Mile End death cyclist named; another critical after coach crash

nod wrote:

He called me an asshat and a fucktwit!

Does that then require you to be abusive back because all that will happen is that it ends up in name calling and no one gets any further.

Trust me i have said things on here which i totally regret and there was no need for so its best just to either ignore or be pleasant.

stumps wrote:

nod wrote:

He called me an asshat and a fucktwit!

Does that then require you to be abusive back because all that will happen is that it ends up in name calling and no one gets any further.

Trust me i have said things on here which i totally regret and there was no need for so its best just to either ignore or be pleasant.

Sigh... of course you're being mature etc but... ahem... you did +1 him!

hexhome wrote:

Blind Spot? No it's a Failed To Look Spot!

If you ever get the opportunity to sit in a moving truck, I challenge you to spot everything that's going on in every mirror simultaneously. It's more difficult than you think.

As an HGV driver, there are times when I find myself completely surrounded by cyclists, some of them even holding on to the sides of my artic. There are cyclists squeezing up both sides even when the ASL box is completely full, regardless of whether I'm turning left or right, and I have to actually stand up in the cab to see if there are any individuals hiding directly in front of the truck below my normal sightline. OK, it's not like that all the time, but it happens regularly enough to be of major concern. So it simply isn't fair to just accuse drivers of not "looking in the blindspot".

As a cyclist, I tend to hold back. If an HGV driver overtakes at the wrong moment then I scrub off some speed and drop back. I never ever use the ASL unless I'm already at the front. Sometimes (shock horror) I'll actually get off by bike and walk across the junction using the pedestrian crossing. If there's a quieter route, I'll use it. It's slightly trickier on the open road but, in town, it's very easy to reduce one's own exposure to risk.

Sure, we have just as much right to be on the road as HGV drivers, but if are concilliatory in our exercising of those rights then we can collectively reduce the number of KSIs dramatically by staying well clear of trucks, and encouraging less experienced cyclists to do the same.

Neil753 wrote:

Sure, we have just as much right to be on the road as HGV drivers, but if are concilliatory in our exercising of those rights then we can collectively reduce the number of KSIs dramatically by staying well clear of trucks, and encouraging less experienced cyclists to do the same.

Not really likely to do much to increase cycling though, is it? The best way, after all, to stay 'well clear of trucks' is what most people I know do (and what I did for decades) and not cycle. That's the real problem here, and is why a better solution is required.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

Sure, we have just as much right to be on the road as HGV drivers, but if are concilliatory in our exercising of those rights then we can collectively reduce the number of KSIs dramatically by staying well clear of trucks, and encouraging less experienced cyclists to do the same.

Not really likely to do much to increase cycling though, is it? The best way, after all, to stay 'well clear of trucks' is what most people I know do (and what I did for decades) and not cycle. That's the real problem here, and is why a better solution is required.

I'm not so sure that exercising our rights (even though we certainly do have rights) to mix it with trucks does much to encourage cycling. In fact, my guess is that every fatal accident makes potential cyclists even less likely to get on their bikes, even though the actual chances of being killed are very small. It's all to do with the perception of risk.

We should be sitting down together, cyclists and HGV drivers, and work out a common understanding amongst ourselves, a bit like those initiatives involving hoodies and pensioners if you know what I mean. It can't do any harm.

Neil753 wrote:

I'm not so sure that exercising our rights (even though we certainly do have rights) to mix it with trucks does much to encourage cycling. In fact, my guess is that every fatal accident makes potential cyclists even less likely to get on their bikes, even though the actual chances of being killed are very small. It's all to do with the perception of risk.

We should be sitting down together, cyclists and HGV drivers, and work out a common understanding amongst ourselves, a bit like those initiatives involving hoodies and pensioners if you know what I mean. It can't do any harm.

I think FluffyKitten is suggesting we need a change in infrastructure so that HGVs and bikes are not ever in the same place.

While I agree, I like you think the solution is a half a decade off at least with regard to London traffic. This recent spate of high profile accidents is probably giving rise to a huge rethink. But money is usually the issue and there's not much of it flowing around state coffers right now.

From this POV I think you are right, and that more needs to be done to make people aware of good and bad rider habits. And also education to ensure HGV drivers are aware (though in my experience they are usually very aware, they just can't see everywhere at once).

@Neil753

I guess the point is my perspective is of someone who was a pedestrian and public transport user only for many years before daring to venture onto the roads on a bike. And while I find the positives are huge, much greater than I imagined, I also find it is indeed just as nerve-wracking as I feared it would be, and am constantly considering giving it up (despite racking up a considerable daily milage for the past few years when its been my exclusive form of transport). I also don't know a single other person who rides a bike on the roads, everyone I know considers it unthinkably dangerous.

As I say, I know from personal experience that most people's idea of "defensive cycling" is to leave the bike in the hallway and never ride it, other than maybe round the park occasionally. Can't get much more defensive than that!

So the "being conciliatory" stuff is fine in itself, I'm not exactly against it, but its not going to change the problem of few people actually cycling as a normal means of transport (and increasingly not walking either). Indeed the more concessions cyclists have to make (e.g. the more indirect routes they have to accept, the more they tolerate having to dismount and walk to avoid scary bits of a route, etc) the less attractive cycling will be as a means of transport to the majority who don't cycle.

Everyone will continue to get fatter-and-fatter and keeling over with associated diseases and our environment, both locally and globally, will continue to suffer.

You are addressing a different problem, I suppose - trying to minimise the danger to the existing minority who cycle. Fair enough but firstly I don't believe you will get all that far with that without more fundamental changes, and in any case I mainly just want to see a far less car-centered society - cycling is just a means to an end.

First, don't give up! Find bike friends. It's important. Otherwise you'll go nuts.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So the "being conciliatory" stuff is fine in itself, I'm not exactly against it,

Every time I think to myself "I'm not feeling great, I don't want hassle, just a quiet life" and I don't take an assertive position I end up in a dangerous situation. Exactly the opposite of a quiet life.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

the more concessions cyclists have to make (e.g. the more indirect routes they have to accept, the more they tolerate having to dismount and walk to avoid scary bits of a route, etc) the less attractive cycling will be as a means of transport to the majority who don't cycle.

Exactly. And although I verge on being obsessive about cycling and enjoy it for the speed, my main desire is also to reduce the number of cars. It's just a stupid way to move people in the C21. Noise, pollution, parking all over the streets, big car parks sucking up scarce land, car drivers being killed, pedestrians being killed, high-speed roads with peds standing waiting to cross. Etc.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You are addressing a different problem, I suppose - trying to minimise the danger to the existing minority who cycle. Fair enough but firstly I don't believe you will get all that far with that without more fundamental changes, and in any case I mainly just want to see a far less car-centered society - cycling is just a means to an end.

In the UK there simply isn't this army out there who would all happily be cycling everywhere if it wasn't for those pesky motor cars and HGVs. It will never happen. The only thing that will change is that cars will become less reliant on fossil fuels as technology improves.

Until a few years ago, I taught at a Sixth Form College on the outskirts of London. The kids were car crazy. Who has just passed? Who failed? What car are they going to get? Who drove to college today for the first time and does he/she have a main squeeze? How insane is the cost of insurance, petrol, car tax etc? Even the ones that usually cycled to school couldn't wait to dump their (embarrassing) bikes and drive to college at the first opportunity.

I would mostly drove to work but often in good weather I would cycle. It was totally beyond the comprehension of most of these kids why I would choose to cycle to work when I clearly owned a nice car.

I fear that a campaign to get more people to think of cycling as their default method of transport for short - medium journeys is doomed. For most people, cycling will always remain a weekend hobby / leisure activity in good weather.

In the cities crippled by traffic jams, which have expensive and/or inefficient public transport systems, a better case could be made for persuading more people to cycle. Personally, I think the resources would be better used for reducing the cost and improving public transport, and persuading more people to walk.

The following has nothing whatsoever to do with the tragic incident in Mile End. No one knows for sure what happened and it is totally unfair to blame anyone at this point in time.

The general standard of cycling in Central London is just appalling. Encouraging inexperienced, untrained cyclists to jump on a Boris Bike and share the roads with motor vehicles has been an unmitigated disaster to the point where relations between cyclists and drivers is at an all time low.

Also, if I could change one thing it would be to stop training cyclist to view "take the lane" as the default approach to cycling in traffic. Of course there are occasions where it is very sensible if not essential to "take the lane" and prevent an overtaking manoeuvre in a dangerous place but it is a technique that should be used sparingly and selectively IMO.

I have seen far too many cyclists, in the last five years in particular, who seem to believe it appropriate to "take the lane" everywhere. My most recent example happened yesterday in the rush hour with a very unfit cyclist pootling up a steep hill in the middle of the road holding up a long line of justifiably irate motorists behind him, unable to safely overtake, beeping their horns and cursing for all they were worth. It was totally unnecessary and as a fellow cyclist it was embarrassing.

All this guy achieved was to expose himself to greater danger than necessary and piss off other road users (which has repercussions for all cyclists).

But that is another debate for another occasion.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

I have seen far too many cyclists, in the last five years in particular, who seem to believe it appropriate to "take the lane" everywhere. My most recent example happened yesterday in the rush hour with a very unfit cyclist pootling up a steep hill in the middle of the road holding up a long line of justifiably irate motorists behind him, unable to safely overtake, beeping their horns and cursing for all they were worth. It was totally unnecessary and as a fellow cyclist it was embarrassing.

I still don't get this attitude about needing to overtake and make good preogress, I live in Devon I see my fair share of Tractors/Caravans/and fuckwit Audi drivers who won't put their car in the hedges because they might scratch their paintwork, but that's a driving car issue not bike related...I digress. My point was I get stuck behind lots of slow moving vehicles down a lot of country lanes.

If those drivers were following a Tractor going up the hill at lets say 7mph and were "unable to safely overtake" would there be this fuss?

I don't know this particular hill, I don't know the road but if this rider however fat and slow he may have been needed to use perfectly legitimate road positioning to make himself feel safe what is wrong with that? Are you seriously suggesting that one road users desire to get past someone so they get to their destination marginally quicker is more important than the safety of another significantly more vulnerable road user?

(Admittedly if he was wearing full Rapha kit on a Bianchi it may have been considered embarrassing to the sport of cycling but his actions were legitimate nonetheless).

William Black wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

I have seen far too many cyclists, in the last five years in particular, who seem to believe it appropriate to "take the lane" everywhere. My most recent example happened yesterday in the rush hour with a very unfit cyclist pootling up a steep hill in the middle of the road holding up a long line of justifiably irate motorists behind him, unable to safely overtake, beeping their horns and cursing for all they were worth. It was totally unnecessary and as a fellow cyclist it was embarrassing.

I still don't get this attitude about needing to overtake and make good preogress, I live in Devon I see my fair share of Tractors/Caravans/and fuckwit Audi drivers who won't put their car in the hedges because they might scratch their paintwork, but that's a driving car issue not bike related...I digress. My point was I get stuck behind lots of slow moving vehicles down a lot of country lanes.

If those drivers were following a Tractor going up the hill at lets say 7mph and were "unable to safely overtake" would there be this fuss?

In the case of a tractor, clearly it has nowhere else to go. One could hardly expect it to levitate so that other road users can pass under it.

When I say, "in the middle of the road", I mean it. About 3ft from the centre line going at walking pace. There was almost enough room to attempt an undertake, except get it wrong and you might send him to the undertakers. It was totally unnecessary. I am never advocating riding in the gutter but that wasn't taking the lane, more like taking the p*ss!

Quote:

I don't know the road but if this rider however fat and slow he may have been needed to use perfectly legitimate road positioning to make himself feel safe what is wrong with that?

The thing that is wrong with that, in my opinion, is that because this rider has either been poorly trained or had no training whatsover, the perfectly legitimate position that made him feel safe actually placed him in far greater danger than a more sensible position on the left would have done.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You are addressing a different problem, I suppose - trying to minimise the danger to the existing minority who cycle. Fair enough but firstly I don't believe you will get all that far with that without more fundamental changes, and in any case I mainly just want to see a far less car-centered society - cycling is just a means to an end.

In the UK there simply isn't this army out there who would all happily be cycling everywhere if it wasn't for those pesky motor cars and HGVs. It will never happen. The only thing that will change is that cars will become less reliant on fossil fuels as technology improves.

Until a few years ago, I taught at a Sixth Form College on the outskirts of London. The kids were car crazy. Who has just passed? Who failed? What car are they going to get? Who drove to college today for the first time and does he/she have a main squeeze? How insane is the cost of insurance, petrol, car tax etc? Even the ones that usually cycled to school couldn't wait to dump their (embarrassing) bikes and drive to college at the first opportunity.

I would mostly drove to work but often in good weather I would cycle. It was totally beyond the comprehension of most of these kids why I would choose to cycle to work when I clearly owned a nice car.

I fear that a campaign to get more people to think of cycling as their default method of transport for short - medium journeys is doomed. For most people, cycling will always remain a weekend hobby / leisure activity in good weather.

In the cities crippled by traffic jams, which have expensive and/or inefficient public transport systems, a better case could be made for persuading more people to cycle. Personally, I think the resources would be better used for reducing the cost and improving public transport, and persuading more people to walk.

The following has nothing whatsoever to do with the tragic incident in Mile End. No one knows for sure what happened and it is totally unfair to blame anyone at this point in time.

The general standard of cycling in Central London is just appalling. Encouraging inexperienced, untrained cyclists to jump on a Boris Bike and share the roads with motor vehicles has been an unmitigated disaster to the point where relations between cyclists and drivers is at an all time low.

Also, if I could change one thing it would be to stop training cyclist to view "take the lane" as the default approach to cycling in traffic. Of course there are occasions where it is very sensible if not essential to "take the lane" and prevent an overtaking manoeuvre in a dangerous place but it is a technique that should be used sparingly and selectively IMO.

I have seen far too many cyclists, in the last five years in particular, who seem to believe it appropriate to "take the lane" everywhere. My most recent example happened yesterday in the rush hour with a very unfit cyclist pootling up a steep hill in the middle of the road holding up a long line of justifiably irate motorists behind him, unable to safely overtake, beeping their horns and cursing for all they were worth. It was totally unnecessary and as a fellow cyclist it was embarrassing.

All this guy achieved was to expose himself to greater danger than necessary and piss off other road users (which has repercussions for all cyclists).

But that is another debate for another occasion.

Education will only go so far, and new segregated cycle facilities are thin on the ground due to both a lack of political will and a shortage of cash. And yet the answer, certainly in London, is staring us in the face.

With such a dense network of roads, every route has a parallel route. Bollards could turn rat runs into quiet streets with residential access, a succession of these quiet streets would make excellent cycle routes, and a dash of Boris's blue paint every six feet or so (down the centre of these roads) would make this joined up network of routes not only identifiable to cyclists, but also mark these roads out to drivers as routes with no through access. An entire network of safe routes, without any additional infrastructure, legislation, or redesign, and cheap enough to actually become a reality.

Neil753 wrote:

Education will only go so far, and new segregated cycle facilities are thin on the ground due to both a lack of political will and a shortage of cash. And yet the answer, certainly in London, is staring us in the face.

With such a dense network of roads, every route has a parallel route. Bollards could turn rat runs into quiet streets with residential access, a succession of these quiet streets would make excellent cycle routes, and a dash of Boris's blue paint every six feet or so (down the centre of these roads) would make this joined up network of routes not only identifiable to cyclists, but also mark these roads out to drivers as routes with no through access. An entire network of safe routes, without any additional infrastructure, legislation, or redesign, and cheap enough to actually become a reality.

Excellent ideas. Run for Mayor. You have already secured one vote.

Hi Fluffy,

The main thing to know is that reading these stories on this website (in particular) and the newspapers gives you a very skewed perspective. It's like reading a newspaper which highlights every single car crash, or every single airplane accident. It would make cars and planes seem very dangerous.

You have to rationalise these events. Yes, there are dangers inherent in cycling, but equally there are people out there who have cycled everyday of their adult life. Some who have cycled all over the world with varying degrees of driver proficiency. Thousands of people cycle to work every day without incident.

Cycling is grouped in with some other dangerous sports. Equally, people do these on a daily basis and don't die. The reason they and the cyclists survive is being educated, aware and prepared.

You can liken it to scuba diving. If you don't know what you are doing, haven't prepared your equipment and do something unexpected you will get yourself in trouble. You will likely be safe if you do prepare and follow training. You may get unlucky and have something freakish happen to you, but like other things in life (cancer, disease etc) you role the dice and most of the time you will come up trumps.

It's too easy to get negative and let fear rule you. I congratulate you on taking up cycling. Enjoy it and be proud that you are being active and healthy.

horizontal dropout wrote:

"dutch (dutch!) coach driver"

Hey Bobinski was it Bovo Tours? Like this one? https://secure.flickr.com/photos/59115230@N06/7160378933/

I've had two runins with them. I wrote to them once and they said they'd do something about it but didn't hear further.

Are you sure they are Dutch?

Yep www.bovotours.nl . Do you know them? The coach in the flickr photo is the actual one, I googled his number plate. I think they must have a UK operation.

horizontal dropout wrote:

"dutch (dutch!) coach driver"

Hey Bobinski was it Bovo Tours? Like this one? https://secure.flickr.com/photos/59115230@N06/7160378933/

I've had two runins with them. I wrote to them once and they said they'd do something about it but didn't hear further.

No but i sure will keep a look out for them.

I had a bus driver pull out on me in Brixton this afternoon, my dynamo light and macro drive on flash apparently not enough to alert him to my prescence. He simply didnt look but then when he did see me carried on sheperding me into the next lane. He declined my invite to chat giving me the finger. Not quick enough to get his number. Karma an hour later when i took a bus to get my son from school. Bus driver pulls out with looking and gets beeped by police van the driver of which advises bus driver he is driving like a plonker. Bus driver remonstrates so police give him a ticket I didnt mind waiting and watching at all

Orbea Mike wrote:

In most cases the barriers should be removed and replaced by bollards so that cyclists have an escape route if needed.

It's a tough one for cyclists, but I suspect that far more pedestrians (especially children) would be killed if the barriers were removed. But if you can slow traffic down by redesigning a whole junction (as demonstrated this year at Poynton) then there would be no need for barriers at all. But it all costs money.

Why does the driver need to be arrested straight away? If he's stayed in the area and is talking with Police and not considered a flight risk then they don't need to arrest him.
Once they arrest him they've only got a certain amount of time before they have to release or charge him - so why start that clock unnecessarily.

Save your indignation for when he's not charged appropriately...