back to article UK safety app keeping lorries on the right side of cyclists

A route-planning app that will help lorries avoid left-hand turns – manoeuvres responsible for the majority of road deaths among cyclists – is being piloted in a scheme funded by the government's Transport Systems Catapult. PIE Mapping, a British company which already delivers route-planning products to hauliers, is developing …

  1. hplasm Silver badge
    Facepalm

    100M£

    To stop stupid* cyclists from getting squashed?

    *Trying to squeeze between a 20tonne truck and anything is stupid.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      When they were handing out empathy

      I was in the queue for self righteousness getting seconds.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 100M£

      You sir, are a complete idiot. I am both a cyclist and a motorist. Not many cyclists are "Trying to squeeze between a 20 tonne truck". In fact, I was nearly killed recently by a van driver who accelerated aggressively up a road, caught up with me exactly at a left hand junction, and swung a left directly in to my path. I believe he was on his phone. I wasn't trying to squeeze between anything.

      When I am driving I don't swerve into cycle lanes, I double check my left mirror, and I indicate. Unfortunately a lot of motorists don't do this.

      This is not to say there aren't some idiot cyclists. There are. But your sweeping statement comes from a position of pure naivety.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        Re: 100M£

        There are two main problems with cyclists and motorists on the road.

        The first is drivers of vehicles who don't use their left hand mirror. We've all seen examples of motorists failing to use their mirrors properly even when cyclists aren't about. They think it's an optional extra or something you use to make sure they're looking good.

        The second problem is cyclists themselves. Any idiot can waltz up to Halfords, buy a bike and set off. They may have never been on the road in any capacity other than a bus, and think they can use both the pavements and the road whenever it suits them. Oh, and those traffic lights are for motorists only apparently.

        My point of view is that anyone who uses the road must have a license to do so, to indicate some level of training. Drivers of cars, mopeds, trucks, buses etc all must have licenses and insurance. Cyclists, even though they are supposed to use the road and not use the pavement, are exempt from this. Which is stupid. My point of view has been compounded by a few incidents where the cyclist caused me to change direction or stop - thankfully not resulting in any damage.

        First incident was driving in the town and I came up to a T-junction. No lights etc. I'm slowing down to stop at the give way, and this f**king idiot of a w****r on a bastard BMX nearly went in to the side of my car bonnet. He was on the pavement doing some daft speed (this was at the foot of a hill). Then the moron waved me on. He, waved, me, on. As much to say "after you fella". No helmet or anything. And another incident not involving me but happened to a friend was when he came up to a roundabout, looked right to see if anything was coming, there wasn't proceeded to drive forward when he hit a cyclist. The woman, wearing nothing more than a dress (so no helmet) decided it was a good idea to cycle on the road, anti-clockwise around the roundabout.

        The idea to train motorists to respect cyclists is a good idea, but it shouldn't be the only idea. It should be mandatory for cyclists to undergo proper instruction and have a license and insurance. It's only fair, and can at least mean education is being delivered to every single user of the road.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 100M£

          So I need a license to walk along a public road? Pedestrians are road users as well. There is a reason motor vehicles require a license. Because they are bloody dangerous. Maybe all pedestrians should have insurance in case they bump into some one? Should we also stamp a license plate on people's arms ? You were doing so well until you jumped onboard the usual car fetishists bandwagon.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: 100M£

            "There is a reason motor vehicles require a license. Because they are bloody dangerous."

            Maybe not pedestrians, but cyclists under and overtaking all the cars sticking to posted 20mph limits maybe need to get a clue that the law applies to them too. Especially in university towns where the 20mph limit is posted because it's a student area. Cyclists colliding with pedestrians can result in serious injury and death too, especially when they go straight through a red light.

            Fortunately, most cyclists aren't that stupid. Apart from the one I saw yesterday who gave me the finger because I beeped my horn at him. Maybe if he'd used the cycle lane based on the side of the road he was on and looked at the pretty pictures of bicycles painted on the surface and noticed they were upside down he might have realised I was attempting to save his life by suggesting he ride of the correct side of the road.

            1. Terry Barnes

              Re: 100M£ John Brown

              "Maybe not pedestrians, but cyclists under and overtaking all the cars sticking to posted 20mph limits maybe need to get a clue that the law applies to them too."

              Actually in that particular case it doesn't. Speed limits apply specifically to motor vehicles only, there are no speed limits for cyclists, pedestrians, horses or horse-drawn vehicles.

              That's a different issue from whether riding too fast is a good idea or not, but legally there's no obligation to keep to a speed limit.

              1. Lars Silver badge
                Coat

                Re: 100M£ John Brown

                "Actually in that particular case it doesn't. Speed limits apply specifically to motor vehicles only, there are no speed limits for cyclists, pedestrians, horses or horse-drawn vehicles."

                I wonder if that is actually true everywhere, and why should it. The reason I wonder is that I remember a cyclist in Norway being fined for doing more than 50km/h when the limit was 50.

              2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: 100M£ John Brown

                "Actually in that particular case it doesn't. Speed limits apply specifically to motor vehicles only, there are no speed limits for cyclists, pedestrians, horses or horse-drawn vehicles."

                Thanks. I honestly didn't know that. Or if I did it was many years ago and long forgotten in favour of "common knowledge" :-)

        2. Phil Lord

          Re: 100M£

          Well, pedestrains are road users as well, so do they need a license?

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 100M£

          'Mopeds'. These have hardly been seen in this country since the 70s. What I think you mean are step-through scooters, which are significantly more powerful than mopeds ... and can be ridden legally on a 'Learner' license without ever passing a proper riding test. These are often ridden by frustrated car drivers on their car license (which is why the L plate). Such people often have no training on two wheels at all, which is why you see them overtaking illegally on the zig zag lines at crossings all the time.

          'Cyclists'. Ok you've had a shitty experience involving someone on a bike - probably more than one experience I'm assuming, so therefore all cyclists in your view a 'f**king idot w****rs' are they? Nice one. There plenty of people who ride bikes who are sensible and respect the road, but unfortunately those such as you have described are the ones who stand out. I've had plenty of shitty experiences on my bike vs motorised vehicles - such as the black cabbie who turned left across me recently with no left indicator having overtaken me from behind ... and then yelled at me for getting in his way. I don't think bad of all car drivers just because of this dick. In fact, I am a car driver myself quite often as are a lot of cyclists - very few people stick to a single mode of transport.

          'Training'. The many cycle campaign groups such as the LCC do in fact run regular training sessions for new cyclists. You can see them at strategic cycle commuting spots all over London, offering their bike check and training services to commuters.

          'Red Lights'. Jumping red lights in the 90s used to be the preserve of a dispatch rider. Depressingly the increasing numbers of converted car drivers are copying them, thinking its the done thing and abusing their new found freedom. Those of us who have been on the roads any length of time know why this is stupid and wait patiently at the lights along with the cars ... I tell you though, the ASB (advance stopping box) designed to keep cyclists safe is a scary place to be when the lights go green and the horde of motorbikes, cars and other larger vehicles are stuck behind you wanting to get going!

          'Insurance'. Actually more people than you probably think do have insurance. People such as your BMX idiot would never have it even if it were mandatory though.

          'Road Tax'. Cyclists are tax payers the same as everyone else and therefore do contribute to the upkeep of the roads. Car/Van/Truck drivers fairly pay extra because these significantly larger vehicles occupy most of the road and indeed are more or less the only users of the 'open road'. Cycles are largely confined to the urban environments (although obviously with the exception of the minority road cycling community.)

          'Cycle Superhighway'. STOP. Can we please end this madness immediately. Why should bikes be confined to a narrow path where you can't comfortably and safely overtake other cycles, and on a painted blue surface which becomes slippery in wet weather??

    3. Terry Barnes

      Re: 100M£

      You don't understand how the deaths are happening. A cyclist stops at a red light in the cycle lane. A lorry pulls alongside them. The lights change. The cyclist goes forward, the lorry turns left and the cyclist is crushed between the lorry and the railings.

      My approach to avoiding this situation is to go past the stop line, far enough forward of the lorry that I'm in the driver's line of sight. It's illegal but it's much safer. Advance stop boxes for cyclists are an attempt to formalise this behaviour.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 100M£

        I cycle to work daily. I strongly believe that advanced stop lines are a very bad thing, because they are usually accompanied by a cycle lane on the left side of the road. This encourages cyclists to think that it's OK to overtake cars on the left and then turn right. Why is this a bad thing? Because there's a significant minority of cyclists who don't understand that you should *never* do this unless the cars next to you are stationary. Otherwise, you've got cyclists trying to turn right across the path of cars which are trying to turn left.

        Overtaking moving traffic on the left to be able to turn right is self nomination for a Darwin award, so far as I'm concerned. If you're turning right and want to live, you should use the correct lane on the approach to a junction, especially if you're a cyclist, not protected by a big metal box.

        Making lorry drivers travel further to reduce cycling deaths is a pollution to our problem. (Apologies to Goscinny and Uderzo for stealing that one).

        If the problem is cyclists passing lorries on the left, then it is clearly the cyclists who need to change their behaviour. If, however, the problem is lorries stopping beside cyclists and then turning left and crushing them, cyclists should stop in the middle of the left hand lane at junctions so that lorries can't stop beside them. (I offer a solution with no extra pollution...)

        1. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: 100M£

          Making lorry drivers travel further to reduce cycling deaths is a pollution to our problem. (Apologies to Goscinny and Uderzo for stealing that one).

          I believe more can be solved by education of both the vehicle drivers and the cyclists than what seems to be proposed.

          Here in the States, USP and FedEx have both found that careful planning such that their drivers do minimal crossing of the on-coming traffic lanes saves fuel and lowers accident rates. Other truck/lorry companies are also finding it to their advantage. If it was mandated to make those vehicle cross the oncoming traffic lanes the fuel usage, pollution, and accident rates would go up.

          From my viewpoint as a cyclist and motorist, both carry blame. Too many cyclists think they own the road. Well, maybe, but it's better to get the hell out of the way of an inattentive driver than to be dead right.

          I expect downvotes from the "avid" cyclists who will inevitability bash about any motoring person.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 100M£ @ Terry Barnes

        Your approach is wrong and arrogant. GET BEHIND THE TRUCK instead of next to it. GET IN LINE like all the other motor vehicles on the road.

        YOU ARE STILL A MOTOR VEHICLE even if you ride a bicycle. I don't care if you are human powered or not.

        You don't have any right to cut THEM off by slipping in next to them and expect that they will see you. THE BIGGEST VEHICLE should always have the right of way. You are just a flyspeck next to a 50 ton roadhauling vehicle. Don't tempt fate and don't assume you can be seen as they cannot see well from the cab.

        Your actions are exactly why many motorists find cyclists to be a road hazard, if not pretentious twats.

        1. Terry Barnes

          Re: 100M£ @ Terry Barnes

          I think you need to stop shouting.

          You seem to have missed the point about the cycle lane. The specific lane, that's there, for bikes to use. How am I cutting anyone off by being at the front of the queue in the lane that's there, for me?

          How am I tempting fate - I believe I explained that I position myself so that I can be seen, and I confirm it by making eye contact with the driver.

          I have no idea how you expect me to get behind a truck that has pulled up alongside me. Do you think I should try and ride backwards, past the nine or ten cyclists queued behind me and then try and force my way into the gap between the back of the truck and the vehicle behind it?

          Perhaps a bit less shouting and bit more thinking might help you? Maybe try getting some exercise?

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: 100M£ @ Terry Barnes @Terry Barnes

            You are not expected to get behind a truck that has pulled up alongside you.

            A truck pulling up alongside you has already seen you through his front windscreen and knows you are there.

            The dangerous scenario is a different one, when the truck driver has moved into a visibly empty piece of road at a junction, and a cyclists has joined him afterwards without his knowledge and is waiting out of sight. That cyclist should know that he is taking a bigger than normal risk.

        2. Phil Lord

          Re: 100M£ @ Terry Barnes

          There are a number of problems with this theory. "behind" is where all the pollution comes from, which is not very nice. And "in the middle" is one of the least safe places to be, because you can get crushed between two vehicles when they come to a stop. And, finally, unless you block the lane, in the middle, you can still get killed at the left hand turn, because everybody will try and overtake you before you get there when the traffic moves off.

          So, the safest place to be on a bike is at the front. You have no one in front of you, so you can get rear ended, but only by drivers going over the red light *and* you cannot get crushed. You can get around the left hand corner before the cars (since bikes accelerate faster than most cars and all lorries). And you get cleaner air.

          The problem, of course, is that you have to get to the front, which means going up the left or the right. So, it's always a gamble -- shall I pass this bus on the left where I will be much less safe, so I can get to the front where I will be much safer. It's a problem.

          Still, I agree the alternative, that we are pretentious twats and a road hazard, rather than mothers, fathers and children trying to stay alive, is equally likely.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "right of way"

          "THE BIGGEST VEHICLE should always have the right of way."

          I realise you're probably trolling, but for the benefit of others, and with the caveat that it's a while since I checked...

          The only place where "right of way" applies in the UK is at zebra crossings, where pedestrians have right of way over vehicles.

          In every other circumstance, "right of way" does not apply. Other rules may have similar effects, e.g. not passing a red traffic light.

        4. Triggerfish

          Re: 100M£ @ Ac

          I think you are reading this wrong he was in line, the truck would be behind him and should stay behind him, instead it pulls up alongside him. This is why the suggestion of taking up the whole lane in front of the truck proposed by someone else on here is a solution to that.

          I have to say as well as someone who cycles, drives and has been on motorbikes. There's a big attitude with some motorists in the UK that make riding unsafe it's almost like they resent people who are not driving so much they do irrational things that put the cyclist/motorcyclist at risk. Seriously I feel safer riding a motorbike in parts of SEA compared with riding bikes on some English roads.

        5. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Bassey

        Re: 100M£

        I actually have an easier approach than that. Just stop in the middle of the road. Become a part of the flow of normal traffic until you feel safe to move back into the cycle lane. I'd rather be 6 cars back from the red lights but in the middle of the traffic, where I feel an element of control, than right up front but overshadowed by someone who I cannot know whether they have seen me or not.

        Cyclists utter obsession with getting ahead of traffic at junctions does them no favours. It pisses off every other motorist and puts them in dangerous situations.

        1. tomban

          Re: 100M£

          >> Cyclists utter obsession with getting ahead of traffic at junctions does them no favours. It pisses off every other motorist and puts them in dangerous situations.

          How about the motorists utter obsession with getting ahead of the cyclist travelling at 25mph in a 30, and then cutting them up?

          I have numerous videos of motorist doing exactly that to me.

          It would appear that training, licence and insurance does not actually make them better at driving.

        2. Stuart 22

          Re: 100M£

          "Cyclists utter obsession with getting ahead of traffic at junctions does them no favours. It pisses off every other motorist and puts them in dangerous situations."

          The whole point of commuting by bike is to get there faster. A bonus is it costs less, keeps you fit, causes less obstruction overall to motor vehicles and kills fewer people.

          If I have to stay in line with cars (10x my width) then I might as well use my car. But if we all did this then the congestion would be much worse and you would be stuck fuming in your car for even longer. Who would you take out your frustration on then?

          You have my sympathy - driving cars in cities today is bound to make you feel angry.

          1. Bassey

            Re: 100M£

            > The whole point of commuting by bike is to get there faster. A bonus is it costs less, keeps you fit,

            > You have my sympathy - driving cars in cities today is bound to make you feel angry.

            Actually, I hardly ever drive and almost never in cities (pisses me off too much). I either run or cycle. And, in my view, the "whole point" is to arrive on time. But at least we all now know what type of cyclist YOU are.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 100M£

        Advance stop lines appear to be ignored by most drivers. When I've pointed this out to offending Taxis, Buses, White Vans etc, they try the "the lights changed after I crossed the line" - I'm amazed at the reactions these drivers have.

        The kinds of drivers that are likely to squash a cyclist are not the ones that are going to use an app that pessimises (opposite of optmises) their journey.

        It's a shame that there's no political will to bring in more segregated cycle lanes.

      5. billat29

        Re: 100M£

        Terry Barnes - do you understand that when you wait in that box at the front of the lane at the traffic lights the lorry driver immediately behind still can't see you??

        1. captain veg

          Re: 100M£

          The actual problem has been touched upon by a few commentards. I struggle to comprehend how it is legal to drive a vehicle from which you cannot see your immediate surroundings.

          Not so long ago I saw a talking head on the box explaining that these lorries were designed for thrunning along all day on motorways, not negotiating city streets. So what are they doing on those city streets?

          -A.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: GLC HGV ban

            "a talking head on the box explaining that these lorries were designed for thrunning along all day on motorways, not negotiating city streets. "So what are they doing on those city streets?"

            And not only that, the streets in most UK towns and cities weren't designed for use by HGVs of recent decades, HGVs which as well as the inevitable diesel pollution frequently also cause traffic chaos as they attempt to negotiate twisty narrow streets and corners while they deliver their shelf full of bread to Tesburys Express.

            But that's fighting talk, that is.

            Look where it got Ken Livingstone when he (entirely reasonably) suggested that HGVs were not welcome in the GLC area unless specifically authorised to be within it.

            You, and he, are of course perfectly correct. But not going to be very popular.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Conor Turton

            Re: 100M£

            Not so long ago I saw a talking head on the box explaining that these lorries were designed for thrunning along all day on motorways, not negotiating city streets. So what are they doing on those city streets?

            Delivering the shit that you buy.

        2. Adam 52 Silver badge

          Re: 100M£

          The construction and use regs say  "Every motor vehicle shall be so designed and constructed that the driver thereof while controlling the vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road and traffic ahead of the motor vehicle."

          so if the driver can't see the cycles in front then they shouldn't be driving. I believe there have been some failed prosecutions.

          1. SImon Hobson Silver badge

            Re: 100M£

            > "Every motor vehicle shall be so designed and constructed that the driver thereof while controlling the vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road and traffic ahead of the motor vehicle."

            Well yes, even the worst of the truck has a full view ahead - but not down to the road immediately below the front bumper ! That is the case with (almost) every vehicle I know of - there is some dead spot between the "horizon" where visibility is cut off by the bonnet or bottom of the windscreen and the road below the bumper.

            In practical terms, to "cure" this for large vehicles would mean making the vehicle even larger - moving the "oily bits" further back so the drivers cab can be mounted lower down. Since vehicle lengths are limited (both by law and practicality in towns/cities), making the "front end" bigger means less load carrying space and so more trucks on the road.

            >> I wonder if that is actually true everywhere, and why should it

            Well actually it is true in the UK - a vehicle which is not required by law to carry a speed measuring device (ie speedometer) cannot be prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit. It's a matter of practicality since the driver generally cannot (in law) be expected to accurately know his speed.

            There is however, for a bicycle rider, the offence of "furious riding" which could be applied. But of course, to apply that you'd have to catch them at it - since there are no number plates to identify the vehicle by.

            NB - good luck getting to where I work without turning left, it's on the left on a one-way street !

      6. LucreLout Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: 100M£ @Terry Barnes

        You are of course correct, but you're telling only half the story.

        The other way this accident occurs is that the truck arrives at the lights, sans cyclists, and is indicating left. Cyclists then arrive and pass down the left of the truck not realising the driver has not and often cannot see them. The lights change and everyone sets off, the cyclist aims straight ahead and the truck aims left. Sometimes the cyclist hasn't reached the ASL and is still alongside the truck making progress when the lights change, giving the driver even less chance of seeing them.

        Extended ASL will help (a cyclist at the back of the current ASL may not be visible to a large truck pulled up to its stop line), but so would ensuring cyclists stop when they reach the back of an indicating vehicle, or at least pass it on the opposing side (allowing that it may need to swing wide to make the turn).

        Road safety has to be hollistic (hate the word but it fits) if everyone is going to get home alive. I need to leave you space to make a mistake and you need to reciprocate (for any value of what I'm driving/cycling and what you're driving/cycling). I walk, drive, and (rarely) cycle. I've never driven a truck but appreciate it won't be easy in London.

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: 100M£ @LucreLout

          Well to be honest if the trucks already pulled up and indicating left and you try and get down the side tha'ts pretty much Darwin in action.

          This is from the British Cycling Org website "Filtering up the left hand side of high-sided vehicles is a complete NO. Several cyclists can be situated at the side of the vehicle without being seen by the driver."

          https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques/balance_and_coordination/article/izn20130830-Effective-traffic-riding-part-1-0

      7. Third Electric

        Re: 100M£

        The issue is that TfL and the Metropolitan Police both have campaigns about cyclists making sure they are visible, all the while TfL keeps designing infrastructure that forces cyclists to go up the lefthand side of vehicles, and advanced stop zones that are the exact same size and shape of the blind spot in front of HGV's.

        Met Police 'Exchanging Places': https://youtu.be/UN7mJR64tvs

        HGV blindspot training image: http://www.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large_610x456_scaled/photos/253809.jpg

        Advanced Stop Zone: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0P5bkEYlbMQ/UGGWo_ERyYI/AAAAAAAABUg/gQPjWycBEOg/s1600/2.JPG

        As long as you have this massive disconnect, cyclists will continue to get killed.

    4. Mark Price

      Re: 100M£

      And when the lorry rushes to overtake, and then dives left, is that the cyclists fault too?

  2. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Boffin

    Well meaning...

    ... but to be honest, any cyclist who rides up the inside of a large vehicle at a junction is asking for trouble. Cycle defensively, and you'll avoid most if not all scrapes.

    For the cyclists who still insist on taking the inside track, reflect on the possible consequences

    1. Simon Watson

      Re: Well meaning...

      In case you hasn't noticed, the access lane to the Advance Cycle Box is always on the left. For those that aren't familiar with the concept. the Advance Cycle Box is usually painted green and will have a taxi, bus or lorry parked in it.

    2. MonkeyBob

      Re: Well meaning...

      It's not always the cyclists fault, I've been knocked off my bike more than once by a vehicle over taking and then turning left, fortunately I wasn't hit by the articulated lorry that did this to me.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Well meaning...

      "Any cyclist who rides up the inside of a large vehicle at a junction is asking for trouble."

      The vast majority of times I've been cycling, the large vehicle has come up on the cyclist, not the other way around. I've even been sideswiped by a bus barging past whilst on a roundabout.

      Many large vehicle operators work on the basis of "might makes right. GTFOOMY"

      1. Gordon 10 Silver badge
        Coffee/keyboard

        Abolish the Left Hand Access Lane

        They should do away with the access lanes up that left hand side. They give cyclists a false sense of entitlement that they somehow have a "right" to wander up the side of lorries and buses without stopping to think they are risking life and limb.

        As a daily cyclist I always try to remember to waltz up the side that's safest but the lane markings are very alluring and it only takes a split second decision to get it wrong.

        1. an it guy

          Re: Abolish the Left Hand Access Lane

          Or, do what some countries do and simply install lights for cyclists, but that's costly.

          Yes, cyclists can be incredibly stupid and crawl up the LHS of a big vehicle. Swift movements when you know it's safe is better than being unsure and chancing it. That's where common sense should prevail to be careful and leave room for manoeuver.

          I agree cycling can be faster, make you more fit, but sensible judgement is needed. As others have stated, sometimes it's safer to move up the right hand side, especially if a left-turn signal is indicated, but I guess I'm preaching to some form of choir given the number of comments I can see (85 before posting)

          Note: I also rollerblade on the road and am continually educating cyclists I meet (in person) to not hang completely left as it makes the lane look wide open. Sitting more prominently in a lane and forcing cars to overtake (assuming you're doing a reasonable speed for the road) is much safer, and what's taught to motorcycles who are also be affected by this left hand turning business.

      2. Conor Turton

        Re: Well meaning...

        The vast majority of times I've been cycling, the large vehicle has come up on the cyclist, not the other way around.

        As a truck driver I've lost count of the number of times I've been stopped at a set of traffic lights, the tyres being barely 4 inches from the kerb and looked in my nearside mirror to see a cyclist with their bike leaning on a 45 degree angle scooting up the left hand side of my vehicle even as I'm sat there with FOUR indicators on the left hand side of the vehicle flashing because I'm going to turn left.

        When they're not going up the left side, they're trying to prise their way through the gap in the middle between me and the lane of traffic to their right.

  3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    A good thing in principle, but

    For a cyclist to be killed by a left-turning lorry implies that the cyclist is in the driver's blind spot, and basic defensive driving/cycling would suggest that an aware rider wouldn't get there at a dangerous moment. To put it another way, if I were riding a bike and approaching a junction, I'd make damn sure not to try and pass the lorry on the left just at the corner.

    Like most road "accidents" there's rarely only one party to blame, most of them involve some stupidity or lack of attention on the part of both vehicles involved.

    1. Eponymous Cowherd

      Re: A good thing in principle, but

      Indeed, if you are stupid enough to filter up the inside of a large vehicle at a corner you are asking for it.

      The trouble is that far too often the driver, either due to impatience or inattentiveness, pass the cyclist and then turn immediately left.

      This often happens at lights, particularly were there is an advanced stop box. The lights go green and the impatient driver, irritated at a "bloody cyclist" stopping in front of him or her accelerates past and cuts across left in front them.

    2. Lars Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: A good thing in principle, but

      I like that you mention the "blind spot" and I would like to add that when a car turns a bit to the left the left mirror becoms worthless. Some cyclist soon as they step onto their bike are transformed into feeling like goldarmored knights riding a huge white horse. Pedestrians and cars will stop and bow in awe. Odd thinghs happen in their brains.

      Somebody pointed out that lorries drive for their livelyhood and are in a hurry perhaps. But cyclist hate to stop and put down their foot, as embarrasing as it would be for that knight to dissmantle that horse at every korner. Those cyclist will rather increase the speed to beat the car at the corner or start wobbling on the spot for a while to be able to be first again.

      So give us some more statistics, how many cyclists where run over by a car, how many cyclists run themselves under a car. Incidently if half of the accidents involve lorries every second was not a lorry.

      How many incidents with bikes colliding with bikes and pedestrians.

      What is the relation between pedestrians run over by cars compared to cyclists taking into account the number of pedestrians to cyclists crossing streets.

      I have told my kids that cars see other cars and perhaps pedestrians but not cyclists. Just accept it and stay alive.

      Years ago I knew a nice guy, a boss at a customer of mine. He then was involved in an incident with a car and his bike. The driver lost and this guy won but he was perhaps unable to cheer his victory as he was dead. I wouldn't remember this but there was this dark humor as he was the boss of a company producing bikes, mad behind the wheel of his MB and most likely even madder on his product.

      I was a taxi driver for some years and I can assure you that I am less afraid of cars, trams, trains, lorries, ice, snow, falling treas and earth quaques than of those white horses, and in the dark they are black and the knight feels he is beacon of light in the dark. The only more scary experience I had was a five year old kid who run out in the streed from between parked cars. Fortunately we don't carry guns so I was uable to shoot the mother.

      I have to add, do look into your back mirror when you open your car door, driving into one with a bike is something you will remember too.

      1. Loud Speaker

        Re: A good thing in principle, but

        Lorry drivers are paid by the hour and are not, generally in a hurry - more time is more pay. It is illegal for employers to do anything that might incentivise them to rush. However, cyclists would do well to consider that a large truck is a danger on a similar scale to a dragon of the same weight. 44 ton dragons are very dangerous. Getting within 4 metres is a bad idea, and within 4 inches is insane.

        To those who say "why do we have 40 ton lorries in inner cities?" The answer is, as it always has been, sure they are more dangerous than transit vans, but they are much safer than the 15 vans that would be needed to carry the same load - and also cause massively less pollution.

        As the Green party has rightly pointed out: if we got rid of the people, the pollution would stop!

  4. Stuart 22

    Wrong Solution

    The issue on cyclist deaths in London is a very specific one. Many (most) are caused by a tiny segment of the lorry trade. Specifically those in the construction business. This is believed to be largely caused by the business model. Many driver owned lorries being paid by the load.

    Incentivised to cut corners - literally. But also in maintenance, insurance and licensing. Complemented by H&S saying its not their job to sort and the police choosing not to enforce the law, Some decent lorry operators have greatly reduced incidents through training. But this take time and money. Giving the pirates, the guys who kill, a greater advantage.

    They are not going to buy this kit. Extra cuffs for the police may be a better investment.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wrong Solution

      I don't think it's just London but it's possibly easier to fix in London:

      E.g. Crossrail requires drivers working frequently on the Crossrail project to undergo special cyclist safety training:

      http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/road-safety-information/lorry-driver-training says

      Crossrail’s tough safety requirements for any lorry working on the project is leading to widespread haulage industry changes as goods vehicles across Britain are upgraded with new safety equipment to alert drivers to vulnerable road users.

      Crossrail has trained over 7,000 lorry drivers on how to share safely London’s roads with cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

      Crossrail is also putting cyclists in the driver seat through its ‘exchanging places’ programme to provide an understanding of the blind spots experienced by lorry drivers and working with police to visit schools to help train the next generation of cyclists in road safety and lorry awareness.

      (continues)

      Every frequent lorry driver working on the construction of Crossrail must complete a custom-made course designed in consultation with cycling and road safety campaign groups and the police.

      Crossrail is the first project to mandate that HGVs must have additional safety equipment and driver training to protect cyclists and pedestrians. Thousands of HGVs working on the project have installed more than 20 additional safety items to alert the driver to cyclists and pedestrians and to reduce the risk of serious injury to other road users.

      Where vehicles fail safety checks, the driver and the vehicle are suspended. Deliveries to site can only resume once the driver and a senior manager from the company have re-taken the lorry safety course.

      [Hey look, reminding managers that they need to be accountable. That'll never catch on.]

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Common Sense

    Where did it go?

    If cycling, don't try to get to the very front of a queue, hang 1 vehicle back, then you can see what is going on, and the driver, just may be able to see you.

    If you're a car driver, don't try to go up the inside (right) of an artic at an island.

    Both have a nasty habit of people getting squashed if you don't apply just a little common sense.

    1. Stuart 22

      Re: Common Sense

      "If cycling, don't try to get to the very front of a queue, hang 1 vehicle back, then you can see what is going on, and the driver, just may be able to see you."

      Are you the guy who gave me my first downvote?

      Instead of coming out with this - why not try and understand the real problem? Yes cyclists can be as stupid as anybody else but the killing is done mostly with one type of lorry operator. It isn't even the most challenging vehicles on the roads. Cyclists rarely have issues with the biggest supermarket artics. They are driven well and can even cope with the odd idiotic cyclist.

      The not so stupid cyclist in London is very, very aware of the construction lorry issue. Its the one vehicle you give the maximum clearance possible. But the opposite is not true. Last week I had a skip lorry whizz past close with a heavy chain swinging in the breeze. It was pure luck it didn't take my head off.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Common Sense

      My take as a motorist, cyclist, motorcyclist and licensed HGV driver (large horsebox).

      Some cyclists will and do squeeze up the left hand side of lorries that are waiting and indicating to turn left, even when there is no cycle lane and barely enough room. They will then attempt to out-drag the truck.

      When they are level with the driver door they are invisible with standard mirrors.

      I have an extra mirror to cover that blind spot and a passenger who has the job of checking for suicyclists.

      I wouldn't attempt what they do on my bicycle or on my motorbike.

      The number of cyclists who will now stop and wait in the queue in a safe place is increasing now, thank goodness.

      1. Little Mouse

        Re: Common Sense

        @werdsmith

        +1 for "suicyclists". Never heard that one before, but it does accurately sum up that particular breed of cyclists that we all know and don't love.

      2. TWB

        Re: Common Sense

        Upvote because you seem to be the first reasonable post I have read here.

        I am a cyclist and a driver. As a cyclist I sometime pass on the inside but only if I can see it is going to be safe:-

        Vehicle not indicating left.

        Vehicle's steering wheels are not pointing left.

        Vehicle not about to move off - look for traffic lights, queued traffic ahead etc

        I will not pass a moving vehicle on the left - feels too unsafe to me.

        As a driver and cyclist, I consider all road users might do something daft any moment and make allowances - eye contact - if available - tells you a lot.

        I remember an aquaintance once telling me how fast he got to work on his new fixy - no wonder - he never stopped at lights unlike me.

  6. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Down

    And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

    Cross off the following in the comments to win a prize!

    * It's the cyclists own fault.

    * Cyclists should pay tax and have licences

    * They all jump red lights

    * They should get out of the way of traffic

    * They all wear black and don't have lights

    * They all wear lycra and ride like idiots

    * They should pay to use the road like cars and vans and lorries do

    * Why should we waste money on them which is better spent elsewhere

    * Add your own here for a bonus...

    1. Jimmy2Cows

      Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

      Nothing to do with being anti-cyclist. This "safety" app makes an Everest sized mountain out of an insignificant molehill.

      Not for one second am I belittling anyone's tragic death, but 20 in a year is tiny in comparison to deaths from other traffic accidents, obesity, smoking, alcoholism, cancer, well pretty much everything else you can think of.

      What's to say the suggested alternative routes are any safer? Navigation systems are infamous for trying to send drivers through impossible narrow, low or otherwise inappropriate routes. Will this one be perfect? Not a chance mate.

      How many places can you reach your destination without taking left turns except at roundabouts, without:

      1) Significantly increasing your travel distance

      2) Significantly increasing your journey time

      3) Choosing roads that are inappropriate, not designed for the size and/or weight of lorries.

      4) Shifting congestion elsewhere and causing more accidents because of increased congestion in those other locations.

      This won't solve the almost entirely nonexistent problem, just move it around and create extra problems elsewhere.

      And what about cyclists turning right? They are still as likely to be next to a lorry in a blind spot. Are we to suggest lorries avoid turning right too?

      There's one simple universal rule of the road: assume everyone else is out to get you and is always going to do something really stupid, and drive / ride defensively at all times.

      But no. There's an app for that.

      1. Stuart 22

        Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

        "Not for one second am I belittling anyone's tragic death, but 20 in a year is tiny in comparison to deaths from other traffic accidents, obesity, smoking, alcoholism, cancer, well pretty much everything else you can think of."

        Well that's a lot more than terrorism in the UK and look at the amount of money and police we are prepared to throw at preventing that.

        But the greater issue is that it is this fear of cycling that is the greatest impediment to people who want to cycle to actually do it. Telling them that the risk is infinitely smaller than the life extending benefits doesn't really get through. Hence the obesity, the extra road blocking traffic and its easier to smoke in a car than on a bike.

        The size of the problem is a benefit. Its a tiny fraction of drivers who can be targeted or re-incetivised to make much of the problem go away. It should be easier, cheaper, faster and much less disruptive than trying to change our road infrastructure, redesign vehicles or create an app.

        Its a low cost per life saver - and shouldn't upset the 96% of drivers (and 80% of cyclists who are also drivers). So let's cool the anti-cyclist sentiment. One gets enough of it on the road no matter how well one tries to do the right thing.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

          "Telling them that the risk is infinitely smaller than the life extending benefits doesn't really get through"

          I'm more concerned about PM10s in London than about construction traffic. It's less visible and more deadly.

          1. Stuart 22

            Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

            "I'm more concerned about PM10s in London than about construction traffic. It's less visible and more deadly."

            And apparently more dangerous if you are inside a vehicle creating even more than cycling alongside it. All to do with the re-circulation of air in a confined space.

        2. Jean Le PHARMACIEN

          Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

          "But the greater issue is that it is this fear of cycling that is the greatest impediment to people who want to cycle to actually do it"

          Actually, as an ex-cyclist I found that it was the UK weather and lack of facilities at destination, (i.e. shower).

          Arriving at destination wet/mud spattered; hot and sweaty is not great when changing into work clothes. A shower [paid for of course - seeing as car drivers pay for parking] would make this a good deal better and encourge me to cycle more.

          Re cycling up the inside of trucks etc; I see many d**k cyclists trying to commit suicide. I also see many d**k drivers overtake cyclists close to junctions and cut acrosss them to turn left when waiting all of 15 seconds would be safer. Said d**k drivers do this to other motorists too. I suggest cyclists cycle VERY defensively and perhaps widespread use of car/cycle cams with footage to police can sort/remove the d**k motorists

          1. x 7 Silver badge

            Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

            "Arriving at destination wet/mud spattered;"

            so get some frickin' mudguards. Amazes me, the number of cyclists who ride bikes without guards and then complain when they get shitted up.

        3. Jimmy2Cows

          t'rrists

          Well that's a lot more than terrorism in the UK and look at the amount of money and police we are prepared to throw at preventing that.

          Sadly true. Both problems are insignificant and I don't think we should be throwing so much resources at either.

          While we're at it we should ban wind turbines and rooftop solar because sometimes the maintenance chap falls to his/her death.

          Actually we should just ban them because they're a stupid boondongle that does nothing beneficial for the massive cost, but that's a different subject.

          1. Jimmy2Cows

            Re: t'rrists

            Hmm why the downvotes? I'm not bothered about getting them, but I am curious to hear the rational.

            Was it pointing out that spending billions fighting the insignificant threat of terrorism in this country is a futile waste of money, and is simply security theatre designed to frighten and control the masses...?

            Or was it daring to suggest that solar power in this country is largely useless due to our northern latitude and lack of year round sun, and wind power is equally useless because we mostly have days where there's no wind or too much wind, yet we still invest billions of taxpayer funds to exploit this entirely unreliable energy source?

        4. Jimmy2Cows

          Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

          So let's cool the anti-cyclist sentiment. One gets enough of it on the road no matter how well one tries to do the right thing.

          Not anti cyclist mate. Some road users are utter knobs regardless of the vehicle, and they give the rest a bad name. A minority of cyclists thinking they don't need to obey red lights does not help the perception.

          I'm just pointing out the futility of this safety app. It won't make the slightest difference.

          Defensive driving / cycling is the only way. Self preservation should dictate you don't want to be sat on a bike at a junction next to a cement mixer lorry. At least let the thing pull off first to see where it goes, instead of trying to dash out in the lead because "I'm on a bike and I can get moving faster than you, losers."

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

      Yeah, few subjects in local rags etc. are as polarizing. I always think that people should calm down, and look out for each other, whatever mode of transport they are using. It's dangerous out there.

      However....

      Recently, I've had to make many journeys in my car to a hospital in west London, to collect someone (public transport or cycling is out of the equation, for unpleasant reasons we wont go into). It involves driving down the Earls Court Road / Redcliffe Gardens. Holy. Shit. On the rare occasions the traffic actually moves, it can move quite quickly. I'm astounded at some of the stuff you see people do on a bicycle. I can only assume that some cyclists are literally trying to commit suicide.

      1. Laura Kerr

        Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

        Have to agree with some of that - there are some utter morons careering around London on bikes. A couple of years ago, I was living in Wandsworth and working at London Bridge. I cycled in each day.

        Now, there are thousands of cyclists in the capital, the vast majority of whom are perfectly sane and sensible, if only because they want to make it home alive. But there are still more than a few people who seem to think they're driving a tank when they're out on two wheels, and do some monumentally stupid things. Top of the list was the idiot who nearly went under a black cab at Waterloo because she jumped a red light while gassing on her phone, but Laura's Darwin Award nominees also include the eejit who raced into High Holborn much too fast and rode smack into a traffic island, the bozo who nearly rear-ended a white van because he was tailgating it in the driver’s blind spot, another genius who only saved himself from being squashed by jumping onto the pavement after the artic he was undertaking on the move started to swing left, several more rocket scientists who tried to overtake buses that were already pulling out long before they got near them, and finally a black kid in a black hoodie on a black bike with no lights who jumped the lights near Blackfriars Bridge one rainy night and nearly got flattened. By a big white car with blue flashing lights and 'POLICE' written all over it. That one did make me laugh, I must admit.

        And that was in the space of about nine months riding on one regular route into London, much of which was on a dedicated cycle path. Some of those people might have been morally and even legally in the right, but is that really worth a bent bike and a broken leg, or worse, an early funeral?

    3. Arnold Lieberman

      Re: And here we go with anti-cyclist bingo...

      Have you been round my area then? Edge of town location with a lot of unlit twisty country roads. Beautiful for driving/cycling on during warm summer days but lethal at night when the only way to locate some cyclists is by the reflection of their (no doubt fruity) white headphone cables. More than once have the boy-racers and Mamils come together

  7. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    "getting drivers a street-level cab"

    Now that's an interesting approach I hadn't heard of or considered previously.

    Observation of other road users - and probably my own reactions, too, though I prefer low cars as a rule - seems to suggest that the higher the driver, the less considerate they seem to be of other road users. I wonder if it's just because from a higher vantage point, a lorry driver (or a large 4*4 driver) can see further ahead over other traffic and thinks less of the vehicle immediately in front of him?

    Bringing the cab down to car level might increase the lorry driver's sense of vulnerability, which seems a logical way to persuade them to drive further than four feet from my bumper, as well as allowing them to look sideways...

    Of course, if they feel vulnerable, they might not want to buy the lorries in the first place.

    1. TonyJ Silver badge

      Re: "getting drivers a street-level cab"

      I wonder if it's just because from a higher vantage point, a lorry driver (or a large 4*4 driver) can see further ahead over other traffic and thinks less of the vehicle immediately in front of him?

      Got to say that since I swapped from high performance vehicles to a truck as my needs (hobbies) changed, I drive like much less of a knob than I used to with less speed, less overall 'aggression*' and just generally calmer and better, in less of a hurry.

      *I was never aggressive in the traditional sense of the term but slipped into that expectation that cars in front shouldn't be in my way and would move etc.

    2. graeme leggett

      Re: "getting drivers a street-level cab"

      With a low cab, where does the engine go to? And with a cab in front of the wheels, won't the space taken up at turns increase?

      1. Fonant

        Re: "getting drivers a street-level cab"

        http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-industry-to-adopt-its-safer-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths

        Basically the same way you build a crane lorry, or a rubbish lorry.

    3. Loud Speaker

      Re: "getting drivers a street-level cab"

      There are lorries with street level cabs, they are often used where the vehicle will never go out of town - eg for garbage collection. If you are doing 56mph on a motorway in a vehicle weighing 40 tons, you want to see a LONG way ahead so as to avoid multi-vehicle pileups. That means being high up. But I think you will find very few lorry drivers own their own vehicle, and most have no say in what vehicle they drive.

      Perhaps there is a case for having inner city distribution depots where goods can be moved from artics to electric vehicles for the last mile. The added cost could be acceptable, I don't know. The people whose homes and offices had to be destroyed to make the space might object though.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "freight transfer depots"

        "Perhaps there is a case for having inner city distribution depots where goods can be moved from artics to electric vehicles for the last mile."

        Sounds entirely plausible. Or maybe just-out-of-town, rather than actually in-town. That way the unnecessary HGVs stay out of town, as Ken intended. The "last mile" deliveries could be done by fleets of electric vehicles, perhaps something like an updated LDV Maxus Electric (which didn't quite hit the market in 2008 when the US/UK financial crash helped LDV go under).

        "The people whose homes and offices had to be destroyed to make the space might object though."

        Not a problem. No big need for anyone to move home or office, there'll be plenty of ex-Tesco megasites available in the next few years, sites which already have (or are capable of having) good access, plenty of parking, storage facilities, and plenty of electricity for recharging the vans.

        Job's a good'un. Thanks for the suggestion!

        Which Cabinet minister needs to sort this?

  8. TeeCee Gold badge
    WTF?

    Transport Systems Catapult.

    It looked very promising initially. Low cost, zero emissions and fast too. It's just proving tricky to solve the "sudden stop at the destination" issue....

    Note to Civil Servants: If you play wankword bingo in public, I reserve the right to take the piss unmercifully.

    1. Jimmy2Cows
      Coat

      Solution

      It's just proving tricky to solve the "sudden stop at the destination" issue....

      Just call it what it is, "lithobraking". It sounds cool and most people won't know what the fuck it means.

      You can even put an eco-spin on it: "...featuring environmentally assisted lithobraking at your destination, where some of the energy used in transport is returned to the local environment..."

      Mines the one with the concealed parachute and glide suit.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Solution

        "Mines the one with the concealed parachute and glide suit."

        And the kevlar-reinforced skidpads on the bum?

        1. Jimmy2Cows
          Thumb Up

          @Alan Brown: Kevlar

          yep them's the ones

    2. Spacedman

      I think its a subsidiary of Siobhan Sharpe's Perfect Curve agency. They've coined the word "Imovation" but that's painfully close to "Winbledon". They were probably going to use "Imobility" until someone pointed out how you could read it.

  9. derfer

    The other way

    I thought truck companies optimised routes to turn left? Less time waiting for gaps in traffic to turn etc. so quicker and more economical?

    1. Ol'Peculier

      Re: The other way

      You are right, I'm sure our UPS rep told us they ran, in the States at least, a system to turn right whenever possible.

    2. auburnman

      Re: The other way

      Yeah they've had this for years. Reducing left turns (or turns that don't cross incoming traffic in your country) will inherently increase right turns (turns that DO cross incoming traffic in your country). This just sounds to me like a recipe for INCREASING vehicle collisions unless you're talking about only applying it at a tiny subset of junctions that are cycle accident blackspots* (and even then you'd be better off addressing the problem at the location.)

      *queue someone informing that this is exactly what is suggested and that I didn't RTFA

    3. Velv Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: The other way

      Mythbusters proved this to be true (well, right turns, as it was San Francisco, and it was Kari et al, not Adam and Jamie). Mmmmmmmm, Kari

    4. Lars Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: The other way

      I think Moscow had/has a system where only turning right was/is allowed, I suppose that would be left in the UK.

  10. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

    Perhaps cyclists should stop playing with childrens toys on public roads.

    1. The First Dave

      Quite agree with that one - no problem with people cycling to work etc., but get royally pissed off when I get stuck behind a bunch of sweaty lycra for no good reason. My particular sport is Archery - but I bet they wouldn't be happy if I carried out _my_ sport on the _Public_ road.

      1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

        My sport is paragliding - you should hear the complaints when I land on a motorway!

        1. Triggerfish

          They get pretty pissed off when I do donuts at the local archery course as well tbh.

  11. Haku

    Can we submit our own "DO NOT DRIVE DOWN THIS BIT OF ROAD" requests?

    To stop big ass lorries from trying to traverse through roads that are clearly too narrow for them and as such represent a danger to everyone using/living along that bit of road..

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Can we submit our own "DO NOT DRIVE DOWN THIS BIT OF ROAD" requests?

      "To stop big ass lorries from trying to traverse through roads that are clearly too narrow for them "

      You can put up as many restrictions as you like. The wankers who kill cyclists (as noted, it's 99% cowboy construction lorries) will ignore them.

      You can install width restrictors too. The wankers will simply destroy them.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Can we submit our own "DO NOT DRIVE DOWN THIS BIT OF ROAD" requests?

        It may be true that the problem is caused mostly by owner-driver construction lorry drivers with incentivised timetables. And some of the cyclists that have been in accidents may have been in the right.

        Bet it still hurt though.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Can we submit our own "DO NOT DRIVE DOWN THIS BIT OF ROAD" requests?

        What's the point? The lorry driving wankers ignore them. They ignore the 7.5 Tonne weight restriction where I live which shakes houses and pisses off the residents but nothing gets done. They also ignore the speed limit too while using this road! So they cannot complain about some 'neerdowell' cyclists breaking laws.

        Lorry driver mentality = Do as I say, not as I do; I'm bigger than you, get the hell out of my way!

  12. Joe Harrison Silver badge

    Not anti-cyclist but

    For many years I was lucky enough to live two miles from my office with the ability to cycle from home to work completely via cycle tracks, no need to go on roads at all. Absolutely brilliant. I don't live there any more however so I was forced to decide "no more bike to work."

    I realise we have just as much right as car drivers to be on the roads but from a practical point of view it is just too dange. You wouldn't walk along the yellow lines with a truck whizzing next to you, is a bike that much different?

    For the avoidance of doubt - my point is not that "cyclists should be off the roads" it is that I personally enjoy living too much to share a road with the lorries.

    1. sabroni Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: just too dange.

      You kids with your cool lingo!!!

      (That's one to use next time I skype the boy, convince him I'm down with da yoot!!)

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can I also suggest it points out off-camber corners / roundabouts? There is a particular off-camber roundabout in Hull where lorries have tipped over in the past due to speed + off camber. One such incident, a perfectly innocent cyclist waiting to pull out got literally squashed.

    A needless waste if the lorry had just been going a little slower and considering the freight traffic that goes through Hull (a major port with easy access to the M62), easily avoidable with a fore-warning "off-camber turn ahead, reduce speed".

  14. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

    Fate

    Despite having been run down by a cyclist on a pavement, nearly run down by one going the wrong way down a one-way street, I am still courteous to them. I make myself aware of their presence when turning left or right, will even let them go first when queuing, give them a yard or more clearance when overtaking and won't squeeze them into the gutter or against other cars. A few seconds delay is well rewarded by a wave of appreciation and thanks.

    Yet time after time some fuckwitted cyclist tests my patience as a reward. I am really surprised there aren't more killed and injured. I know there are good cyclists out there, I've encountered many, but there are a lot of wankers as well.

    It's not a vehicle versus cyclist issue, it's an issue of bad drivers and bad cyclists. Unfortunately they never kill each other, it is usually some poor sod caught in the mayhem they create.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fate

      "Unfortunately they never kill each other, it is usually some poor sod caught in the mayhem they create."

      This is the thing. A driver and a cyclist come together, regardless, it is always the cyclist who gets injured/killed.

      Therefore when driving a vehicle, you have to be damn well properly in control of that vehicle because the lack of concentration or good driving can literally kill.

      Ultimately, we are all trying to get somewhere, and regardless of who we are and what we are on/in or even walking, is being courteous and careful to each other too much to ask?

      1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

        Re: Fate

        A driver and a cyclist come together, regardless, it is always the cyclist who gets injured/killed.

        Therefore when driving a vehicle, you have to be damn well properly in control of that vehicle because the lack of concentration or good driving can literally kill.

        That is too close to 'the driver is always to blame' for my liking, too close to allowing cyclists the right to do whatever they please with impunity.

        I have had cyclists unexpectedly jump in front of me when I had right of way. If they'd tried a little harder, performed their stupidity a little quicker, they could likely have had me kill them. That would have been their fault, not mine. I can exercise as much concentration and skill as I can muster but that doesn't mean I will always avoid the consequences of attempts to undermine that.

        We really do have to accept that sometimes cyclists are the cause of their own plight and putting the responsibility entirely on the driver is simply not fair nor just. It is belief that cyclists have some god given right to invite being killed while insisting drivers are required to avoid delivering them that which has drivers hating cyclists

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Fate

          "That is too close to 'the driver is always to blame' for my liking, too close to allowing cyclists the right to do whatever they please with impunity."

          No - I never said that, or implied that. You read that into it because you felt my statement on the relative danger of the driver vs the cyclist somehow was letting the cyclist off the hook. I was making a point, pointed at the previous but one poster, about the line 'Unfortunately, they never kill each other' - the cyclist will come off worse.

          My final comment would have reinforced my view that responsibility for one's self should also extend to our responsibility to other road users we are sharing with. Regardless of what mode of transport.

          As for 'Drivers hating cyclists' - anyone hating another road user* in general makes me question the person doing the hating, not the hatee.

          *This goes for cyclists hating drivers, drivers hating cyclists, lorry drivers hating motorcyclists, taxi drivers hating non-taxi drivers....just so I am clear here.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fate

      Last year, in my car, I was very slowly following a group of cyclist up an uphill, narrow and blind, twisting road just outside my rural village. (I moved inline with them as soon as it became in the least dodgy to try and overtake, having been a keen cyclist in my younger years.) A group of racing cyclists then overtook us all on the wrong side of the road! I was stuck in amongst the hundreds of cyclist on the little country roads for all of my 8 mile journey, often stuck behind groups up to 6 wide filling the road.

      I was so incensed that I emailed the race organisers, whose attitude was "yeh... wot?" i.e. totally unintelligible twaddle in almost text speak with no mention of the 24 occurrences of dangerous activity I reported. So I forwarded this to British Cycling who replied with a very nice letter basically saying that they would remind the organiser to tell the entrants at the next race that they were not on closed road.

      Two weeks later I met a group of racing cyclist coming at me at high speed on the wrong side of a roundabout. It was the same organisers, and I received the same emailed reply as before.

      I have been culturing some very BOFH style thoughts towards racing cyclist and their 'organisers' recently!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fate

        Given highway code part 163, how do you overtake on the wrong side of the road? The only valid answer, is to be on the same side of the road as the traffic you are overtaking. Was the cyclist behaviour careless and being 6 wide in breach of the highway code? Yes, was it dangerous? Not if you use the driving definitions of careless and dangerous which seem to include careless as killing a cyclist and just continuing on the road ignoring what you have just done with the cyclist on your bonnet for a few hundred yards.

        What is the definition of the "wrong side of a roundabout" ? Were they heading round in the wrong direction? If so you have a valid and very serious point, if not then what on earth are you trying to describe? Again the highway code states that drivers should be aware of cyclists or horse riders sticking to the outside lane of a roundabout regardless of which exit they intend to take.

        Congratulations, you have shown yourself to be a typical incompentant selfish driver.

  15. Cuddles Silver badge

    Conflicting safety issues

    This sounds like a great idea if you only take cyclist safety into account. However, it's very well established that right-hand turns are far more dangerous, as well as much slower, than left ones. This is why roundabouts are good, since they turn everything into a left turn, and is why navigation apps that avoid right turns even if it means a longer route with multiple left turns around a block have been shown to be very successful in trials.

    Doing the exact opposite and forcing lorries to turn right more may help a few cyclists at some specific junctions, but it will be severely detrimental to overall road safety, including for those same cyclists.

  16. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

    I can't help but wonder

    whether the money might be better spent on providing some proper road safety training for cyclists. Many cyclists just seem to not know that when a lorry turns left, it's not safe to be next to it.

    Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the cyclist is always to blame when there is an accident - there are plenty of bad and downright dangerous drivers out there.

    However, I am holder of a class A (motorcycle) driving licence, and part of getting that licence (and the prerequisite CBT) involves being highly aware of the hazards on the road, including knowing when you're in someone's blind spot, the importance of shoulder-checks before changing road position, and assuming that every other road user is out to kill you at all times. Cyclists are even more vulnerable than motorcyclists - they are smaller, less well protected, and less able to get out of trouble quickly. Anything that applied to riding a 600cc bike should also apply to riding a 0cc one tenfold, but there is no prerequisite training, or test required to get on a bike in a busy city, and go and try to get yourself killed. At the very least, there should be some sort of crackdown on the very worst behaviours seen by cyclists (cycling the wrong way, jumping red lights, cycling on pavements, etc.) The same rules of the road apply to all road users, if you jump a red light in a car, you (quite rightly) get a fine and three points on your licence.

    1. Triggerfish

      Re: I can't help but wonder

      Schools used to to a RoSPA course I take it that's been cut. I remember having to do one at our school as compulsory, where we all got bike training, that was in the junior years.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The main problem here..

    Cyclists (non-motor) should be allowed on the pavement. As a former cyclist I say we belong on the road as much as a baby in a pram belongs on the road. I gave up cycling because I felt too exposed, too vulnerable. Having a weak metal frame under my arse with a pair of wheels attached to that offers no real protection.

    Cyclists acting inappropriately on a pavement should be prosecuted, the majority are well behaved and should co-exist with pedestrians. If the government wants a healthy active nation it should better consider the needs of those wanting to be healthy and active.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: The main problem here..

      Last year, not half a mile from my front door, an elderly pedestrian was knocked down and killed by a cyclist on the pavement. Cyclists have no business on the pavement, especially not on busy city streets. Pavements are used by all, from the youngest to the oldest. Pedestrians can stop instantly if an infant runs in front of them, cyclists cannot, and it is illegal for anyone over the age of twelve to cycle on the pavement, for good reason. Yes, it might be safer for the cyclist, but it certainly is not for everyone else.

      1. Stuart 22

        Re: The main problem here..

        "Last year, not half a mile from my front door, an elderly pedestrian was knocked down and killed by a cyclist on the pavement."

        That's one too many. Where was it?

        To put it into context as a pedestrian - which we all are - there was one pedestrian death involving a cycle on the pavement or verge, whereas altogether, 34 pedestrians were killed on average each year by vehicles on pavements/verges.

        Which fits my experience around here where I'm much more likely to encounter a car on the pavement than a bike. And we have a lot more cyclists than any other city bar Oxford or Cambridge. Whereas campaigns to protect pedestrians on pavements always focus on cyclists and ignore the much greater danger. Facts don't seem to matter.

    2. Cynical Observer
      Thumb Down

      Re: The main problem here..

      Let's call pavement by it's other name - it's a footpath

      The clue is in the name - you want your bicycle on the footpath then you can - provided that you dismount.

      I'll happily cut kids some slack when I see them cycling on the footpath - but adults? nah! I become a belligerent pedestrian (clue in the origin of the work - pede meaning foot) and I don't give way.

      Perhaps it's something to do with the complete cock who sent my kid flying one day - thankfully without serious injury but certainly with plenty of fear on their part.

    3. captain veg

      Re: The main problem here..

      As a daily cyclist I say that we definitely have no right whatsoever to be on the pavement. My bike is a road vehicle. Except and unless I'm walking alongside, it has no place at all among the pedestrians.

      There were bicycles on the roads before motor vehicles, in the modern sense, even existed. Many roads were built or improved because of the demands of cyclists. It's up to the motorists to play nicely with us, not the other way round. And I say that as a car driver and motorcyclist.

      -A.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: The main problem here..

        On my commute to work there are miles of footpath alongside a busy road and I never EVER see a pedestrian walking on it. I see the occasional cyclist on there, and it seems fair enough because they are probably the only thing keeping it clear of weeds.

    4. Fonant

      Re: The main problem here..

      No, ordinary people riding bicycles should not be expected to ride on footways. They should be provided with cycleways to go with the footways provided for people on foot and the carriageways for people in (motorised) carriages.

      The fact that the law considers bicycles to be carriages dates back to the late 1800's before cars even existed. Bicycles may well have mixed nicely with horse-drawn carriages, and would have managed a similar speed, but bicycles most certainly do not mix safely with modern motor traffic.

      Just like the Dutch and the Danes do. Much safer, much more pleasant for everyone, motorists included. It's not difficult, it just needs some sensible traffic planning and investment. I have faith that the new cycleways being built in London will show how the concept works, and the huge benefits that result.

      Sadly the Tories seem hell-bent on making every major road into a motorway, so we can expect to see more traffic and even fewer people using sustainable transport.

  18. SPiT

    The problem is the idiot minority

    To be fair almost everyone commenting on this thread has a point but throughout the issue down to the idiot minorities. It is virtually impossible to work out which group of road users has the largest idiot minority. My experience of driving outside London is a series of very clear rules to follow

    1) On approach to any sort of left hand bend check behind and make sure that you are NEVER overtaken by a caravan on a left hand bend as most caravan drivers seem to imagine the caravan goes no closer to the kerb than their car does.

    2) Always look at drivers in side turnings as cyclists are invisible to some people unless you make eye contact.

    3) Listen for vehicles approaching from behind and if they accelerate they are probably about to turn left right in front of you

    4) Pedestrians are suicidal idiots but they won't kill you

    There are more

  19. codejunky Silver badge

    Ha

    If I saw drivers (motor car or bike) do half the manoeuvres I have seen from cyclists there would be a lot more dead people. The idea that they are the exposed ones and the ones most likely to come off worse from an accident doesnt seem to deter some cyclists from trying to win a darwin award. I am bound to be down voted but then at least once this week I am bound to see at least one cyclist-

    >Go through a red light

    >Kerb hop due to a red light

    >Transition from road to kerb to change direction

    I can be certain to see at least one incident of ALL of these this week. I am on a winner as I have already seen the last 2 so far.

    I would say I feel sorry for good cyclists, but they tend to be ok and not in a position of suicide. I am happy to share the road with them as with good drivers. But I dislike the suicidal nutters who cut up cars and ignore the rules of the road as much as the nobs in their cars talking on the phone, racing and running reds. The rules are there for everyone to keep us all from harm. Even if harm is the trauma of watching some suicidal prick put himself under your vehicle.

    1. Tim Hughes

      Re: Ha

      Funnily enough, I got on a number 21 bus this morning and, in the 5 or so minutes between Bank and Old Street, the driver managed to run two red lights and a zebra crossing where only the attentiveness of the pedestrian avoided serious injury. He also seemed to be trying to overtake the 21 bus in front of us. Very odd.

      IMO, in London at least, there does appear to be a substantial minority of the travelling public with a death wish, no matter what their chosen mode of transport.

      If there was just one thing I would really like to see here it would be ENFORCEMENT. Frankly I think a massive crackdown on all road users doing even just the blatantly stupid stuff could only be a good thing: Through a red light? on-the-spot fine or come get your vehicle/bicycle from the pound sometime later. Of course, this would require having enough traffic police in the right places ....

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Ha

        @ Tim Hughes

        Absolutely it is more than a little worrying watching people plough through red lights on a whim.

        While not on my list I did have 2 cyclists riding towards me on a blind corner going the wrong way down a one way in the middle of the road. One looked like a teenager and the other a bit older. The worst part is they didnt seem too bothered about the car heading toward them and breaking quick (I was going slow anyway for the blind corner)

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Has anyone noticed...

    The vast majority of cyclist killed by left turning HGVs are women. Is suspect this might be due to the reluctance to cycle defensively/offensively - the best form of defence is offence, e.g. cycling in a way that requires other road users to allow space for you (rather than cycling in the gutter and encouraging them to pass you dangerously).

  21. rh587

    Funny, UPS optimised their routes in the US to favour right-hand turns on the basis they suffer fewer mid-junction T-boning accidents as they would never cross the path of oncoming traffic (or at least minimise such maneuvres). Also, such routes tended to be a bit quicker as you would not be waiting for gaps in traffic to make your turn, which saves fuel and driver hours.

    I imagine in the UK they have their mapping software optimised to do the local equivalent - favour left hand turns. Somehow doubt they'll be breaking their software to now do the exact opposite and favour the inefficient routes they've been busy optimising out!

  22. noboard

    WTF!

    "PIE Mapping, a British company which already delivers route-planning products to hauliers, is developing the smartphone app"

    Ok anyone who tries says they're combatting raod safety by making drivers use a phone app should be shot at birth. Lorries should be using a specialised Sat-Nav that avoids crappy little roads that aren't suitable for them, that's where any extra route planning should be involved, not in a phone.

    As for cyclists I think everyone should need to register for a unique number and this can get printed onto a high viz vest or something. Then any cyclists caught speeding, jumping lights, being a prat can be traced by the number. If people aren't wearing a number and ride like an arse the fine/punishment is automatically doubled. While you wont get every cyclist everytime, you will be able to get the repeat offenders and hit them hard.

    Motorists are easy, just have compulsary re-tests every x years, will weed out the majority of crap drivers; maybe make motorcyclists exempt as the ones that ride like idiots take themseleves out of the loop and it would incourage poeple to use an excellent form of transport.

    1. ChrisC
      WTF?

      Re: WTF!

      So are you suggesting that if someone develops navigation software which has access only to map data containing verified width/height/weight/etc restrictions, and which is programmed to generate routes accordingly based on the vehicle parameters entered into it, it'd rebel against its creators and still send truckers off down inappropriate side roads just because it happens to be running on a phone rather than on a dedicated unit?

  23. JP19

    What about right turns?

    How many accidents are caused by turning right across the path of oncoming traffic? A fundamentally more dangerous manoeuvre.

    The idea of route planning to avoid left or right turns is utterly ridiculous - it takes eco green cycling fuck-wittery to turn ridicule into reality.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cyclists take note lorries don't see you.

    A lorry genuinely can't see you and the cyclist needs to realise this and either overtake the lorry on the outside(scary) or pass on the inside preferably when the lorry is stationary. I cycle in London and have driven a lorry so i know first hand.

    This is an explanation of what's happening from both the lorry's perspective and the cyclists, when the lorry is turning left.

    The lorry. In order to turn left they need to turn the rear axle in a wide arc to do this manoeuvre they make something like a '?' shape where they first turn the vehicle right and then left. this creates a blind spot on the drivers left hand side when turning, their side mirror is either pointing far outward or far inward during this time.

    The cyclist. From the cyclist perspective the lorry just seems to be turning right and think it's safe to pass they don't expect it to suddenly change direction and turn left, by this time it's too late they're sandwiched between the curb and the wheels.

    Be safe

    1. billat29

      Re: Cyclists take note lorries don't see you.

      A friend is a police accident investigator. He's the guy that holds the traffic up for hours while he measures everything to find out what happened. Way too many of these lorry vs cyclist are "own goals" as he likes to put it.

      Another is an HGV trainer. He turns up at our local primary school and stands an entire class in front of his cab. He then invites the class teacher to sit at the wheel. You can't see the children from up there.

      It doesn't matter what the rights and wrongs are. If you cycle up the side of a lorry, the driver can't see you. If you are in front of him, unless you are a long way in front of him, he can't see you.

      And if he can't see you......

      1. dajames Silver badge

        Re: Cyclists take note lorries don't see you.

        It doesn't matter what the rights and wrongs are. If you cycle up the side of a lorry, the driver can't see you. If you are in front of him, unless you are a long way in front of him, he can't see you.

        The rights and wrongs DO matter. What you've highlighted here is that HGV cabs do not afford enough visibility to enable them to be driven safely on public roads. They have the WRONG design.

        That cyclists do not appreciate this, and therefore behave inappropriately when in close proximity to an HGV is a secondary, not a primary, cause of accidents.

  25. Compression Artifact

    The "confused wildlife" style

    I observe three styles of cycling in my community:

    1. "Vehicular" style cyclists understand that cyclists are safest when they are treated as vehicles, not pedestrians riding toys. They avoid accidents by obeying traffic laws, appearing on the roadway only in places where vehicles are expected to be and doing things vehicles are expected to do.

    2. "Pedestrian" style cyclists believe they can go anywhere pedestrians can go (while mounted) and do anything pedestrians do (including the cycling equivalent of jaywalking).

    3. "Confused wildlife" style cyclists behave like deer who have wandered onto the roadway. They can unexpectedly appear on the roadway anywhere doing anything--especially in intersections.

    In my community, the ratio is about 15% vehicular-style, 50% pedestrian-style and 35% confused-wildlife style. When I am driving in my car and see a cyclist, I avoid accidents with them by assuming they are incompetent--i.e., followers of either the pedestrian or confused wildlife styles.

    And whether they are dressed like hobos or decked out in spandex has no correlation to their level of competence as a cyclist.

    1. Tim Hughes

      Re: The "confused wildlife" style

      If I could upvote you more than once I would - spot on.

  26. Stuart 22

    Political Epilogue

    Theresa May will next week introduce a bill into parliament to make turning to the right mandatory. Fuel duty will be abolished and a new bell tax will fill the funding gap. Lefties will have their rights removed and then be squashed. There, that's what you voted for ....

  27. Velv Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    @Terry Barnes

    "You don't understand how the deaths are happening. A cyclist stops at a red light in the cycle lane. A lorry pulls alongside them. The lights change. The cyclist goes forward, the lorry turns left and the cyclist is crushed between the lorry and the railings."

    As a daily cyclist in city centre traffic I can honestly say I have never witnessed this. I have seen the opposite where the truck was stationary at the red light and the cyclist came up the inside and was subsequently hit (and more than one near miss). Don't get me wrong, there are many other scenarios where the truck is at fault, but I've never seen a truck pull up next to a stationary cyclist then manage to hit said cyclist.

    1. Terry Barnes

      Well, I'd kind of hope it is rare, because there would be even more deaths - but the investigation into the spate of deaths in London showed that primarily, that was what was happening.

      Where I live my main problem is that the cycle lane is to the left of the bus lane, which itself is to the left of the lane for other vehicles. Drivers seem to check for buses when turning left, but not bikes. The traffic at commute time is barely managing walking pace, whereas two lanes away I'm riding at about 20MPH in my own lane. Lots of people fail to indicate left so I have to presume that every car is about to ride in front of me.

  28. Compression Artifact

    How about an app for safe cyclists?

    The basic rule for safe positioning on the roadway for a cyclist is: "on straightaways, position yourself according to your speed, and when approaching intersections, position yourself according to your destination."

    A corollary, which is one of the most important rules of safe cycling, is "never go straight through an intersection positioned such that it is possible for same-direction traffic to turn in front of you." Cyclists who ignore this rule tend to get hit. It's the laws of physics.

    If you have bike lanes that guide unsuspecting cyclists into situations like this where they are betting against the laws of nature, then it sounds like what's needed is an app for bicyclists that would guide them to routes without intersections with such lanes.

    1. Terry Barnes

      Re: How about an app for safe cyclists?

      How does that work though? I have two miles or so of city cycling before I'm out onto dedicated cycle infrastructure on my way home from work. The cycle lane is on the left. There are at least twenty possible left turns that drivers can make across me in those two miles. I'd be trying to move in and out of the motorised traffic (and across a bus lane) almost constantly.

      Add to this that some drivers get pretty enraged when they see a cyclist in 'their' lane riding beside a cycle lane, I can't see how it could work.

      1. Compression Artifact

        Re: How about an app for safe cyclists?

        "How does that work though?"

        Read more here:

        http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/VCIntro.htm

  29. x 7 Silver badge

    Stupid idea

    All it means is that trucks will have to negotiate two streams of traffic - right and left - rather than just from the right. That slows traffic down at junctions and increases the risk of collision with traffic approaching due to the longer dwell / crossing time at the junction.

    You'll find the number of motorcycle deaths increasing as a result of more junction collisions as truck drivers WILL miss them

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A green moment

    Of course routing algorithms were changed to prioritise left turns in order to improve fuel efficiency as turning right across traffic increases idle time..

  31. timhowarduk

    The real problem

    I'm a lorry driver and a cyclist. There are idiots in both these groups of people. Most cyclists are sensible people. Most lorry drivers are sensible people. (You have to pass 3 driving tests to drive an artic, being observed for over 2.5 hours). Monitoring your left mirror when turning left (and right mirror because the tail swings right) is drummed into drivers during training, and those that don't do it don't pass.

    The real problem is a combination of the EU driving rules and freight planners planning too many drops in a day. After 4.5 hours you have to stop for 45 minutes. Towards the end of that time period, drivers under pressure will take risks to get to their delivery, or a safe stopping place before the time runs out and an infringement is logged on their smart card. The old (non-EU) domestic rules were much simpler, a maximum number of hours a day, and much safer.

    This idea might help, but if it leads to significantly longer routes then drivers won't use them as their first priority will still be the available driving time.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Headmaster

    Cyclists & Traffic

    As has been said before; to cut down accidents and noting all travelling has dangers so;

    Get yourself trained

    Drive / ride defensively (if its big give it room etc)

    Drive / ride courteously

    Modify all vehicles to remove the blind spots (cameras & more mirrors)

    Add auto-warning of people/cyclists/other vehichles in blind spots (already on some vehicles)

    do not sell cycles without lights front and rear (may be with auto-on in low light)

    enforce all the laws relating to the above

    The above said; it wont remove the idiots trying for the Darwin Award nor the idiots who simply drive with entitlement

    Further when I am a pedestrain I would really like cycle Bells to be used as I cannot hear cyclists coming from behind and as I do not have mirrors attached to my head I fear an accident is inevitable. (and thats on paths with attached cycle lanes)

    (Pendantic Grammar Nazi as there isnt an icon for an old fogey Pedant, whats the IT? maybe)

  33. Al fazed

    Robo Geddon

    I can just see the centre of Oxford when this takes off ! Not a pretty site at the best of times and it certainly is not a cyclists paradise, more like a graveyard. Honestly, if they could send you to the RIGHT, the city councillors most certainly would.

    Oft is the case in Oxford that would be Greens get planted by either landfill waste bearing trucks or public transport buses.

    ALF

  34. x 7 Silver badge

    Well, obviously the problem is lack of visibility. Thats easy to fix: make all cyclists ride on the right-hand side of the road, so vehicle drivers can see them approaching head-on. No excuse for not seeing them then. Its the same as the Highway Code instructs pedestrians to walk. No chance of sneaking up on the inside of a truck then.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019