Comments on: When Compliance Kills

By: spiderleggreen

spiderleggreen — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:49:44 +0000

Ditto on “the laws are made for car convience, first” and “don’t blame the victim”.

The main reason we have all this attempt to control movement on roads, is the inherent danger of motor vehicles and the fact that they are allowed to dominate these roads. The prime directive is speedy car movement. Everything else is a reaction to that. So while current laws may improve safety somewhat, focusing on changing car behavior would yield much greater results. It’s like the helmet issue, which is just a well meaning distraction from the real problem, cars are killing people. Want results? Figure out what the real problem is and work on that. The rest of it is just busy work and a waste of valuable time and effort. Yes, on a personal level I should do my best to ride safely, but sometimes what’s best for me in the short-term, isn’t what will be better for everybody down the road.

By: Dave in KY

Dave in KY — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:52:15 +0000

This is a standard way to crash. The League of American Bicyclists and Effective Cycling have been teaching cyclists not do to this bone-headed lane splitting pass on the right for decades. We even have a name for it: “Right Hook” (in the UK I’d guess it would be a “Left Hook”).

By: danc

danc — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:47:38 +0000

@ Colin “Cyclists filtering … is not necessarily dangerous”
Hmm, a cyclist filtering forward moves through blind spots, trucks have many! This violates the standard rules of the road, wait in queue. Try watching the Portland Water Bureau videos. I disagree with the assertion and so do 49 other state legislatures, even Idaho.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

By: Mikael

Mikael — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:02:18 +0000

The BBC article is typical in that it completely ignores the problem. The trucks/HGVs. It completely ignores the Bull in the China Shop.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/sacred-bull-in-societys-china-shop.html

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:57:30 +0000

Cyclists filtering to the front of a queue is not necessarily dangerous. If the cars are stationary, then it is safe as long as the cyclist is alert enough to merge in line with the cars before they start moving.

Filtering while the queue is moving is dangerous though.

By: SteveL

SteveL — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:53:26 +0000

This article should actually be celebrated as it is the first time that the BBC has given any coverage to the lethal situation that is developing in london -women, in a statistically significant proportion- are being killed by lorries. However, rather than worry about the details, I’d like to worry about why anyone is going under an HGV. Why are they being driven round UK cities? What extra measures could be taken to reduce the risk to cyclists?

The BBC may be looking at this problem, but it is still in “blame the victim” mode.

By: danc

danc — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:50:52 +0000

From: http://isocrates.us/bike/2009/10/trucks-and-intersections/ 
The problem is easily solved,
IMO:
 1. Avoid advancing on the right of a stopped line of traffic. 
2. Take your proper place in traffic, i.e. in line behind the car in from of you.
 3. Advance when allowed by traffic control.

This situation also illustrates why bicycle lanes that end at intersections are dangerous.

For the most part, you never want to be on the right side of a vehicle at an intersection unless you each have your own lane — that is a regualr traffic lane.

DanC adds: “advancing on .. stopped line of traffic”, is colloquially know as “filtering”, illegal in the US except California. The practice is obviously dangerous.

Bicycle riders even have this problem in Portland, Oregon. The City Water Dept let cyclists ride in the truck cab so they could understand why it’s hard to see cyclist sometimes. http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.cfm?c=48440&a=211185

Training video, might even be useful for cyclists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NDn06YvsU

Truck driver must exercise due care but what about the cyclists responsibility?

By: Rhiannon

Rhiannon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:47:57 +0000

In parts of cycling-friendly Europe such as Munich, they have cyclist only lights at intersections that allow the cyclists to go first before the vehicle signal goes. This prevents problems such as vehicles making right hand turns into cyclists and allows cyclists to get ahead of the vehicles at the intersection. Perhaps these signals should be implemented on a more widespread scale. I would like to see these where I live in Vancouver.

http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t54813.html

By: mikey2gorgeous

mikey2gorgeous — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:05:32 +0000

@doug - “Rather than doing this, cyclists should stop behind dangerous vehicles at stop lights.”

Whatever you think of the cyclists’ behaviour - the truck driver has a duty of care to ensure they don’t harm others. These incidents stem from the driver not looking properly before turning.

By: Colin

Colin — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:21:19 +0000

It may be true that men jump more red lights, which avoids the issue, but it’s not strictly compliance that’s the problem. The problem is stopping next to a vehicle. For their own safety cyclists should stop either in front or behind a vehicle, but never next to one.

When cycling I usually filter to the front of the queue at a red lights, and then wait directly in front of the first vehicle. It might be that women are less likely to be this assertive in traffic, but I suspect it’s more a case of lack of experience, and also lack of cyclists. On roads where there are a lot of cyclists I see a pack of cyclists form at the head of red lights, which has an educative effect on cyclists (and also motorists).

I disagree that the road rules are designed to make everybody more safe. They’re heavily weighted to the safety and convenience of motorists at the expense of other road users, and they’re rarely enforced when the only people threatened are cyclists.