CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 19 min ago

Re: Taking a bike on a train

25 February 2015 - 8:13pm
Must congratulate a Merseyrail train driver on 12th Feb I was getting a local train in to Liverpool, as it was late it was quite full, and a cyclist (with bike!) getting off wished me luck as it was packed. Another two bikes got on before me, so I told driver I would wait for next train ( no prob. for me would have been a 10 min wait plus my mate was on that train.) with that the driver got out of compartment and asked standing passengers to 'move along' thus making plenty of room for three bikes.
I have noticed, similar to buses, passengers prefer to congregate near exit doors and stand next to bikes, even when seats are available. Some even sit on seats where bike designated area is!!

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 7:54pm
I can't help thinking that some people on this forum think that it is a cyclist's right to ride on a road in traffic without any degree of skill or care.
Hmm Perhaps i could have phrased it better.

The point I am making is that in order to cycle safely, you do actually need to display a degree of skill and care. If not, then what about when you come across a pedestrain? Are you not supposed to be able to behave safely around them. Even allowing for that, you cannot have completely incompetent people moving around on bikes and expect everyone on four (or two motorised) wheels to be wholly responsible for avoiding the consequences of their unsafe actions (I'll say once again, I am not directly relating this statement to this accident as we don't know exactly what happened). I am not suggesting that every cyclist is going to need the skill and experience that I suspect most people on this forum possess. But they do have to behave on the roads safely: Going up the inside of a moving, indicating lorry ought to be self-evidently dangerous, you don't need 30 years and 50,000 miles of cycling to appreciate that this is so.

EDIT: The reason why you have to accept that the cyclist in this sort of incident need to accept some part of the responsibilty is because it has been reported (although I don't know if it has been statistically proven) that these sort of incidents happen disproportionally more to female cyclists. If that is the case then it would help to stop it happening if we could find out why. This may involve in the cyclists being in some way responsible...Or it may not, but you won't help matters if you just insist that none of it can ever be even partially due to the actions of the cyclist.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 7:49pm
We don't have blame someone in order to find a way to prevent it from happening again.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 7:45pm
Where I work is on a one way system, the council have supplied a safe cycle route through the area, restricted speed and directed traffic to not use some access into the system. Every day dozens of vehicle make an illegal right hand turn (including police vehicles) because they don't think it matters/can't see the point/reached the junction in error. We also see quite regularly vehicles driving through a well signposted no entry for reasons best known to the drivers. These actions have so far not resulted in death or injury as they generally occur at low speeds.

However its the 'cyclists' travelling through the area that are the biggest issue riding, often at elevated speeds, the wrong way through the main junction, jumping pavements, even waiting for a gap to ride the wrong way into the traffic. It's a wonder none have been killed, its probably a matter of time, a quick survey reveals they are mostly commuters with 'all the kit' making this dangerous manoeuvre every weekday. The cycle route would add maybe 30 seconds onto their journey.

The motorised traffic and self propelled both show different levels of stupidity. We should not automatically blame the motorised driver if there is an accident involving a bike, yes they are often at fault but not always, sometimes cyclists are b******y stupid! Better training for new drivers, training for all schoolchildren and maybe coppers doing more than strolling around talking about last nights match could make some difference. But you can't train/legislate for stupid.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 7:29pm
danhopgood wrote:taking account of the sometimes conflicting requirements of safety, cost and keeping the country moving
For the most part despite how drivers behave it isn't cyclists or pedestrians who are stopping them moving, it's the car in front - and that's usually sat in a queue.
Doesn't stop drivers from trying to get past, or turning into a road pedestrians are already crossing with hand on horn etc. The reality of it is drivers need 'reigning in', slowly but surely as their numbers have increased they've taken a ever increasing 'cut' of other peoples share to the point now where they feel it's OK to park in cycle lanes or on pavements or use their vehicles in aggressive ways intended to intimidate and for what? To get to the next queue a few seconds earlier?

Re: CAMS (Cycle Accident Management Service - Help!

25 February 2015 - 7:14pm
In my thankfully limited experience of accident claims solicitors, the quality of the service you get depends more on the individual handling your claim than the name above the door. I've had both outstanding and appalling service from the same company. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to require one again, I'll choose someone local with a good reputation.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 7:11pm
horizon wrote:I can't help thinking that some people on this forum think that it is a lorry firm's right to deliver goods in a patently unsafe vehicle without any degree of skill or care.

Not at all. But as we don't live in a perfect world the better skilled that cyclists are the fewer accidents they will be involved in. It isn't a difficult concept.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:40pm
horizon wrote:I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).

The problem is AFAIK that the cyclist rode up the inside of a left indicating lorry which had started it's manoeuvre.
What we don't know is if the driver checked his mirrors and or camera(s) before turning and having check(presuming he did)signalled then began the manoeuvre.
If the lorry had to stop mid manoeuvre,is it then reasonable for the driver to carry one driving without checking again.
If the lorry didn't stop should the driver continually keep checking his mirrors and or camera(s) or should his/her focus be to the front of the vehicle,considering there's more chance of pedestrians or other vehicles being in that direction.

FWIW,I see the argument for a banksman or co driver,but also think realistically the chances of such a law being implemented to be slim in the extreme if at all.
I also agree that the lorry driver should as all drivers should, be vigilant and careful of other road users,however is it reasonable under the present system that at some point the driver after satisfying himself it is safe to carry out the manoeuvre to continue?
There comes a time when the driver has to commit to continuing and after satisfying him/herself it's safe carries on.
If in the meantime someone cycles upto the inside of such a left turning and left indicating lorry,questions need to be asked of that cyclist's capability of using the road IMO.
I take the points raised that pedestrians and licence free vehicles have,for want of a better word, priority and that motor vehicles are only licensed,but we can't have a situation where pedestrians and cyclists have no responsibilities both to themselves and others IMHO that is reasonable.

Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.
The problem here is AFAICS that we have human beings operating such machines that can cause those consequences,and whilst we do there will be mistakes made by either party,the problem is then one of fault.
If a driver of such a vehicle has made all necessary checks,is conforming to all the rules,is diligent and careful in his/her driving duties and conforming to the letter and spirit of the law,if someone should step out into and under the wheels of their vehicle.
Would it then be the driver who was at fault?

Re: CAMS (Cycle Accident Management Service - Help!

25 February 2015 - 5:55pm
We loathe and detest these claims management companies who have for the last few years been a royal pain in the neck with unsolicited calls following a minor bump my wife had in her car. We keep telling them that everything has been settled and not to phone us back or pass our details on but they still do. On a few occasions I have taken to be very rude to them as polite reasoned requests seem to fall on deaf ears - pox on the lot of them.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:51pm
danhopgood wrote:
So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?

Lorry drivers would be prosecuted if:

They drove without an assistant in a built-up area
They drove a vehicle more than x feet long/wide/high in a built-up area
They drove without the required safety equipment such as mirrors etc

I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:47pm
danhopgood wrote:kwackers wrote:danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
As a pedestrian I long for the days drivers obey the rules. Rule 170 would be a good start.

And as a vehicle user I like pedestrians who obey Rule 7D.
Moral equivalence again (please look it up). Have you read the HC? How many of those rules for pedestrians say MUST? Do you understand the significance of this omission?

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:37pm
danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
Most of these rules do not have the force of legislation behind them. When they do, it will list the particular legislation that applies, such as 16

Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.
Law RTA 1988 sect 26

Many of the rules for motor vehicles, on the other hand, do have the force of legislation behind them.

Roads are, for the most, parts rights of way established for the passage of people. Pedestrians and cyclists have a clear and defined right to be there. Motor vehicles are only there by licence.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:35pm
horizon wrote:pwa wrote:Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....

pwa: we agree on this. Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.

So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:32pm
Horizon

I suspect that if we worked on it we would find that we kind of agree on lots of things. I'm not against guards on the sides of lorries, better infrastructure at busy junctions and anything that makes things safer without stopping people going about their daily business. Things can and should be improved. But if one of my teenage kids said they were cycling around a busy city tomorrow I would want them to be 100% sure in their own minds that trying to pass any vehicle on the left when it is indicating left and has started turning left is an absolute no no.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:18pm
kwackers wrote:danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
As a pedestrian I long for the days drivers obey the rules. Rule 170 would be a good start.

And as a vehicle user I like pedestrians who obey Rule 7D.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:11pm
pwa wrote:Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....

pwa: we agree on this. Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 4:57pm
Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 4:55pm
danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
As a pedestrian I long for the days drivers obey the rules. Rule 170 would be a good start.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 3:15pm
The article referred to re. hierarchy of control relates to experience in the construction industry. The step change in safety there in my view is largely due to the award or otherwise of construction contracts for public sector clients based partly on the previous RIDDOR reportable accident safety record of the companies concerned - which by law has to be recorded. Thus there is a very big carrot (more work) for "safe" companies and a big stick (no work) for those that don't perform. Applying the hierarchy of control is largely done already on managing roads, through safety audits of design through to recommendations of wearing of PPE for those at greatest risk. What's missing from road safety is the big carrot and stick.

Re: How to complain about bad driving.

25 February 2015 - 3:04pm
I've not forgotten to update here about my experience. It's still on going but I must say pulling my own teeth out feels like less hassle than what I'm going through now. Things are definitely not as simple as described in the opening post. However, it has been a few years since so may be times have changed with procedures and processes. Watch this space.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions