PDA

View Full Version : Speed hump nearly kills Boris


altis
07-07-2009, 12:57
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has had what was described as a "near-miss" with a lorry while riding his bicycle in east London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8066461.stm

Unfortunately, the BBC's analysis completely ignores the initial cause of the incident - a road hump - supposedly a traffic calming measure! Clearly, this causes the catch on the lorry's door to become disengaged allowing it to swing open.

IMHO, speed humps are abominable, dangerous things and should be banned.

zing_deleted
07-07-2009, 12:59
I would say a faulty or incorrectly closed locking mechanism on the door that swung open was to blame

punky
07-07-2009, 13:06
The cyclists are saying they need special roads and paths (presumably paid out of road tax), but with an accident like that pedestrians or even people in cars are vunerable. The catch is obviously suspect, the lorry seemed to have been going a bit fast and the group of cyclists were all over the road.

Maggy
07-07-2009, 23:42
The cyclists are saying they need special roads and paths (presumably paid out of road tax), but with an accident like that pedestrians or even people in cars are vunerable. The catch is obviously suspect, the lorry seemed to have been going a bit fast and the group of cyclists were all over the road.

I'm thinking it is well past time that cyclists were licensed,had compulsory insurance and have to paid for a DVLA licence.

Round here they have more than enough special lanes and off road cycle ways but there are still the 'macho' guys who would rather flog along on the main road instead of using the amenities provided by the local councils so in that case perhaps they should be treated like every other road user.

As for Boris well he is the Mayor of London so maybe the solutions for safer cycling and safer roads are in his hands?

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:07
yeah lets all penilise the cyclist those nasty none polluting peeps who dont have a place in society with those on the paths hating them and all the lovely giving kind polluting often in a hurry or on a phone picking their nose or listening to thumping music dont like em on the road either.

Whats next a license to cross the road?

Maggy
08-07-2009, 00:21
yeah lets all penilise the cyclist those nasty none polluting peeps who dont have a place in society with those on the paths hating them and all the lovely giving kind polluting often in a hurry or on a phone picking their nose or listening to thumping music dont like em on the road either.

Whats next a license to cross the road?

You sure you never lose your cool zing?;)

What's wrong with someone be legally required to be insured zing?Whose penalising anyone?Just putting them on a legal footing with everyone else.I'm also wanting to make sure that everyone with any form of motorised/electrical vehicle transport like say a mobility scooter are also legally covered(especially those who ride them on the roads).

Why should the legit motorist have to bear the burden of being the only road users who are licensed and legally required to have insurance?

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:25
positive maggy I am sat here quite calm. Just because I speak my mind does not mean I lose my temper I am up front . I admit speaking my mind gets me into trouble as I do not care if people do not like my view point.

The why is a simple question to answer. The motor vehicle driver is in charge of a tonne+ of metal that is propelled at speed and therefore is highly dangerous to the driver and general public that is why a driver needs a license. Insurance is the same thing that great big lump of metal can do a lot of damage thats why ;)

Russ
08-07-2009, 00:28
A cyclist is in control of a device which if used carelessly can lead to damage, injury and even loss of life. This is why I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea.

The downside is how it would be policed - what about kids going our for a ride with their friends, would they need to be covered too? Just too hard to administer IMO.

Maggy
08-07-2009, 00:32
A cyclist is in control of a device which if used carelessly can lead to damage, injury and even loss of life. This is why I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea.

The downside is how it would be policed - what about kids going our for a ride with their friends, would they need to be covered too? Just too hard to administer IMO.

Maybe we shouldn't let kids out into traffic on bikes? :erm:

Russ
08-07-2009, 00:32
Maybe we shouldn't let kids out into traffic on bikes? :erm:

Again, how would that be policed? We don't have enough cops to catch speeders, never mind kids on pushbikes.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:33
Oh we have to stop the kids going out for bike rides they can not possibly be allowed to earn a license till they are adults. So children cycling has to be banned. All those doing what the government asked them to do and cut down on driving they have to be made to get a license and insurance if they are not prepared to they will have to use public transport or return to driving afterall there are not enough cars on the road lets take measures to see if we can increase them figures a bit ;)

Peter_
08-07-2009, 00:34
Its the maniacs on the pavements who swear at pedestrians and the nutters who ignore traffic lights and swear at cars coming through on green that make a valid case for anyone over the age of say 14 having to be licensed, taxed and insured.just like any other road user.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:35
Again, how would that be policed? We don't have enough cops to catch speeders, never mind kids on pushbikes.


we dont have enough coppers to make an impact on organised crime either

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:34 ----------

Its the maniacs on the pavements who swear at pedestrians and the nutters who ignore traffic lights and swear at cars coming through on green that make a valid case for anyone over the age of say 14 having to be licensed, taxed and insured.just like any other road user.


why should a cyclist pay tax? what impact on the road do they have? if you want to tax cyclists you have to give them free access and that means cycle lanes on every strip of road in the country. How much do you think road tax will need to increase to pay for that then ;)

danielf
08-07-2009, 00:36
A cyclist is in control of a device which if used carelessly can lead to damage, injury and even loss of life. This is why I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea.

So can a pram, but admittedly this is somewhat less likely.


The downside is how it would be policed - what about kids going our for a ride with their friends, would they need to be covered too? Just too hard to administer IMO.

I'm thinking that a cycling incident would be covered by a general public liability insurance? I'd have to check the policy on mine, but I'd be surprised if it was excluded.

Russ
08-07-2009, 00:38
So can a pram, but admittedly this is somewhat less likely.

A pram is closer to being a necessity and isn't supposed to be used on the road alongside traffic.

Maggy
08-07-2009, 00:39
we dont have enough coppers to make an impact on organised crime either

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:34 ----------




why should a cyclist pay tax? what impact on the road do they have? if you want to tax cyclists you have to give them free access and that means cycle lanes on every strip of road in the country. How much do you think road tax will need to increase to pay for that then ;)

Actually zing it comes out of local council funding.;)

danielf
08-07-2009, 00:41
Its the maniacs on the pavements who swear at pedestrians and the nutters who ignore traffic lights and swear at cars coming through on green that make a valid case for anyone over the age of say 14 having to be licensed, taxed and insured.just like any other road user.

Pedestrians use roads as well. If only to cross them. I say license, tax and insure all those maniacs crossing streets swearing at cars and sticking their fingers up. Oh, and don't get me started on those ramblers on country lanes. Bloody tax them. :mad:

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:42
Actually zing it comes out of local council funding.;)


do you think it would if every road in the country has to ?

Anyway funny really how a lorry going over a speed bump whose side door opens causes an accident turns into the lets make cyclists get a license and pay insurance when Boris actually didnt cause anything here unless he authorized the speed bump or didnt lock the door properly

Maggy
08-07-2009, 00:44
do you think it would if every road in the country has to ?

Anyway funny really how a lorry going over a speed bump whose side door opens causes an accident turns into the lets make cyclists get a license and pay insurance when Boris actually didnt cause anything here unless he authorized the speed bump or didnt lock the door properly

Funny how you made it more of an issue than it would have been....;)

Peter_
08-07-2009, 00:44
why should a cyclist pay tax? what impact on the road do they have? if you want to tax cyclists you have to give them free access and that means cycle lanes on every strip of road in the country. How much do you think road tax will need to increase to pay for that then ;)
They should use the road as per any other road vehicle and the impact they have is the general disregard they have for pedestrians when charging down the pavement at speeds in excess of 20mph or going through traffic lights again with total disregard to any vehicles legally going through the traffic lights on green.

Also if one of these traffic light jumpers is hit by a car the owners insurance has to foot the hospital bills as the idiot on the cycle has no insurance.

Plus if a cyclist on the pavement hits a pedestrian are they going to stick around.........on your bike, son.

arcamalpha2004
08-07-2009, 00:47
we dont have enough coppers to make an impact on organised crime either

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:34 ----------




why should a cyclist pay tax? what impact on the road do they have? if you want to tax cyclists you have to give them free access and that means cycle lanes on every strip of road in the country. How much do you think road tax will need to increase to pay for that then ;)


Why should they pay tax? because they have use of the roads?

I would go one further and suggest a pollution tax on them, due to traffic having to slow down before they can safely overtake them, thereby increasing fuel consumption by the car.

They seem to believe they are a law unto themselves, 99.9% of the ones I have come across do.

One decided to take a roundabout the wrong way one morning and almost hit the side of my car, now if they also had licence plates I could have reported the idiot.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:50
Funny how you made it more of an issue than it would have been....;)

you made such a rediculas post I had no choice but to counter

---------- Post added at 23:50 ---------- Previous post was at 23:48 ----------

Why should they pay tax? because they have use of the roads?

I would go one further and suggest a pollution tax on them, due to traffic having to slow down before they can safely overtake them, thereby increasing fuel consumption by the car.

They seem to believe they are a law unto themselves, 99.9% of the ones I have come across do.

One decided to take a roundabout the wrong way one morning and almost hit the side of my car, now if they also had licence plates I could have reported the idiot.


When I use the road as a cyclist I follow the highway code as do a lot of other cyclists.

Peter_
08-07-2009, 00:51
One decided to take a roundabout the wrong way one morning and almost hit the side of my car, now if they also had licence plates I could have reported the idiot.
The worse part is if he had hit you then your insurance company would have paid for his treatment at the hospital and you might have had to pay an excess for a few years in case he put a personal injury claim in as he would be uninsured.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:52
They should use the road as per any other road vehicle and the impact they have is the general disregard they have for pedestrians when charging down the pavement at speeds in excess of 20mph or going through traffic lights again with total disregard to any vehicles legally going through the traffic lights on green.

Also if one of these traffic light jumpers is hit by a car the owners insurance has to foot the hospital bills as the idiot on the cycle has no insurance.

Plus if a cyclist on the pavement hits a pedestrian are they going to stick around.........on your bike, son.

blanket statement again. The idiot youth propably would flee anyone with any respect would stop

Maggy
08-07-2009, 00:54
Again, how would that be policed? We don't have enough cops to catch speeders, never mind kids on pushbikes.

So because it would be difficult we shouldn't even try?
How many things could we apply that reasoning to? Drugs,murder,speeding?

I'm not really seriously thinking it should ever happen about licensing and road tax but I do seriously think that insurance should be legally required of ALL users of vehicle/motorised transport that ride/drive on our roads.

Peter_
08-07-2009, 00:55
blanket statement again. The idiot youth propably would flee anyone with any respect would stop
Anyone with respect for his fellow being would not be on the pavement on a bike in the first place.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:56
I think traffic calming should be insured and accidents caused by road humps should be subject to an insurance claim to the council

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:55 ----------

Anyone with respect for his fellow being would not be on the pavement on a bike in the first place.

cyclists are not wanted anyway cant please everyone ;)

danielf
08-07-2009, 00:57
The worse part is if he had hit you then your insurance company would have paid for his treatment at the hospital and you might have had to pay an excess for a few years in case he put a personal injury claim in as he would be uninsured.

Rubbish. See my earlier post.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 00:59
So because it would be difficult we shouldn't even try?
How many things could we apply that reasoning to? Drugs,murder,speeding?

I'm not really seriously thinking it should ever happen about licensing and road tax but I do seriously think that insurance should be legally required of ALL users of vehicle/motorised transport that ride/drive on our roads.


why dont you just go the whole hog maggy and say everybody of age should have personal liability insurance

Think would be funny as I only walk so I only need one policy you lot who drive still need two unless you pay a premium on your car insurance for when you are on your feet

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:00
When I use the road as a cyclist I follow the highway code as do a lot of other cyclists.

And a lot don't...same goes for drivers too and it's the idiots who make the rest of us pay.

Also why should I subsidise other road users?Why should only car/bus/motorcyclists and lorry drivers have to pay?Why shouldn't cyclists pay their way like everyone else?

danielf
08-07-2009, 01:00
Anyone with respect for his fellow being would not be on the pavement on a bike in the first place.

And if you've got nothing to contribute but sweeping generalisations, then perhaps you shouldn't post?

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:00
why dont you just go the whole hog maggy and say everybody of age should have personal liability insurance

Think would be funny as I only walk so I only need one policy you lot who drive still need two lol lol

Sounds like a great idea to me...;) and if I'm paying insurance to use the roads as a driver and pedestrian/cyclist then I won't need to pay twice.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 01:03
And a lot don't...same goes for drivers too and it's the idiots who make the rest of us pay.

Also why should I subsidise other road users?Why should only car/bus/motorcyclists and lorry drivers have to pay?Why shouldn't cyclists pay their way like everyone else?

A they are light and do not wear down roads
B they are light and do not wear down roads
C they are light and do not wear down roads

Also bare in mind the most neglected parts of the roads and the most uneven are near the curb where car drivers expect to rattle along so its not like we are getting anything out of your money

danielf
08-07-2009, 01:03
Sounds like a great idea to me...;)

And me... I have one. It comes with the contents insurance of my house. I've never had to claim on it, but I do think everyone should have one. :tu:

Peter_
08-07-2009, 01:03
Rubbish. See my earlier post.
He would still get paid out by the car insurance because they like to look magnanimous and the car driver can be penalised through no fault of their own, I rather doubt household insurance would payout for a cyclist blatantly breaking the rules.

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:04
Anyway I'm glad Boris is safe..and I hope he has insurance.;)

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 01:05
Anyway I'm glad Boris is safe..and I hope he has insurance.;)


he does not need it as he was not even involved

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:06
A they are light and do not wear down roads
B they are light and do not wear down roads
C they are light and do not wear down roads

Also bare in mind the most neglected parts of the roads and the most uneven are near the curb where car drivers expect to rattle along so its not like we are getting anything out of your money

Who pays for any injuries/damage they sustain if they aren't insured?

---------- Post added at 00:06 ---------- Previous post was at 00:05 ----------

he does not need it as he was not even involved

He may another time.;)

homealone
08-07-2009, 01:09
Anyone with respect for his fellow being would not be on the pavement on a bike in the first place.

Not to disagree, per se, but I believe younger cyclists should be allowed to ride on pavements - it is the older ones who use pavements as a convenience that seem to cause the problems.

In my opinion cycling should be encouraged as a means of transport, so seeking to tax such road use is not a good idea - licensing is another issue - the registration of bikes used on the road & possession of relevant insurance are moot points.

Ways to encourage adults to use roads for cycling in a responsible way have to be considered more, in my view - in the context of the thread there are some bloody awful road surfaces that actively discourage cyclists - whether it be from lorry doors smacking you in the face, or the risk of 'vibration white finger' , just for example ...

danielf
08-07-2009, 01:10
He would still get paid out by the car insurance because they like to look magnanimous

Magnanimous? Insurers? Are you for real?

and the car driver can be penalised through no fault of their own, I rather doubt household insurance would payout for a cyclist blatantly breaking the rules.

Third party liability insurance actually (upto £1,000,000 IIRC) which is included in my household insurance.

And once again, most cyclists are perfectly responsible in their use of the road (and even the pavement). Sure there are some bad apples, but the majority of us definitely don't go tearing down the pavement at speeds over 20 MPH.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 01:11
Who pays for any injuries/damage they sustain if they aren't insured?

---------- Post added at 00:06 ---------- Previous post was at 00:05 ----------



He may another time.;)


Oh right we are going down the NHS route now I see. Perhaps some of them have medical insurance? but one things for sure they pay tax one way or another. Maybe they drink 5 bottles of whiskey a ween and smoke 40 cigarettes a day and there fore contribute a fair wedge to the coffers. If you want to stretch this discussion onto the NHS and taxation then the topic will be lost is a debate on misspending

Mal
08-07-2009, 01:15
And once again, most cyclists are perfectly responsible in their use of the road (and even the pavement). Sure there are some bad apples, but the majority of us definitely don't go tearing down the pavement at speeds over 20 MPH.Unless it's a designated cycle path, surely they should not be on the pavement, even doing 10mph?

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:18
Not to disagree, per se, but I believe younger cyclists should be allowed to ride on pavements - it is the older ones who use pavements as a convenience that seem to cause the problems.

In my opinion cycling should be encouraged as a means of transport, so seeking to tax such road use is not a good idea - licensing is another issue - the registration of bikes used on the road & possession of relevant insurance are moot points.

Ways to encourage adults to use roads for cycling in a responsible way have to be considered more, in my view - in the context of the thread there are some bloody awful road surfaces that actively discourage cyclists - whether it be from lorry doors smacking you in the face, or the risk of 'vibration white finger' , just for example ...

Which is why we should be looking for ways to protect all road users.I'm perfectly happy for specilised dedicated cyclist pavements/cycle tracks/routes. I just get annoyed when some cyclists refuse to use them when they are 5 feet away and still continue to grind down the uneven curbs and inches away from heavy traffic.I have contributed my taxes to pay for these cycleways after all.

Peter_
08-07-2009, 01:18
Magnanimous? Insurers? Are you for real?

They pay out so as not to cause a fuss and to make them look good so yes.


And once again, most cyclists are perfectly responsible in their use of the road (and even the pavement). Sure there are some bad apples, but the majority of us definitely don't go tearing down the pavement at speeds over 20 MPH.
But you should not be on the pavement at all, no ifs and no buts.

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:21
Oh right we are going down the NHS route now I see. Perhaps some of them have medical insurance? but one things for sure they pay tax one way or another. Maybe they drink 5 bottles of whiskey a ween and smoke 40 cigarettes a day and there fore contribute a fair wedge to the coffers. If you want to stretch this discussion onto the NHS and taxation then the topic will be lost is a debate on misspending

Who said anything about the NHS? I'm thinking about claims on the insurance of others involved in accidents with cyclists.:confused:

Mal
08-07-2009, 01:21
But you should not be on the pavement at all, no ifs and no buts.There are pavements that are designated both for pedestrians and cycles as well, which is what I was alluding to earlier ;)

Peter_
08-07-2009, 01:25
There are pavements that are designated both for pedestrians and cycles as well, which is what I was alluding to earlier ;)
They are marked up specifically for pedestrian use and cycle use so not the kind of pavements talked about here.;)

danielf
08-07-2009, 01:26
Unless it's a designated cycle path, surely they should not be on the pavement, even doing 10mph?

No you are right. I will admit to taking 'shortcuts'. On my commute, this involves 10 yards of wrong way in a (very wide and quiet) one-way street. The alternative is several hundred yards of very busy traffic. My other commuting vice is 100 yards of pavement, where I'm extremely considerate (that is slowing down to their speed) of any pedestrians that might be there. It's their space, not mine.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 01:27
Who said anything about the NHS? I'm thinking about claims on the insurance of others involved in accidents with cyclists.:confused:

sorry that was not clear

I am guessing the figures are not that great. Incidentally ive been hit by 2 cars and on both occassions the cars were barely marked whereas I was another story lol dunno the figures maggy dont see many reports of it so here is your chance to shoot me down in flames and post some info about how much cyclists cost others

Mal
08-07-2009, 01:30
They are marked up specifically for pedestrian use and cycle use so not the kind of pavements talked about here.;)Don't use the phrase "no ifs or buts" next time, when there is an if ;)

Peter_
08-07-2009, 01:32
Don't use the phrase "no ifs or buts" next time, when there is an if ;)
On a normal pavement the should be no cyclists so the phrase is right in that respect.

danielf
08-07-2009, 01:35
On a normal pavement the should be no cyclists so the phrase is right in that respect.

Not even if they have training wheels and are 4 years old?

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:35
sorry that was not clear

I am guessing the figures are not that great. Incidentally ive been hit by 2 cars and on both occassions the cars were barely marked whereas I was another story lol dunno the figures maggy dont see many reports of it so here is your chance to shoot me down in flames and post some info about how much cyclists cost others

Actually zing I'm not thinking about the damage a cyclist can do to my car but more the damage my car can do to a cyclist and or their bike and the damage a cyclist can do to a pedestrian.

I have at times been pedestrian,cyclist and car driver..I think all three situations need to be considered and covered by insurance...because we just don't know what lies ahead in our futures.

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 01:37
On a normal pavement the should be no cyclists so the phrase is right in that respect.


but what if the cyclist is pushing his bike ;)

---------- Post added at 00:37 ---------- Previous post was at 00:35 ----------

Actually zing I'm not thinking about the damage a cyclist can do to my car but more the damage my car can do to a cyclist and or their bike and the damage a cyclist can do to a pedestrian.

I have at times been pedestrian,cyclist and car driver..I think all three situations need to be considered and covered by insurance...because we just don't know what lies ahead in our futures.

The cases are not great the insurance compaines would be the only ones benefiting

danielf
08-07-2009, 01:38
but what if the cyclist is pushing his bike ;)

Surely that would make him a pedestrian? ;)

Mal
08-07-2009, 01:38
On a normal pavement the should be no cyclists so the phrase is right in that respect.Okay, put it this way, I put it in a nice way that what you said was incorrect by saying no if's or buts; but there is a if in that a pavement can be deemed for use by both cyclists and pedestrians (and I do not mean just painting the gutter of the road green) ;)

You did not specify any different types of pavement. Now we are going down the road that I tried to avoid... ;)

zing_deleted
08-07-2009, 01:39
Surely that would make him a pedestrian? ;)
on just sat on his bike having a drink of water or talking to a buddy ;)

moaningmags
08-07-2009, 01:40
I have my 11 year old stick to the pavements as much as possible, even though she wears hi-vis strips and has front and back lights. There are too many drivers who disregard people on bikes.
She has a bell on her bike and knows to ring it well in advance of coming up behind people so as not to scare them.
At her age I rode my bike on the road all the time, keeping to the inside near the pavement, I'd be wary of doing it now as an adult.

Maggy
08-07-2009, 01:41
Not even if they have training wheels and are 4 years old?

Oh come on I understand Moldova's position.I was knocked down on the pavement outside my own front gate by a really stupid cyclist when I was 8 months pregnant...I didn't even get an apology let alone getting any assistance to get back up again.I don't think he's referring to young children at all.

danielf
08-07-2009, 02:00
Oh come on I understand Moldova's position.I was knocked down on the pavement outside my own front gate by a really stupid cyclist when I was 8 months pregnant...I didn't even get an apology let alone getting any assistance to get back up again.I don't think he's referring to young children at all.

That cyclist sounds pretty stupid indeed. However, the point was: where do you draw the line in getting cyclists off the pavement and onto the streets?

---------- Post added at 01:00 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------

Poor Altis. He hoped to spark a debate on speed humps, and here's 4 pages on cyclists :)

Stuart
08-07-2009, 02:11
I have to admit, I don't have a problem with cyclists in general.

What I do have a problem with is those cyclists who attempt to bend the rules or just disregard other road users. I've nearly been hit a few times crossing the road, at the pelican crossing with the green man lit by cyclists who have either assumed the red light does not apply to them (it does) or cyclists who have seen the red light, mounted the pavement a few meters away from the light, gone across the crossing and onto the road the other side of the lights.

I also dislike the current TFL bike safety ads which, while they focus on motorbikes rather than bikes, appear to say that the motorist should take care and watch out for bikes while they apparently ignore the fact that the cyclists should also be watching out for potential danger themselves (as should *all* road users).

Peter_
08-07-2009, 09:11
Okay, put it this way, I put it in a nice way that what you said was incorrect by saying no if's or buts; but there is a if in that a pavement can be deemed for use by both cyclists and pedestrians (and I do not mean just painting the gutter of the road green) ;)

You did not specify any different types of pavement. Now we are going down the road that I tried to avoid... ;)
I did not specify a type of pavement as the type of idiot I was talking about thinks any pavement is their right of way.

---------- Post added at 08:09 ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 ----------

Not even if they have training wheels and are 4 years old?
I said in an earlier post of an age limit of say 14 and they require licensing.

---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 ----------

No you are right. I will admit to taking 'shortcuts'. On my commute, this involves 10 yards of wrong way in a (very wide and quiet) one-way street.

As its one way you should get off and push for those 10 yards as no driver would be expecting a cyclist going the wrong way and you could get seriously hurt.

Maggy
08-07-2009, 09:49
Anyway this guilty topic hijacker thinks it is time we got back to speed bumps..and my take is that annoying though they can seem, safety is down to how fast drivers go over them.

altis
08-07-2009, 12:06
Well, I'm glad you've all vented your spleen over cyclists now. Perhaps the next time I'm chastised for not sticking to topic - I'll take the hump!

Still, you're not the only ones:

During questioning by the Commons Public Accounts Committee on the recent National Audit Office report on pedestrian and cyclist safety, it became clear that Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport, didn’t know that it’s illegal to cycle on a pavement (see Q42-44), despite being a cyclist himself! (see Q16).

He was given a very hard time over cyclists’ behaviour by David Curry MP (Q16-28) and Geraldine Smith MP (Q42-50) before Nigel Griffiths MP provided some sensible balance (Q112). Interestingly, Devereux also voiced frustration that he is prevented from insisting that local authorities spend their road safety grant on improving road safety, due to the policies of “a different department” (by which he meant the Department for Communities and Local Government – see Q108-111).

Taken from:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4519

Hats off to homealone for pointing out that cycling is to be encouraged rather than discouraged with the threat of licensing and insurance. Cycling is a healthy, green and road-space-efficient form of transport. The more we travel by bike the better for all.

There's lots more useful information over at the CTC too. Their research into the correlation between accident rate and the general level of cycling shows that the fewer cyclists there are, the more likely they are to be injured.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf
There's lots of clear, positive arguments for cycling but this document also shows that, in 2007, 136 cyclists lost their lives on Britain's roads whilst 5 others died in collisions with cyclists.

Back to Boris: Study that video carefully and you'll see that both rear doors swing open. Because of the bend in the road it's the right hand door that swings right out and catches the car but if the bend had happened to be the other way matters would have been considerably worse and Boris would, quite likely, be dead now. This highlights what is probably the nub of the issue. Cyclists are vulnerable road users and are daily threatened with their lives. I have been deliberately driven into from the side and behind. The only way to make yourself safe is to aggressively defend your road space. This is often misinterpreted and leads to yet more antagonism.

Back to bumps: I firmly believe that they are a crude and ineffective method of traffic calming. Strings of 'pillows' in particular get my goat. I drive a tiny van with small wheels, narrow track and stiff suspension and have to take these at less than 15mph. There is a massive increase in pollution as I speed and brake between bumps whilst the roads are made less safe by those behind trying to overtake between bumps. Meanwhile those in large 4x4s with their large wheels, wide track and soft suspension just blast along as fast as they like because they are unaffected by the bumps. What's the point in that?

danielf
08-07-2009, 12:27
<snip>
Cyclists are vulnerable road users and are daily threatened with their lives. I have been deliberately driven into from the side and behind. The only way to make yourself safe is to aggressively defend your road space. This is often misinterpreted and leads to yet more antagonism.
<snip>

I agree. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cyclists getting into trouble by clinging to the kerb at traffic lights or on roundabouts. You need to claim your position and stick to the middle of the road. It really is the safest option.

LondonRoad
08-07-2009, 16:16
I commute regularly by cycle and actually do believe that there should be some sort of testing for adult cyclists. I have witnessed a lot of poor driving over the years but I have also witnessed some attrocious behaviour by cyclists. A lot of is down to ignorance so some education programme could only be of benefit.

It's maybe a self preservation thing but I don't care much for the chance of my hybrid against most motors on the road so I cycle defensively. ;)

My regular commute takes about 40-45 minutes. I reckon if I cut through a few traffic lights in town, cycled on the pavement for about 300 yards to avoid one junction, and cut through a kids playpark at road speed to avoid a roundabout I'd be, at most, 10 minutes quicker.

Insurance is no bad thing either but to suggest that cyclists should pay road tax is laughable