Bicycle Accident - 2pm today

[Lowlander]

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> to suggest that drivers take less care around

> cyclists with helmets is utter folly. I would ask

> how you go about measuring this if I didn't think

> it was such rubbish. Idiosyncratic at best.

Err, the link I posted was to Bath University, so the research wasn't exactly carried out by some tinpot institution...

[JohnL]

When driving a car I find cycle lanes mean you will find at some

point a cyclist not in the lane for reasons given below - I actually

take extra care when there is one now.

Id like a separate network of cycling roads - that would get me cycling -

but its not going to happen :)

howdood Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Re Anybol's "cycling can and should be made more

> safe by way of creating seperate lanes etc where

> possible". I have to say that separate cycling

> lanes are the most dangerous thing on the roads.

> One: they mean that drivers don't feel they have

> to defer to (or even look out for) cyclists who

> are turning right - as now the cyclist is

> "changing lanes" rather than the driver

> "overtaking a vehicle signalling a right turn" as

> would be the standard Highway Code interpretation.

>

>

> Two: they encourage cyclists to pass stationary

> traffic on the left, which (as he points out) is

> generally more dangerous than overtaking on the

> right as motorbikes, mopeds, and sensible cyclists

> do.

>

> Three: given the dodgy quality of the roads in

> Southwark, the last thing you want is to be riding

> on two wheels over a pothole which you've been

> forced into because the cycle lane leaves you

> nowhere else to go (I nearly came off my bike in

> moving traffic last week on a 6-inch deep pothole

> in the middle of the bike lane going East from the

> East Dulwich Road/Peckham Rye junction.)

>

> Four (and finally): every cycle lane ends

> somewhere, and however many cycle lanes there are,

> we all have to ride on the open road sooner or

> later. The more cycle lanes there are, the more

> people come to believe that bikes "don't belong on

> the roads" and drive accordingly. I've had enough

> abuse from motorists over the years to know that

> the biggest problem is the number of drivers who

> sincerely believe that bikes shouldn't be on

> roads, full stop. Cycle lanes are a short-sighted

> concession to such bigots!

[Gimme]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We don't know that DJKQ. The facts here seem a bit

> sparse and the assumption is it's the driver's

> fault. if I'm correct there's a box junction at

> that point. Who was in the box first? Did the

> cyclist take reasonable care/see the driver

> indicating? Was she ready to brake? I suppose

> we'll never know.

We turn left at that junction every day.

At that junction, there is a bus lane that cyclist use, which finishes just before East Dulwich Grove. Cars cut across from normal lane through bus lane to turn left. If cyclists come up bus lane, and cars cut left without looking, and accident happens.

I've been hit twice by vans while cycling to work (one broken elbow, one knackered back wheel). Both times, I strongly suspect drivers were on their mobile phones (as both accidents caused by van drivers at relatively slow speeds not paying attention and driving erratically).

Something needs to be done about driving with mobile phones clamped to ears. It is so common to see. If hit by vehicles, even if not injured, perhaps cyclists / witnesses should record exact time and report accident to police, requesting check on whether mobile phone was in use at the time. I wish I'd done that.