildings???

mrmo wrote:

teaboy wrote:

The only link between the 2 cases is the inadequacies of the infrastructure in how it helps cyclists. With high-quality integrated cycle infrastructure there's no need for ASLs as a cycles-only phase at lights does a similar job but allowing safer right turns from a wide, segregated cycle lane on the left.

Problem is, we only have the infrastructure we have. So whilst it does show that what we have is crap, that doesn't help us now. We have seem to be seeing a disproportionate number of women cyclists being killed at junctions??? The question is why?

It could well be the case that more women are killed because they don't take the lane, are generally slower, or they obey the letter of the law - I genuinely don't know. However, the infrastructure we have actually encourages dangerous behaviour exactly where it is most dangerous. ASLs have feeder-lanes on the left, just before the junction and exactly the worst place to be. You can't encourage people to be in one place (primary position) whilst showing them and others that they 'should' be in the bike lane.

We only have the infrastructure we have because councils built it with our money. The vast majority of it isn't fit for purpose. We need to stop painting the roads (which is cheap, and allows councils to be seen to be encouraging cycling and making it safer) and ACTUALLY build things that genuinely encourage cycling and make it safer.

mrmo wrote:

As an aisde, how would a cyclist only traffic light work without an ASL into which the cyclists could position themselves to take advantage of the light? Or are you suggesting building parallel roads next to the existing roads? and how do you fit that into the current urban landscape??? ie between existing buildings???

In many places you can remove a lane of road-space from motor traffic on the left hand side, similar to the Zil lanes during the Olympics, but actually segregated. In some places you divert motor traffic and use the current road for cycling only (Hackney's Mare Street is a good example of this). With wide, light-controlled cycle lanes anyone turning right would wait on the right of the lane (as they do now) and turn across the light-controlled motor traffic when it's stopped (similar to now at many junctions with filter lights).

It would work as an essentially parallel road. The lights can be set to be green for cyclists riding at 15mph (for instance) to provide a green-wave for cyclists whilst holding motor traffic.

@teaboy, I do agree where possible it should be done. My experience is that most roads in an urban environment aren't that wide. London is a bit unusual in that it has more wider roads, but imo the drivers are more agressive which doesn't help.

As for blue/red/green paint marking out cycle lanes, all i can say is don't waste the money!!! Either do it properly or don't bother, and certainly don't create situations which make accidents more likely!

mrmo wrote:

@teaboy, I do agree where possible it should be done. My experience is that most roads in an urban environment aren't that wide. London is a bit unusual in that it has more wider roads, but imo the drivers are more agressive which doesn't help.

I think if you really look at the average urban junction, there is usually loads of room. Yes, we would need to design our streets a bit different but there is plenty of room for this. We need to make our streets look like they promote cycling and feel like they are safe. Then we don't need to increase motor traffic flow.

mrmo wrote:

As for blue/red/green paint marking out cycle lanes, all i can say is don't waste the money!!! Either do it properly or don't bother, and certainly don't create situations which make accidents more likely!

My local council "improved" cycling infrastructure the other day by painting 4 pictures of bikes in the carrigeway near the end of a path...

teaboy wrote:

Maybe people wouldn't go up the inside of vehicles if the road didn't tell them to. She was doing everything she thought was safe - cycling in the cycle lane. The Highway Code even says it's safer there.

I agree. My two sons did their cycling proficiency a few years back. My eldest is a keen cyclist like me. The instructor was moronic for several reasons. First he was told that his saddle was too high when it was perfect. She said it was dangerous if he couldn't put both feet flat on the ground while in the saddle. Bonkers. When my lad came out into the road to pass parked cars by a decent margin to avoid having a door open in his face, she told him it was dangerous to be so far out in the road. There were other bits as well. As far as I was concerned this instructor was worse than useless.

Unfortunately "official" advice isn't always the best advice and some cycle training schemes are flawed because of it. Unfortunately the people that get killed cycling are disproportionately the new or casual cyclists following the official rules.

Gizmo - "Had the HGV driver or TfL bus driver conducted any scientific testing into relative visibility?"

Probably not, but the piece on road.cc about lorries the other day described the difference in visibility (of a cyclist coming up the inside of an hgv) as "astonishing".

We've really got to progress from arguing that it's up to drivers to see us, however dark our clothing and however fast we're riding, and instead try to focus on how we can assist those drivers by making ourselves more visible.

Gizmo_ wrote:

Had the HGV driver or TfL bus driver conducted any scientific testing into relative visibility? No? In which case their opinion is immaterial (no pun intended) and the lawyer should be sanctioned.

Now, whether the girl put herself in a dangerous position or not is the actual subject of the inquest. It sounds like in this case she did, which means she paid an awful price for a simple mistake that could have been avoided by training.

So - how do you reach and educate the girls in their twenties/thirties who are the overwhelming statistical 'victims' of such mistakes? Road - as part of 'the media' do you have contacts at girls/women's magazines? Grazia, Cosmo, etc etc (you can tell I don't read them). A series of non-patronising, non-weirdy-beardy-CTC articles with a "Cycling's the new cool thing but be safe and FOR CRYING OUT LOUD DON'T GO UP THE INSIDE OF HGVs" message might help...?

+1 I keep saying that in most of these cases I can see how the cyclist gets themselves into unwelcome positions. It is about road awareness and being confident in knowing that you can be seen, and that your road position is the right one. It leads to better decision making and keeps you safe. Easy if you are aware of the problems facing other road traffic.

In the case of London in particular there are young people who cannot afford a car and do not have space for to park a car where they live. Cycling, on the other hand, is greatly affordable, healthy and poses no particular great time loss in covering any given distance across the capital. As such there are whole swathes of people in the 18-30 year old age group have no understanding of what it is like as a car driver. No where do we teach these people about being on the road with other road users, and so cycling does become a dangerous occupation.

In this case, it is very sad to hear how political box ticking in respect to cycling infrastructure has helped towards the situation which cost this young lady her life. While I agree that infrastructure should be changed, I think that the inherent issues with the price of change means that meaningful adjustments will not take place for a long time (unless the weight of political will can force the change). The main thing is that we don't demonise other road users.