Saturday, 16 April 2011

It Takes Two To Tango…

Urgent action is needed to protect cyclists from lorries and buses, with 230 cyclists killed or seriously injured every month on Britain's crowded roads, campaigners say.
And that urgent action is targeted at…only one of the partners in the dance:
Legislation requiring hauliers to fit the 450,000 lorries in Britain with sensors and emergency braking systems is being examined in Brussels following intensive lobbying by relatives of a young woman killed when she was dragged under the wheels of a HGV as it turned without the driver noticing her in the vehicle's "blind spot".
I don’t ride a bike, but I’ve heard of the ‘blind spot’ and the dangers of buses and lorries not seeing you if they are turning left.

Why, then, have so many cyclists not heard? Why are they not learning from the well-publicised deaths of their fellow cyclists?
But a spate of deaths in London this year, and a growing toll of casualties nationwide, has prompted demands for better education of lorry and bus drivers, as well as cyclists themselves.
Aha! See, the ‘Indy’ realises there’s two sides to this equation.

Sadly that’s the last mention of it in the whole article.
Campaigners called for hauliers to be compelled to buy equipment which alerts drivers if a cyclist pulls up alongside them and brings the vehicle to an automatic halt if there is a risk of a collision.
What about something fitted to all bikes that alert cyclists that there’s a 10-tonne wheeled crushing machine parked off their right shoulder and they’d better not try to cut in front of it?

I mean, we clearly can’t expect them to use the two little orbs in their head, can we?
Julie Townsend, of road safety group Brake, said: "Too many trucks pose an unacceptably high risk to people on foot and bicycle. We're appealing to all operators to fit the latest technology to reduce blind spots and we're calling for the law to be tightened up to help prevent more families going through the devastation of sudden, violent deaths and injuries."
Oh, ‘Brake’, well, of course! The only vehicle they seem to love is the bandwagon…
The London Cycling Campaign, which promotes safer cycling in the capital, has produced a nine-point-plan for reducing the toll of death and injury among cyclists:

* Enforce speed limits and clamp down on drivers who use mobile phones.
* Crack down on hit-and-run drivers, who account for a large portion of serious road injuries.
* Introduce 20mph speed limits in all built-up and shopping areas of Britain's towns and cities.
* Require all lorries to carry full safety equipment to help them avoid collisions with cyclists: six mirrors, sensors and safety guards.
* Require organisations which run lorries and other large vehicles to provide their drivers with cyclist awareness training, as already practised in four London boroughs.
* Include a "cycle awareness" section in the driving theory and practical tests
* Allocate more road space to cycling, as has been done in The Netherlands and Denmark, among other places.
* Provide all children with access to Bikeability cycle training, the current version of the Cycling Proficiency test
* Encourage less car use and more cycling so that, as in The Netherlands and Denmark, collision rates for cyclists are reduced.
Nine points, and only one – point eight – that places some responsibility on the cyclist…

ManWiddecombe also notes this, and asks a pertinent question:
” Why no call for a riding test, licensing, regular MOT test, compulsory insurance for bikes and riders? These things that motorists are subjected to must be reducing road deaths (unless there is another reason for them?) so why not demand that cyclists prove they and their vehicle are road safe?”
Why not, indeed…

23 comments:

  1. My guide to surviving as a cyclist is much the same as my guide to surviving as a motorist: using my eyes and my brain. Indeed cyclists should have an advantage over car drivers - they aren't confined within a bubble that deadens outside noise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh yea gods:

    "compelled to buy equipment which alerts drivers if a cyclist pulls up alongside them and brings the vehicle to an automatic halt if there is a risk of a collision."

    Part of my job in recent years has been educating engineers on the unintended and unanticipated consequences of design choices made in their technologies.

    This has 'unintended' and 'catastrophic' consequences written all over it....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even the prospect of a weekend's no consequences sin with the Greek bird on CSI NY would not get me on a pushbike in any major city.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pedalling for socialism16 April 2011 at 12:30

    Where to begin...

    "Enforce speed limits and clamp down on drivers who use mobile phones."
    --We have that already for motorists, but do you mean cyclists who ignore limits and use mobile phones while cycling?

    "Crack down on hit-and-run drivers, who account for a large portion of serious road injuries."
    -- Would these runners be all the illegal immigrants who buy cars and if in an accident, simply drive off or abandon their cars and leg it? So... how you gonna deal with those legions?

    "Introduce 20mph speed limits in all built-up and shopping areas of Britain's towns and cities."
    --Good idea. Then the boy-racers who break the existing 30 mph limits can really enjoy themselves breaking the limits even more.

    "Require all lorries to carry full safety equipment to help them avoid collisions with cyclists"
    --More legislation, more checking, more cost to road hauliers so the price of goods and food can go up.

    "Include a "cycle awareness" section in the driving theory and practical tests"
    -- Sure. And why not include an OAP awareness section too, or a small dog awareness section too, or... or as many as you can think of.

    "Require organisations which run lorries and other large vehicles to provide their drivers with cyclist awareness training."
    --Require means more laws, more agencies all on public-sector golden pensions, so why not?

    "Allocate more road space to cycling, as has been done in The Netherlands and Denmark"
    -- You mean, flat, small countries where cycling is more common? Yeah, why not have cycle lanes on the M1? Chair-lifts for cyclists on steep inclines?

    "Provide all children with access to Bikeability cycle training"
    -- Are we stopping them? Oh, you mean in school time, instead of doing things like Maths and English (but given the swathes of immigrants who don't speak English there's little point in the latter, right?)

    "Encourage less car use and more cycling so that, as in The Netherlands and Denmark, collision rates for cyclists are reduced."
    --Ooo, small, flat countries again. Never mind, for encourage do you mean mean nag and legislate as you pay bigger pensions to the checking squad? But hey, I am happy to cycle the 17 miles a day I do to my part-time job up and down those hills. All I need is more pedestrian areas to ride through and the usual cyclist blindness to traffic lights and it begins to look more attractive...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cyclists and blind spots, consider it evolution in action. If you don't want to be crushed then don't go into the blind spot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Damn, Quiet Man got in first, Darwin in action.

    The concept is covered very well in the instructions given to naval captains in the days of sail on what to do if caught on the wrong side of an island during a hurricane -
    1. Never allow yourself to be caught in this position...

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a driver and cyclist I see both sides of the argument but bad driving I can try to keep clear of. Cyclists NEED regular testing to find out why so many are colour blind when it comes to traffic lights. I nearly killed one coffin dodger who went through a red light and then turned across the front of me and I truly believe that the wannabe corpse did not bother to look where he was going!
    As a cyclist I use my brain (a novel concept I know) and use my superior visibility and hearing (no phone or earphones) to make sure that I keep well clear of potential trouble. The concept of "Personal Responsibility" appears to be sadly lacking to these people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why go to all that expenses as soon as cyclists seem to recognise the danger of 'undertaking' - surely they're smart enough to develop some awareness and patience, like any other road user, and avoid the danger.

    What next; fitting night-vision technology to all motor vehicles because some cyclists ride without lights in the dark, while wearing dark clothes?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Everybody's got it right...at least here. Cyclists and pedestrians all seem to subscribe to the current belief that their safety, in all circumstances and in every case, is the responsibility of someone else. However dangerous the situation they put themselves in, the onus is on the rest of the world to keep them safe. But then, I suppose that is a natural consequence of today's crazy law, particularly the legions of ambulance chasers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's just what we want ... lorries automatically braking on clear roads because a cyclist is on it's blind side.

    Don't these insurance scammers do that to cause shunts?

    ReplyDelete
  11. helmets, dark glasses, face masks and iPods. Are we suprised that cyclists are as unaware of other road users as people sealed in metal boxes a few feet higher than the rest of us? It happens with pedestrians, I am constantly thinking and sometimes saying out loud look in your direction of movement instead of head down concentrating on your fucking phone!

    When I ride my bike I am constantly aware of what is in front, to the side and in fact what is approaching from behind. That way I can avoid people who are determined to spend their lives like goldfish, or flies not only bouncing of things right in front of them but in a disturbingly repetative fashion doing it again and again and again.

    Why someone who is super manoverable cannot aviod something as big as a lorry is beyond me, I can only put it down to my experience of pedestrians who expect you to look where they are going.

    No to taxing or insuring or registering bikes, its just like skiing or any other persuit that carries an obvious risk, insure yourself or don't but don't come bleating to me if it all goes wrong. as for the road or other road users, bikes take nothing from it so shouldn't have to pay for it. If your a motor vehicle user you do have the option of giving a wide bearth like you might a horse, or not!

    ReplyDelete
  12. and yes I use free wieghts over machines, more chalk less rope and love to walk bare foot in the grass.

    ReplyDelete
  13. XX Mike said...

    as for the road or other road users, bikes take nothing from it so shouldn't have to pay for it. XX

    Aye?

    So, who the fuck is going to be paying for all these idiot courses and cycle ways then?

    ReplyDelete
  14. good question, I don't use them, I get from A to B, shortest route, avioding obsticles, seems simple to me. In fact I read about a town that removed loads of signs, street furniture and lines in the sand and allowed people to go figure, it worked!

    If your council is painting daft lines in the road and on the pavement for cyclists then that is the fault of your council not cyclists, don't ya think?!?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Two wheels on my wagon16 April 2011 at 17:35

    Mike: "If your council is painting daft lines in the road and on the pavement for cyclists then that is the fault of your council not cyclists, don't ya think?!?"

    Not entirely. It could be all those damn pressure groups and media hacks (many of who, er cycle and recycle) who get off on demanding more for those who contribute less, don't ya think?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Captain Haddock16 April 2011 at 17:54

    "Blind Spot" .. "G-Spot" .. I mean, really .. who gives a shit ? .. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Captain Haddock16 April 2011 at 19:22

    "its just like skiing or any other persuit that carries an obvious risk ... "

    And precisely how many people have you ever seen skiing down your local High Street & ignoring Traffic Lights & Pedestrian Crossings then ?

    Or slaloming through Pedestrianised shopping areas ?

    Get real mate FFS ...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Instead of compulsory exams for cyclists, let me suggest a sanctimoniousness test.

    It's my impression that only one on 100 would pass.

    And none of those would be the forum posting bores whose aura of neo-puritan smugness shines like a beacon whenever cycling is dicussed on t'interweb.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A fuckin hate cyclists me.

    Two wheels good, 4 wheels bad mentality. I always try to run the cunts into the kerb.
    Cunts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Captain Haddock16 April 2011 at 23:54

    "as for the road or other road users, bikes take nothing from it so shouldn't have to pay for it" ..

    That's about the most fatuous & typically parasitic statement I've ever read ..

    Its like saying that if you own & use a sailing (wind powered) boat on the River & Canal network, you shouldn't have to pay for a British Waterways Boat Licence or mooring fees ..

    Try it & see what happens ...

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Indeed cyclists should have an advantage over car drivers - they aren't confined within a bubble that deadens outside noise."

    Quite! Except for those that then immediately recreate that with an iPod firmly glued to their ears.

    "This has 'unintended' and 'catastrophic' consequences written all over it...."

    Yup!

    " Never mind, for encourage do you mean mean nag and legislate as you pay bigger pensions to the checking squad?"

    I expect they plan to let the police do that, since they do such a sterling job of enforcing the 'no mobiles while driving' rule already...

    *hollow laugh*

    "Cyclists NEED regular testing to find out why so many are colour blind when it comes to traffic lights."

    As a pedestrian that always really, really annoys me too.

    " It happens with pedestrians..."

    Agreed, I'd have Singapore's strict 'jaywalking' laws brought in. One street near me if particularly hazardous for that, because the bus stop opposite Sainsbury encourages shoppers to dash across the road rather than walk to the nearest zebra, which is all of 40 yards away... :/

    "Instead of compulsory exams for cyclists, let me suggest a sanctimoniousness test."

    Now there's an idea! :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. captain, you get the same discussion when it comes to snow boarders vs skiers. i have no sympathy for those on bikes on the road that find it impossible to get from a to b without comming into contact with other traffic, i do not expect drivers to give way in fact quite the opposite, however for some reason they seem to stay clear of me on my bike, as for expecting cylists to obey the rules of the road as motorised vehicle do this is absurd, in the same way that pedestrians and horse riders do not. I think this whole discussion comes down to jelousy of drivers and incompetent cyclists. when cyclists mix with pedestrians it is possible to glide with one foot on and one foot off therefore gaining the advantage of having the bike but also prepared for a quick dismount when faced with traffic.
    the dutch have it right, no barriers between path and canal or warnings simply if your bike is wet, your on the wrong bit

    ReplyDelete