Die-in planned at Transport for London headquarters as ‘save our cyclists’ petition hits over 18,000 names

[/quote]And, hang on: Are you really suggesting that we can blame the cyclist for not checking over her shoulder for some idiot cutting in in front of her WHEN SHE'S CONTINUING IN A STRAIGHT LINE IN HER LANE??[/quote]

She may then have had the satisfaction of claiming that she was 'in the right' - all the way to her grave...

It's not clear what she is doing. If it were I doubt the driver would have pulled the manuoeuvre. He no more wants to kill her as she wants to be killed. You forget that in your little diatribe.

If she looks over her shoulder and takes responsibility for her action she would be safer. I'm not forgiving the driver, but as a motorist we all have choices about how we drive and most people take precautions and drive in a manner which gives clear indication to other road users what they are up to. A lot of cyclists do nothing. They never look over their shoulder, they never indicate and expect everyone to accept that and look out for them. How is that a good thing?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It's not clear what she is doing. If it were I doubt the driver would have pulled the manuoeuvre. He no more wants to kill her as she wants to be killed. You forget that in your little diatribe.

If she looks over her shoulder and takes responsibility for her action she would be safer. I'm not forgiving the driver, but as a motorist we all have choices about how we drive and most people take precautions and drive in a manner which gives clear indication to other road users what they are up to. A lot of cyclists do nothing. They never look over their shoulder, they never indicate and expect everyone to accept that and look out for them. How is that a good thing?

Why are you even commenting here? As a driver, if there's doubt, you slow down and stay safe for your own and everyone else's sake.

Yes, I drive. Used to do 50k miles a year for a long time, though thankfully only about a 10th of that now...

Stop blaming the victim. Atrocious driving and if you think even one iota of it is OK, then you should return your license to the DVLA and take public transport everywhere.

jacknorell wrote:

Why are you even commenting here? As a driver, if there's doubt, you slow down and stay safe for your own and everyone else's sake.

Yes, I drive. Used to do 50k miles a year for a long time, though thankfully only about a 10th of that now...

Stop blaming the victim. Atrocious driving and if you think even one iota of it is OK, then you should return your license to the DVLA and take public transport everywhere.

She's not a victim. Or did I miss the bit where she was actually hit. I'm saying that she could've have taken action which would have helped her. But apparently you think I'm not allowed to say that. People like you make me sick. You care more about brow beating others than you do about listening.

I already said that the driver is not blameless but the way she rides means that she puts herself in trouble on busy roads. You can no more ride a cycle path with your eyes closed as cycle down a road without looking over your shoulder. They teach you that in cycling proficiency.

Hand in your own license if you have a problem with that. Why are you commenting in here?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It's not clear what she is doing. If it were I doubt the driver would have pulled the manuoeuvre. He no more wants to kill her as she wants to be killed. You forget that in your little diatribe.

If she looks over her shoulder and takes responsibility for her action she would be safer. I'm not forgiving the driver, but as a motorist we all have choices about how we drive and most people take precautions and drive in a manner which gives clear indication to other road users what they are up to. A lot of cyclists do nothing. They never look over their shoulder, they never indicate and expect everyone to accept that and look out for them. How is that a good thing?

She's in a lane marked straight on / left. She's not indicating left, which signals her intention to go straight on. How is that not clear?

Sara_H wrote:

She's in a lane marked straight on / left. She's not indicating left, which signals her intention to go straight on. How is that not clear?

She is pulled so far over to the side of the road that it is not explicit. As I said previously you don't see too many cyclists use arm signals to indicate wherever they are. The driver has a 50-50 as to which way she is going. Just to make it explicit for Jacknorrel, the driver makes a mistake in his judgement, and is not driving well, but she at no point provides an indication to anyone what she is doing.

As I said the infrastructure is partly to blame here. I agree in principle what you say, but I think there are a number of confusing elements for cyclists and motorists. If she takes the lane and puts herself in a prominent position, or even pulling into the next lane it is 100% explicit where she wants to go.

Motorists will always try to get past slow moving vehicles as quickly as possible and by taking position she would prevent that from happening, because by moving out from the curb there is no doubt she is carrying straight on. If she indicates her intent to other motorists she is much safer. Motorists don't want to kill cyclists, and if they know what you are doing they usually respond well.

Just watched the clip in question. I've got to agree with other comments; these 'Superhighways' are a waste of paint and I think probably lead inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of security - especially at a divergent junction such as the one in the clip.

Colin P wrote:

...you don't see too many cyclists use arm signals to indicate...

An arm signal isn't required when going straight ahead and indeed there doesn't appear to be a recognised one in the Highway Code anyway (except for when driving, to indicate your intention to a person controlling traffic).

I've got to agree though; a poorly designed junction (given that it's on a Superhighway) and poor driving (driver totally at fault).

Whilst the rider was perfectly within her rights to ride as she did, in the position she was in without making any observations, this leaves absolutely no room for poor driving or even a genuine mistake by the driver.

I work as an air traffic controller. Our standard vertical separation between aircraft is 1000 feet and we are perfectly within our rights to descend or climb aircraft that are opposite direction, crossing or converging with one another to either 1000 feet above or 1000 feet below other conflicting aircraft. We can do this without informing either aircraft of their conflicting traffic - however we don't! We always build in a safety margin if we think that there would be a definite risk of a collision or near miss if one or other of the pilots involved makes a mistake. We may use 2000 feet in certain circumstances or more generally we would inform both aircraft of the conflicting traffic and reiterate the climb or descent clearance. We don't have to, but we always err on the side of caution, just in case someone is having a bad day and makes a mistake.

I adopt this principle when I'm riding, after all, it's in my best interests!

A wee look over the shoulder, catch the eye of the van driver and signal to move out to take the lane for a few seconds would have saved the day here - not required, but prudent.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Sara_H wrote:

She's in a lane marked straight on / left. She's not indicating left, which signals her intention to go straight on. How is that not clear?

She is pulled so far over to the side of the road that it is not explicit. As I said previously you don't see too many cyclists use arm signals to indicate wherever they are. The driver has a 50-50 as to which way she is going. Just to make it explicit for Jacknorrel, the driver makes a mistake in his judgement, and is not driving well, but she at no point provides an indication to anyone what she is doing.

As I said the infrastructure is partly to blame here. I agree in principle what you say, but I think there are a number of confusing elements for cyclists and motorists. If she takes the lane and puts herself in a prominent position, or even pulling into the next lane it is 100% explicit where she wants to go.

Motorists will always try to get past slow moving vehicles as quickly as possible and by taking position she would prevent that from happening, because by moving out from the curb there is no doubt she is carrying straight on. If she indicates her intent to other motorists she is much safer. Motorists don't want to kill cyclists, and if they know what you are doing they usually respond well.

Are you utterly mad or completely blind? Watch the video again. Then appreciate why the courts convicted the driver.

Why do you keep supporting your bizarre hypothesis that lorry drivers should be allowed to kill cyclists if they happen to be in their way?

It really, really worries me that you are allowed to drive an HGV. Only now am I starting to understand why HGV drivers kill so many cyclists.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Sara_H wrote:

She's in a lane marked straight on / left. She's not indicating left, which signals her intention to go straight on. How is that not clear?

She is pulled so far over to the side of the road that it is not explicit. As I said previously you don't see too many cyclists use arm signals to indicate wherever they are. The driver has a 50-50 as to which way she is going. Just to make it explicit for Jacknorrel, the driver makes a mistake in his judgement, and is not driving well, but she at no point provides an indication to anyone what she is doing.

As I said the infrastructure is partly to blame here. I agree in principle what you say, but I think there are a number of confusing elements for cyclists and motorists. If she takes the lane and puts herself in a prominent position, or even pulling into the next lane it is 100% explicit where she wants to go.

Motorists will always try to get past slow moving vehicles as quickly as possible and by taking position she would prevent that from happening, because by moving out from the curb there is no doubt she is carrying straight on. If she indicates her intent to other motorists she is much safer. Motorists don't want to kill cyclists, and if they know what you are doing they usually respond well.

Are you utterly mad or completely blind? Watch the video again. Then appreciate why the courts convicted the driver.

Why do you keep supporting your bizarre hypothesis that lorry drivers should be allowed to kill cyclists if they happen to be in their way?

It really, really worries me that you are allowed to drive an HGV. Only now am I starting to understand why HGV drivers kill so many cyclists.

I'm not sure why I am responding. You clearly are the mad one. The cyclist in the video was not killed. There is nothing in the video I can see that says the driver was convicted. I can see no reason for a conviction given that the van driver did not hit the girl - there was no accident, just an incident which could have ended more seriously. Points and a warning maybe, so I think it is you who is mad and mistaken.

Never have I said that the van driver is in the right. Never have I said anyone should be allowed to be killed. You are mad mad mad. I would suggest you go away and rethink your life if you think writing your drivel has any purpose.

People like you 'pop up' on these forums just to abuse other people with your own prejudices and fears and don't care to properly engage add to the discussion.

Sara_H wrote:

She's in a lane marked straight on / left. She's not indicating left, which signals her intention to go straight on. How is that not clear?

Watching her position right beside the curb, actually with a slight deviation towards the left as the approaches the intersection I would definitely have predicted that she was going left.

The driver is at fault for an unsafe turn, but the cyclist definitely did not help matters with her position on the road.

Umm, cyclist ahead and it is quote "not clear what she is doing" then couldn't the truck driver just slow down, and wait to see what she is doing instead of clearly putting her life at risk? Do you really think not being sure what someone is doing is a good enough reason to kill someone??? In that situation I wouldn't dream of overtaking and turning left because of the clear risk to the cyclists life.

The case went to court and the driver was found guilty of careless driving

Gaz who took the video has written it up here:

http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/rx11axp-result/

CameronB wrote:

This wasn't the cyclists fault! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZCS3FLgYWM

I watched this until Gaz starts to shout (reminds me too much of myself; I always regret shouting at people, but I still do it because fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.) The lady is not *really* at fault but a better position might have help. But it is not really down to cyclists to be moving out to avoid left hooks, moving out here could have been just as bad.

The real question I have is, why does this divergent/diagonal junction even exist? Are there a lot of junctions like this in London? As it seem like trouble having this kind of corner which can be taken at speed. 90degree turns are good enough elsewhere. Perhaps London's medieval layout needs to be reviewed to eliminate junctions like this.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

A video view of CS2 for those who haven't cycled on it (yet).

Three of the five cyclists killed recently in London died on or near Cycle Superhighway 2, a cycle-path route running from Aldgate in the City to Stratford in the east of the capital. Rigged with a camera mounted on his helmet and another on his bike, Peter Walker rides the route. It takes in some of London's worst cycle infrastructure – lorry-choked roads and just a blue-painted lane for protection – and the best, with a new, fully segregated section at the end.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2013/nov/15/cyclist-london...

Quite a good little video (I didn't want to like it, especially the way he began by parking himself next to busy traffic). The thing that struck me was that he hits the nail on the head early on when he says 'quite scary for a novice cyclist'. He navigates it perfectly well, but that is because of his experience.

The CS is a sham of blue paint. Though I'm not sure why the Bow roundabout is so troublesome except that there is lots of traffic queued up. The problem comes when as a novice you trust the CS markings and they lead you into parked cars and other scenarios which require experience and judgement.

Education is ultimately the key. But people should be dissuaded from using this CS stuff unless they know what they are doing.

Cycle lanes and segregated roads can't make up for cycle education.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

A video view of CS2 for those who haven't cycled on it (yet).

Three of the five cyclists killed recently in London died on or near Cycle Superhighway 2, a cycle-path route running from Aldgate in the City to Stratford in the east of the capital. Rigged with a camera mounted on his helmet and another on his bike, Peter Walker rides the route. It takes in some of London's worst cycle infrastructure – lorry-choked roads and just a blue-painted lane for protection – and the best, with a new, fully segregated section at the end.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2013/nov/15/cyclist-london...

Quite a good little video (I didn't want to like it, especially the way he began by parking himself next to busy traffic). The thing that struck me was that he hits the nail on the head early on when he says 'quite scary for a novice cyclist'. He navigates it perfectly well, but that is because of his experience.

The CS is a sham of blue paint. Though I'm not sure why the Bow roundabout is so troublesome except that there is lots of traffic queued up. The problem comes when as a novice you trust the CS markings and they lead you into parked cars and other scenarios which require experience and judgement.

Education is ultimately the key. But people should be dissuaded from using this CS stuff unless they know what they are doing.

Cycle lanes and segregated roads can't make up for cycle education.

I'm no novice on London's roads, I know what I'm doing and this changes nothing, CS2 is f****g dangerous and the close passes that just can't be avoided are scary, take primary - they'll still do it to punish you for taking primary.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

A video view of CS2 for those who haven't cycled on it (yet).

Three of the five cyclists killed recently in London died on or near Cycle Superhighway 2, a cycle-path route running from Aldgate in the City to Stratford in the east of the capital. Rigged with a camera mounted on his helmet and another on his bike, Peter Walker rides the route. It takes in some of London's worst cycle infrastructure – lorry-choked roads and just a blue-painted lane for protection – and the best, with a new, fully segregated section at the end.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2013/nov/15/cyclist-london...

I emailed Delphi Foods regarding the vehicle that passed within a couple of feet of the rider:

"We are currently taking this issue up with the Peter Walker at The Guardian, who published this misrepresentation of Delphi Foods."

William Black wrote:

I emailed Delphi Foods regarding the vehicle that passed within a couple of feet of the rider:

"We are currently taking this issue up with the Peter Walker at The Guardian, who published this misrepresentation of Delphi Foods."

Farking hell.

Not the most reputable of companies by the look of it....
http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Regulation/Food-firm-faces-120k-fine-af...

That video is really helpful for those of us living outside the UK. It gives all these reports a bit more context.