Most people think cyclists are cool :-)

On 04/09/2010 11:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:01:54 +0100,
wrote:

On 03/09/2010 19:07, Tom Crispin wrote:

wrote:

The pictures aren't all that clear - was it one of the Borisbikes?

Highly unlikely. The nearest docking station would be 3 or 4 miles
away suggesting a hire of over 30 minutes.

Fair enough.

I was expecting more fuss if it was a BB. The first person killed undertaking
a left-turning lorry on a BB will be headline news, I expect.

So your hopes were destroyed in three ways.

"Hopes"?

What *are* you taling about?

It wasn't a BB; there is no evidence the cyclist was undertaking; the
truck was turning right.

Sit down in a darkened room and relax for an hour or two.

When you've calmed down after your petty rant, reconsider.

I have expressed no "hopes" and mantioned absolutely nothing about
undertaking, trucks or turning right in connection with that incident.

On 04/09/2010 12:12, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Fair enough.

I was expecting more fuss if it was a BB. The first person killed
undertaking a left-turning lorry on a BB will be headline news, I expect.


About 30,000 journeys a day on Boris bikes with a current death rate in
London of one per 17 million journeys. So mean time to the first Boris Bike
fatality is one and a half years. Against that you can add Boris Bicyclists
are probably less experiences and therefore more at risk but the journeys
they undertake are shorter and therefore present less risk.

The overwhelming probability will be its a woman killed by a left turning
lorry overtaking and then turning across her.

We shall, no doubt, see.

Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling straight into the side of a great BFO lorry cannot actually
be anything other than the cyclists fault.
You've never had the experience of a vehicle overtaking you and
immediately turning left across you then.


I do not cycle straight off the pavement nor pull out of a side road
without looking and making sure it is clear to proceed.
Since she hit the back end of the lorry it is pretty clear that the
driver of the truck was well past her when she crashed into the
truck.


How specific do I have to be to stop your evasion? Let me try again.

Have you never had the experience cycling on the road of having a
vehicle overtake you and turn left alongside you or immediately after
passing you?

If that were to happen and the back of a lorry was alongside you, in
the process of overtaking you, at the moment it turned, which bit of
the lorry do you think you are most likely to hit?

Sits and waits to see which evasion loopholes I've failed to close

Tony

No, I have never had that experience. She was not cycling along the road,
she had no priority to ride across the road when she left the pavement.
Since the lorry was actually largely past her at the time she crashed into
it, it appears that she did not see it, or was unable to stop in time. So
she was driving (riding) without due care and attention, the fault is
entirely with the dead girl.
If she had been riding along the road the situation would be quite different
and it would be treated as such.

never ride or drive so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can
see to be clear. look before pulling out. be aware of your surroundings.
learn by previous mistakes.

all the above were broken by the cyclist.

Mrcheerful wrote:

If she had been riding along the road the situation would be quite different
and it would be treated as such.


Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths should be
avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway Code
acknowledge this) and you are best off riding in the road with the other
traffic and with the same rights and priorities as the other traffic.

The alternative is you get cycle routes either honestly like this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2010.htm

or dishonestly by concealing the dangers.

Tony

Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

If she had been riding along the road the situation would be quite
different and it would be treated as such.


Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths should
be avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway Code
acknowledge this) and you are best off riding in the road with the
other traffic and with the same rights and priorities as the other
traffic.
The alternative is you get cycle routes either honestly like this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2010.htm

or dishonestly by concealing the dangers.

Tony

But she was not on the road, she was on the path and could not reasonably
expect road traffic to give way to her when she left the path, nor could she
expect the truck to teleport to another place so that she could ride through
it.
It is reasonable to assume that cyclists can take some responsibility for
their own actions and ride (whether on a cycle path, pavement or road) in
accordance with common sense and road rules.

Mrcheerful wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
If she had been riding along the road the situation would be
quite different and it would be treated as such.

Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths
should be avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway
Code acknowledge this) and you are best off riding in the road with
the other traffic and with the same rights and priorities as the
other traffic. The alternative is you get cycle routes either
honestly like this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2010.htm


or dishonestly by concealing the dangers.

Tony

But she was not on the road, she was on the path and could not
reasonably expect road traffic to give way to her when she left the
path, nor could she expect the truck to teleport to another place so
that she could ride through it. It is reasonable to assume that
cyclists can take some responsibility for their own actions and ride
(whether on a cycle path, pavement or road) in accordance with common
sense and road rules.


And I too repeat, excellent reasons to cycle on the road with traffic
rather than a cycle path. Do you want to do another lap of these
repetitions?

Tony

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Mrcheerful wrote:

If she had been riding along the road the situation would be quite
different and it would be treated as such.


Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths should be
avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway Code acknowledge
this)

I just love the way you slip in the little distortions...

the successful campaign was against a wording that could have been used
argue contributory negligence had available cycling facilities not been
used.

The wording in the Code is now:

61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines,
cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.
Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience
and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

that is far from the sense of your post.

pk

pk wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message

Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths should
be avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway Code
acknowledge this)

I just love the way you slip in the little distortions...


Were you part of that campaign? I was and a very active one.

See http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4856 for example.

"...the concept that many experienced cyclists regard the road as the
safest place for them was counter-intuitive to some officials and
Ministers......the Code now makes it clear beyond all doubt that
cyclists are not obliged to use cycle facilities where it would be
unsafe to do so"

that is far from the sense of your post.


It's exactly in line with the sense of my post.

Tony

Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

If she had been riding along the road the situation would be quite
different and it would be treated as such.


Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths should
be avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway Code
acknowledge this) and you are best off riding in the road with the
other traffic and with the same rights and priorities as the other
traffic.

Fine. They can have the same rights and priorities as the other traffic
when they pay the same to use the roads.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Tony Raven wrote:
pk wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message

Which is the excellent reason many cyclists think cycle paths should
be avoided (and successfully campaigned to have the Highway Code
acknowledge this)

I just love the way you slip in the little distortions...


Were you part of that campaign? I was and a very active one.

See http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4856 for example.

"...the concept that many experienced cyclists regard the road as the
safest place for them was counter-intuitive to some officials and
Ministers......the Code now makes it clear beyond all doubt that
cyclists are not obliged to use cycle facilities where it would be
unsafe to do so"

The cycle facilities funded by motorists, not cyclists.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.