Bicycle Lorry deaths

[SueEllen]

Can you find me the Highway Code reference that says that?

It actually comes under rules 144-158 under general rules e.g. be considerate to other road users. You can choose to run over a cyclist on a cycle path but that could be considered careless or dangerous driving if it's clear you can see them.

It's the same when you are on the left most lane of a motorway/dual carriageway and you can see another car joining on the slip road, if you can move over to let them on do so and don't be an ass about it. Changing lanes isn't difficult. If you can't because there is another car in the other lane then you can't.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Can you find me the Highway Code reference that says that?

I don't need to because surely you understand normal road markings?

If the cycle lane has a give way at the junction - and they sometimes do - then they should give way to other vehicles turning in and out of the junction.

If the cycle lane is continuous with no give way markings and marked with a solid white line then they do not have to give way at junctions, ergo they have priority.

In fact some cycle lanes, constantly have give way markings which is why some cyclists don't use them. Some alternate (CS3 along Cable St from Tower Hill comes to mind) between cyclists and other vehicles having priority.

But it must surely be common sense that you cannot just cross a lane of traffic without giving way to vehicles in that lane unless the road markings indicate otherwise? The same applies if you're turning right across the opposite carriageway or left across a bus or cycle lane.

[mudskipper]

In fact some cycle lanes, constantly have give way markings which is why some cyclists don't use them. Some alternate (CS3 along Cable St from Tower Hill comes to mind) between cyclists and other vehicles having priority.

The good old 'cycle facility of the month'. Can't decide if they're funny or just depressing.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...onth/index.htm

[BrilloPad]

It's the same when you are on the left most lane of a motorway/dual carriageway and you can see another car joining on the slip road, if you can move over to let them on do so and don't be an ass about it. Changing lanes isn't difficult. If you can't because there is another car in the other lane then you can't.

Which is what 99% of drivers do.

Police interceptors had a video of a policeman refusing to move over. The other driver gave him the Kenco coffee beans sign. The policeman pulled him over, did him for careless driving and behaviour likely to cause offence.

And the police wonder why they are hated.....

[NigelJK]

Move first, then signal to cover your arse, seems to be the rule.

***** me around here flashing lights are for xmas only.

It's normally:

Manoeuvre, signal (optional), mirror (optional).

[WTFH]

So is the consensus that the motorist is always at fault, and cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want, or should both sides in this actually show a bit of common sense?

[original PM]

So is the consensus that the motorist is always at fault, and cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want, or should both sides in this actually show a bit of common sense?

Well this exactly

The problem is in a car when you make a mistake potentially you need a new wing.

On a bike your kids potentially need a new dad.

It is just self preservation - as a cyclist you are incredible vulnerable and regardless of whether you are right or not you may still end up dead.

[vetran]

So is the consensus that the motorist is always at fault, and cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want, or should both sides in this actually show a bit of common sense?

The figures show a lorry is much more likely to kill cyclists & Pedestrians. This is believed to be caused by a number of things.

1. The driver cannot see the cyclist because of poor visibility in the cab.
2. They also fail to watch out for cyclists.
3. The cyclist / pedestrian fails to realise (or doesn't care) that lorries are more dangerous
4. doesn't ride/walk defensively.

Now 1 can be fixed by mandatory improvements in cab design & extra visibility tools the costs need not be huge and will be more than paid for by fewer accidents. 2 can be fixed by education, as all drivers have to be registered and licensed its fairly easy to plan a training course for all lorry drivers.

3 & 4 mean training & policing a growing number of unlicensed and unregistered cyclists.

Its probably the cyclists fault but the fix can be done by working with the lorry drivers.

Cyclists need more policing that includes obeying lights, road signs & having working lights. I would also encourage a jay walking style offence.

[SueEllen]

The figures show a lorry is much more likely to kill cyclists & Pedestrians. This is believed to be caused by a number of things.

1. The driver cannot see the cyclist because of poor visibility in the cab.
2. They also fail to watch out for cyclists.
3. The cyclist / pedestrian fails to realise (or doesn't care) that lorries are more dangerous
4. doesn't ride/walk defensively.

Now 1 can be fixed by mandatory improvements in cab design & extra visibility tools the costs need not be huge and will be more than paid for by fewer accidents. 2 can be fixed by education, as all drivers have to be registered and licensed its fairly easy to plan a training course for all lorry drivers.

3 & 4 mean training & policing a growing number of unlicensed and unregistered cyclists.

Its probably the cyclists fault but the fix can be done by working with the lorry drivers.

Cyclists need more policing that includes obeying lights, road signs & having working lights. I would also encourage a jay walking style offence.

What you keep failing to understand is cyclists don't need licences and registration as a cyclist can be anyone.

You can be 6 or 60 and legally cycle on the road.

And yes in my area of London and others I visit you will still see kids as young as 6 riding their bikes on the roads.

Granted they are side streets and as a car driver you will see more than one kid or a kid and adult so you are alerted to them, but are you seriously saying that kids under 16 should be licenced?

[vetran]

What you keep failing to understand is cyclists don't need licences and registration as a cyclist can be anyone.

You can be 6 or 60 and legally cycle on the road.

And yes in my area of London and others I visit you will still see kids as young as 6 riding their bikes on the roads.

Granted they are side streets and as a car driver you will see more than one kid or a kid and adult so you are alerted to them, but are you seriously saying that kids under 16 should be licenced?

I am saying they are unlicenced which means you don't know who they are. If you want to teach them or control them then its almost impossible. I'm not suggesting we should license cyclists, I'm just saying that we don't. Training them wherever possible whilst a nice idea will not fix it, there are too many and we won't find all of them.

Lorry drivers & lorries are licensed so its easy to manage a project to improve their side of the problem.

Combine that with the fact the issue seems to be their ability to see out of their vehicle I would fix the lorry & lorry drivers first as its much easier. When lorries kill the same number as cars proportionally then we know its nearly fixed.