Carnage in London « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Carnage in London

(21 posts)

Started 11 years ago by 14Westfield
Latest reply from gibbo

No tags yet.

14Westfield
Member

Following the link to the evening standard in an earlier post, a saw a couple of horror stories from London this week.
Two people killed and another with 'just' a squashed leg from Lorries and a coach. In two cases the damage occurred moving away from lights where the HGV seemed to have no idea they had run into, and over the back of someone. In one of the fatal cases the lorry continued down the road before being flaggedcdown.
I do think this is a worrying trend for all urban cyclists - as however experienced etc you are something large may just loom behind you and keep going...

Surely time for additional mirrors, side guards etc to become mandatory for all HGVs?

Posted 11 years ago #
Dave
Member

There's no excuse, plenty of large vehicles are on the streets already with zero blind spots:

http://mccraw.co.uk/sorry-mate-i-cant-see-blind-spot/

Posted 11 years ago #
rust
Member

I can't think of the right word to use that doesn't make this sound grim, however the one "benefit" of the majority of cyclist injuries in London being caused by HGV's is that it should be possible to target and fix the problem very simply.

That this hasn't yet been done is obviously terrible, but when it is surely cycling in London is going to be very safe.

Posted 11 years ago #
EddieD
Member

You and Yours on Wednesday had an article about a device that could be fitted to a lorry (£400) which talks to a unit carried by a cyclist (£20) that would warn the driver if a cyclist was close.

Redesign of the cab is a better idea, but it's long term - this sounded like a reasonable stopgap. Okay, 20notes isn't cheap, but then again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03gg7ms at about 42 minutes/

Posted 11 years ago #
PS
Member

@EddieD My concern with any automated thing like that is the drivers become reliant on them. No audible warning -> no need to look before manoeuvre -> poor schmuck who doesn't have the device on their bike is squished.

Posted 11 years ago #
EddieD
Member

I agree totally PS, but at least it shows that folk are starting to get concerned, and look for solutions

Posted 11 years ago #
Arellcat
Moderator

a device that could be fitted to a lorry (£400) which talks to a unit carried by a cyclist (£20) that would warn the driver if a cyclist was close

There is a device used in the Dakar Rally called Sentinel, which is designed to warn slower vehicles (motorbikes, quads, some cars) that faster vehicles wish to overtake. It's analoguous to a CB system that uses horns and lights instead of code talk*.

http://www.dakar.com/2004/presentationus/r2_nouveautes_03.html

* "Breaker breaker, how bout ya down there? Got your ears on, buddy? Come back." "Copy that, 18 wheeler. Watch your Kodak up ahead." "10-4". etc.

Posted 11 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

Another worrying aspect of these tragedies in London is they are happening on "superhighways"; cruelly demonstrating how useless blue paint is at protecting cyclists from heavy road vehicles. At least the blue paint is visible compared to Edinburgh's worn red paint and invisible red chips.

Posted 11 years ago #
Focus
Member

If people say buying even a cheap helmet will stop them cycling, buying a £20 device (and is that retail or trade?) just in case isn't going to have a huge uptake. It would need to be compulsory on all new bikes and vehicles and made attractive to all existing bike and vehicle owners or it would be a half-baked solution.

Ultimately, the answer has to be improvement in cab design to reduce blind spots, and edcuction of riders. The second of those will only go as far as some cyclists want to be educated of course.

Posted 11 years ago #
ARobComp
Member

Just having returned from the big smoke (no cycling this time) The number of lorries in north london was truly worrying. Also watched some shocking behaviour from my taxi drivers.

Also have this little bag of crazy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vo-HLsyVKCM#t=88

I\m not 100% that he shouold have tapped the car and we can't know how close she was but it looks to me that he barely wobbled as he did it which means she was well close.

Watching her thought process is quite interesting. She is insistent that she did no wrong etc. The part where she hopes he dies is rather chilling.

Posted 11 years ago #
fimm
Member

Ultimately the answer has to be separation of bikes and trucks, whether that be by segragated infrastructure or by not permitting trucks in certain parts of London/any big city at certain times of the day (e.g. rush hour).

Posted 11 years ago #
wingpig
Member

"...or by not permitting trucks in certain parts of London/any big city at certain times of the day (e.g. rush hour)."

Trucks not being allowed in certain parts of London overnight results in the vast quantities of them during the morning rush hour. Unfortunately, truck-enabled cyclist KSIs are frequent enough that temporarily extending the truck-ban until well after rush hour ought to quickly demonstrate whether this would be effective long-term.

Posted 11 years ago #
neddie
Member

What gets me is the fact that are so many tipper trucks driving around without any side-guards* to help prevent anybody going under the wheels.

I've seen loads of unprotected tipper trucks in Edinburgh as well - so I don't think we're any safer up here - it's just a case of there is less construction going on.

* I'm aware that a side-guard is a secondary (or tertiary) safety measure, but it is one that would turn deaths into injuries.

Posted 11 years ago #
crowriver
Member

It would be better to turn the London lorry ban on it's head. No lorries during the daytime, and only at night (ie. between 9pm and 5am). May not be popular with drivers and logistics workers but it would be a lot safer for most vulnerable road users. They'd only have buses and coaches to worry about.

Posted 11 years ago #
gibbo
Member

I had a short bike ride in Edinburgh today and had 2 situations where I felt the need to go through lights due to large vehicles:

#1: Top of Mound (junction with Royal Mile, headed towards Geo IV) - lorry stopped in ASL. Didn't feel comfortable that he'd see me in the left lane/cycle lane, so I stopped in the pedestrian crossing. (So I could be in driver's line of sight.)

#2: Dalkeith Road turn onto Holyrood Park Road. Tourist bus was in wrong lane to turn to park, so stopped at lights across lanes - i.e. front in the left turning lane (incl ASL), back in the straight ahead lane.

I was worried I'd get crunched by the bus, so I went through traffic lights even though peds were crossing (though, of course, I ensured I wasn't close to them).

Of course, both problems were caused by drivers of large vehicles deciding that stopping in the ASL is a victimless crime.

I wonder, if plod had been around, would they have nicked me and let the drivers off free?

Posted 11 years ago #
MeepMeep
Member

Gibbo: do you mind me asking whether you were in front of or behind the vehicles when they stopped on each occasion?

I understand why you'd move into a position where you can make eye contact with the driver if they'd approached from behind you and stopped whilst you were stationery in the ASZ.

However, if you were approaching the vehicles from behind, was there a reason you didn't feel comfortable in staying well back and letting them complete any idiocy whilst you were out the way?

Posted 11 years ago #
crowriver
Member

If there is an HGV or coach ahead of me as I approach traffic lights, I'll generally do one of these:

- sit behind it if enough space.
- dismount and push my bike on pavement/across lights on pedestrian phase (especially if turning at junction).
- if there's an ASL free I might filter up to the front if I know the lights sequence, but on the right side (unless the HGV is looking to turn right)

Posted 11 years ago #
DaveC
Member

I just sit back and watch for any creaping back of the LGV where the driver removes his foot off the break before setting off.

I don't need to 'get to my destination' before an LGV, besides I'm likely not to be going to the same destination. Feeling the need to get to the front, just smacks of the drivers who have to get in front of you when cycling down the road, just to have to wait in the queue while you cycle past, after you have caught up.

Posted 11 years ago #
Edinburgh Cycle Training
Member

Sitting behind (in primary)is always sensible unless there's an ASL, you know the lights sequence/timing and you have the time and space to safely filter there.

Posted 11 years ago #
Focus
Member

Can't argue with that, and I certainly don't want to argue with an HGV.

I'm becoming even more pro-active in that regard when deciding (or having) to stay behind an HGV or bus. Whereas I may follow more or less between the wheel track when moving, as soon as it is stopping (or I'm approaching one already stationary) I make a point of exaggerating how far out to the driver's right I stop. On a one lane road that may mean almost being on top of the centre line of the road (if I deem that safe regarding oncoming traffic) to maximise the chance of the driver spotting me. I especially do that with buses at stops so they can judge whether to pull out or let me pass, and I'll always give them priority if they are already indicating of course.

Posted 11 years ago #
gibbo
Member

MeepMeep: I was behind the lorry and, sort of behind the bus. (Behind the bit that was in my lane.)

You're right, I could have just stopped behind them in both instances and let them go ahead.

Though, in the case of the lorry, it was only when I was alongside that I saw it was in the ASL.

Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Carnage in London

Reply

RSS Feeds

Links