UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => two wheel spiel => Topic started by: Zods Beard on November 16, 2013, 05:33:35 pm
-
Hello there, Ive decided to join you communist 2 wheelers and am looking for commuting tips from the pros please.
Let me set the scene, I'll be cycling to work 3-4 times a week. It'll be when I'm working lates so don't need to worry about getting shirts, trousers etc to work. Work has a pretty good lock up for bikes and there is space to store my clothing schizzle. Things I need advice on are the following:
-Is it worth investing in decent outer wear or should I go cheap as it'll probably get trashed pretty quickly. The Decathlon stuff looks pretty reasonable. I'm planning on biking in pretty much all weather conditions. Any other clothing bits to be recommended? Fancy shoe covers? What sort of gloves? It gets pretty baltic at 3 in the morn.
-What sort of safety gear? Lights are a must and I have a high vis jacket I can stick on. Any other bits?
-What sort of repair schizzle do people carry? My minimum research has thrown up puncture kit, multi tool, spare innertube and surgical gloves to keep my little hands clean. Do people think 'puncture proof' tyres are worth a go? I have minimum repair skills.
-Is it worth getting panniers, I've read riding with a rucksack can be a bit troublesome but I'd rather that than racks.
Thanks in advance and apologies for my basic questions. Any other hints or tips gratefully received.
-
How far is the commute?
If it's a couple of miles then a spare tube and a pump (or canister of c02) would probably be enough. (if you need tools to get the wheels off, then those too). 5 miles+ you might want a multi-tool.
I'd say go cheap on the gear. I don't have paniers but I tended to take a lot of things with me in the car and leave them at work. (i.e. on the days I cycle only take what I need for the ride. Clothes, towel, toiletries etc. stay at work).
Some folks say a red LED on the back of your helmet is a good plan for extra visibility.
-
1. If you you get a decent jacket it will last ages, Overtrousers are worth it when its cold or pissing down. Overshoes are pretty much a must, I use ski gloves when its cold and Aldi winter ones when its like now. Mud guards would be a good idea as well.
2. Put a load of lights on as bikes seem to be pretty invisible to the majority of drivers
3. Just get a couple of inner tubes a pump and tyre levers for spares. Punctures are the only thing you are likely to be mending on the road. Deffo look at the anti puncture tyres, Specialized Armadillo are pretty good and save a lot of hassle.
4. Just use a rucksack unless you have a problem with getting a sweaty back. I tried panniers and reverted to a rucksack as it was less hassle.
-
mudguards are a good tip as not having a wet arse makes cycling in the rain much more bearable.
I would say not to splash out on expensive gear straight away. Buy a cheap jacket and get on with it. If you are still commuting in a few months then you have earned the right to a decent jacket. Having said that I cycle in a pair of windstopper softshell tights/fitted trou that do a brilliant job of keeping wet off but not over heating and are good for every day in the winter. They are a marked improvement on lycra or and overtrousers.
I wear a hi vis vest and have one wrapped around my rucksack and have double back and front lights. Doubling up is good due to increased vis obviously but also it is inevitable that you will be just about to leave work and will realise that your light battery has died. You either have to cycle all the way home on the pavements or detour to get another battery. If you have two lights you always can get home on the single and sort out the batterys later...
I also wear a peaked cap under my helmet when it is raining (mine is goretex but a normal one would do the job) again not having the rain blast your face makes cycling in the rain much less horrible. I don't bother with overshoes and just get wet feet but don't cycle that far so just accept it. Though every winter I almost buy some overshoes or what have you and then spring starts...
I don't take any tools or pump but only cycle 5km so can just push home if I have to. Very rare though.
-
Yeah, I also tried panniers for a while, but went back to a rucksack and a consequently lighter bike, which I prefer. When the weather is rubbish, I'd rather go as fast as possible, and the sweat from a rucksack is pretty minimal when it's cold anyway. Having a small rucksack also encourages me to take as little stuff with me as possible.
I've not managed to keep my feet from getting wet in heavy rain. In this case, stuffing the shoes with newspaper means they'll dry before you have to do it again the next morning.
I go for a thin waterproof, and vary the amount of clothing underneath it, as it gets very sweaty in a waterproof (unless it is extremely cold), and try and just wear a windproof jacket with the waterproof one stuffed in my bag for heavy rain eventualities.
Can't really advise on gloves, not managed to find any that don't still induce painful hands, but that was true when I was motorbiking in the most ridiculous massive gloves too.
This'll probably curse me, but I've not actually had a puncture in the last 3 years commuting 8 miles each way on our gloriously glass covered London roads with Bontrager Race Lite tyres (despite the name, they are puncture resistant Kevlar lines ones). They are also pretty cheap (http://www.jejamescycles.co.uk/bontrager-race-lite-hardcase-tyre-id40573.html#info). Can't remember what tyres I was running before that. I do carry a spare tube etc though (which I view as protection against getting a puncture!).
-
:guilty:been committing by bike 12 years now:
a lite weight rain jacket as most of the time it'll be in the ruck sack.
Yes ruck sack but it's personal preference.
Carry spare tube. Mini pump. Tyre levers. Patch kit with quid for emergencies. Multi tool just in case.
Lights front and back. I tend to leave them onboard the bike all year as sometimes the weather is shit in the summer.
Not tight shoes and spare socks in the sack on wet days. Over shoes are nice in harsh frosts.
Clear safety glasses for crap off the road.
I'm using Altura gloves this winter. Better than the endura ones. Make sure the fleecy inner lining is stitched in cos if it pulls out its a bitch.
Helly Hanson.
In cold weather, fleecy lined leggings are lovely and keepin your core warm keeps your feet warmer.
+1 on puncture resistant tyres.
Oh one last essential... Smug expression for when you realise its brilliant and miles better than being in a car/train/bus!
And play nicely with the saps still stuck in cars!
-
This all reminds me, I really should pick up my commuter bike from my parents otherwise it'll be the bus to work for the next 6 weeks as I don't have a car. I also don't have a place to stay but that's a different matter...
-
See the other thread about good night lights. Getting two matching ones would be good so you could have a charger at home and one at work.
-
-What sort of safety gear? Lights are a must and I have a high vis jacket I can stick on. Any other bits?
My experience as a driver is that moving sparkly bits on bikes are great for visibility. So even though they look dorky, orange pedal and spoke reflectors. Also tyres with reflective sidewalls, see below.
surgical gloves to keep my little hands clean.
Excellent idea, why have I never thought of it? However, you won't be needing them much because ...
Do people think 'puncture proof' tyres are worth a go?
Totally.
My commute involves a fair bit of parks and woodland, so I bought a used cyclocross bike on ebay. It came with proper racing tyres which handled beautifully on the rare occasions when they still had air in them, but so quickly became such a pain in the arse with the constant punctures that I replaced them with some armoured commuter tyres. They're not as sensitive as the thinner rubber, obviously, but it takes a great big f*ck off nail to get through them and that has only happened to me once.
-
- Knog Blinder lights are great. Not cheap but great.
- Mudguards do work.
- Overtrousers for wet days are useful.
- Reflective jacket is a must, the £30 Decathlon one is about the brightest there is.
- Change of socks for wet days that catch you out.
- Decathlon clothing is cheap and fine.
- Neck warmer/headband/thin skull cap for really cold days.
Just bought one of these, excellent value
http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/ZXWINTER/winter_bundle (http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/ZXWINTER/winter_bundle)
-
Another vote for puncture resistant tyres.
I carry a pump (for slow puncture/cold days) and multi-tool.
Yeah, I also tried panniers for a while, but went back to a rucksack and a consequently lighter bike, which I prefer.
Whether the weight is in a pannier on the bike or a rucksack on your back is irrelevant, you still have to move the same total amount of mass when you sit on the bike and start pedalling.
-
I defo second the two set of lights, I personally always have one on flash mode even during day light hours, and have the additional Led on my helmet.
A thin head cover/hat for under your helmet, the wind chill can almost be painfull during winter months.
Splash out on good gloves (Warm and waterproof) if you want to be able to feel you fingers by the time you arrive to work. I personally use Sealskinz gloves which have been brilliant.
I now find clear glasses a must and cant ride without them.
-
from a car drivers point of view, hi-viz and good lights are a must. If you carry a rucksack put a hi viz over it
-
Benefit of panniers over backpack means you don't have the weight on your back which can only be a good thing if you need to carry a lot of stuff into work. Doubles up as a mud guard too.
-
Consider a set of these instead of overtrousers:
http://www.rainlegs.com/en/home (http://www.rainlegs.com/en/home)
They keep the rain off where it matters (and keep your legs warm) without restricting movement or getting too sweaty.
Definitely get overshoes - I've got the standard Endura neoprene ones and they've lasted 3 winters so far with no real problems (just the toes wearing out on my right foot where I put it down at traffic lights).
USB chargeable lights are brilliant - I bought a combination of the Lezyne micro/macro drive lights last year and they've been really good so far. Not cheap (~70 quid for the set) but I've not felt the need to buy anything else since.
-
from a car drivers point of view, hi-viz and good lights are a must. If you carry a rucksack put a hi viz over it
And from a lorry driver's point of view, steer well clear of trucks and buses. Never, ever filter up alongside one, especially on the left hand side.
-
Cheers guys, some good schizzle there, I've gone for the Planetx deal, nice one Obi Wan.
Sadly my e-bay find of the day has fallen through and I have no bike. I've seen a Cannondale Quick 4 on Gumtree but have am worried it may be a little 'hot', what should I be looking for? The guy has already told me he has no receipts due to a house move.
-
from a car drivers point of view, hi-viz and good lights are a must. If you carry a rucksack put a hi viz over it
And from a lorry driver's point of view, steer well clear of trucks and buses. Never, ever filter up alongside one, especially on the left hand side.
Bubbs, what's your take on coming up the inside at red lights then moving out to the middle? (if there's a bike space at the lights) Better to just stay behind?
-
I guess that's ok if you know you have plenty of time to filter up the side and then stop a few feet in front of the wagon so the driver can't miss you, but if the lights might change then I'd hang back.
A lot of drivers aren't that cyclist-aware in the first place and may be looking at their sat-nav/map/paperwork instead of checking what's been coming up around the wagon.
-
Whether the weight is in a pannier on the bike or a rucksack on your back is irrelevant, you still have to move the same total amount of mass when you sit on the bike and start pedalling.
I think putting all the weight over the rear wheel doesn't help (though I'm not sure about that, it's just the way it feels), but no panniers also means I can have a carbon road bike which is definitely lighter and faster than a bike which accepts panniers. Didn't make that clear in the original post.
-
Treat every motorist as blind, drunk, daydreaming and incompetent and expect the unexpected.
You wouldn't catch me doing it. I a big believer in work not defining your life. It sure as hell isn't worth risking it to get there.
If you've got kids, get back in your car.
Keep safe
-
Treat every motorist as blind-drunk, stoned, daydreaming, incompetent and driving a stolen car on your 3am commute.
;D
You wouldn't catch me doing it. I a big believer in work not defining your life. It sure as hell isn't worth risking it to get there.
If you've got kids, get back in your car.
12 yrs , 24miles 4/5 days a week, BUSY roads = one RTA (and I got a decent compo for it as well!), You get to work relaxed, faster than in a car, you don't catch other peoples colds on the train/bus, you stay in shape and it saves money. Well worth the level of risk involved.
-
I'd commute more often but home visits in winter are a bit of a mare - turning up soaked at somebody's house does cause a lot of hassle. Several people have refused to see me thinking I'm a postman or con man !
-
Several people have refused to see me thinking I'm a postman or con man !
I don't think that was anything to do with the clothes.
-
Wicker basket on the front. its the way forward. No hassles on the way back from the offy - just dump your four pack of stella in the basket and away you go ;)
More sherioushly - if you're communting back late at night/early AM, there wont be much traffic, but a higher percentage of the drivers will be fast, pissed, high or a combination of those three.. very bright lights really work well IMHO - front and back. THe one flashing one steady approach (already mentioned) seems to work really well..
-
12 yrs , 24miles 4/5 days a week, BUSY roads = one RTA (and I got a decent compo for it as well!), You get to work relaxed, faster than in a car, you don't catch other peoples colds on the train/bus, you stay in shape and it saves money. Well worth the level of risk involved.
However the demographic commenting here today represent the lucky ones.
-
I have been a cyclist in other cities but now I live in London and just drive my car because that's hectic enough and it's too cold for me. On the subject of lights - by all means have loads of them all over your bike but I really don't think they need to be flashing. Coming round a corner into a bunch of cyclists all strobing at you like a horde of paparazzi is just a bit disorientating.
-
Lezyne Micro Drive lights, though not cheap, are flippin' bright and charge through usb.
For puncture proof tyres, Armadillo's are pretty decent, but I find Maxxis ReFuse have a better balance of toughness, weight and grippiness.
I bought a cheapish pair of water proof trousers and regretted it, as they weren't very waterproof and also quite heavy, so I rarely bought them with me (making them even less effective).
A waterproof bag is a good idea too.
Winter climbing double mitts for when it gets really cold.
Riding in all weathers through the winter really teaches you how to suffer. (I think that's a good thing?)
-
On the subject of lights - by all means have loads of them all over your bike but I really don't think they need to be flashing.
:agree:
Flashing lights were maybe of some relevance once upon a time when battery powered lights were either utterly feeble, or nicely bright halogens that ate batteries in half an hour. Modern led lights are so bright and long-lasting that flashing really isn't necessary or useful any more.
You do want one or two good rear red reflectors in addition to your lights though.
-
Got to disagree... flashing lights are really annoying.. which is my point - you notice them...
Emergency services use flashing lights for a reason....
-
12 yrs , 24miles 4/5 days a week, BUSY roads = one RTA (and I got a decent compo for it as well!), You get to work relaxed, faster than in a car, you don't catch other peoples colds on the train/bus, you stay in shape and it saves money. Well worth the level of risk involved.
However the demographic commenting here today represent the lucky ones.
Some statistics from the Professor of the Public Understanding or Risk David Speigelhalter.
One of the biggest risks is being too cautious
Cambridge Ideas - Professor Risk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1PtQ67urG4#ws)
-
Cool video. I've been quite into the BBC's radio show More or Less. Prof Spiegelhalter appeared on that once talking about risk and bicycles. There was another one about micromorts too. All the episodes are online - http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all).
The bicycles one is from "Do free school meals work? 20 Sep 13"
Micromorts are on "Gay Britain 01 Oct 10"
-
Commuted by bike most days for about seven years, the first four on a shitty mountain bike I got for my 14th birthday, the last three on a nice 'winter' road bike bought 2nd hand on UKB. ABout three miles each way, downhill in the AM, up in PM.
Pros are it is typically quicker, especially in the morning. You get to work wide awake and in a good mood.
I never bothered with different clothes or shoes, just wore what I was wearing - i.e. jeans, hoodie etc. If it was raining I'd swap the jeans for some light waterproof pants - Marmot precip cheap from CCC. The main problem is if it is raining, or the roads are very wet, you'll get wet feet. It is surprising how dry the UK actually is, though MCR is wetter than Sheff.
Hi-vis top is a must obvs, and decent lights. I found being seen is less of a problem than being ignored or given too little room. Bus lanes are great, gutter cycle lanes are too narrow and encourage vehicles to pass too close.
It's very tempting to keep refining a faster route down the main roads, beating all the traffic etc. However after a couple of outrageous incidents with being cut-up (inc being clipped), presumably for daring to share a roundabout with cars racing the 200yds from one queuing section to the next, I started following off-road cycle lanes as much as possible. It's a bit slower but safer, and the pain of swerving round peds and dogs is offset by a nicer setting - parks etc.
Motivation can be tricky, its easy to crumble in the morning and get in the car. I tried to not consider the car as an option unless it was really foul, and leave it too late to use the car (which takes longer in the morning). Getting back is not such a problem as you are a) committed and b) going home. The downside is I was about the only person to make it in in heavy snow.
-
Riding in all weathers through the winter really teaches you how to suffer. (I think that's a good thing?)
My mate Scott loves to suffer, and commutes regardless of weather.
commute_011210.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r66cOoMjP0#)
(camera is mounted on seatpost btw, not what it looks like!)
-
The downside is I was about the only person to make it in in heavy snow.
Haha yeah, I've done that - gone to work in the snow with my bike, only to arrive and find no one else is there, and the building is all dark and shut, and had to turn around and go home again.
-
More statistics on the safety of cycling (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425)
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html)
I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
-
I wear headphones cycling (but not at max volume). I'm certainly not about to look over my shoulder just because a vehicle is approaching. I'll look behind me before signalling to manoeuvre and not wearing headphones would not change this one bit.
Should deaf or hearing impaired people not be allowed to cycle because they can't hear whats going on around them? (which is presumably the logic behind proposing a ban on headphones).
Shame they didn't analyse all the data they collected (which included headphone usage) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3242541/).
-
Like Slackers I wear headphones quite often whilst riding, not at max volume. My rational is I can hear over them anyway, you have to look all the time, modern cars idle almost silently before you consider Prius etc and never in 30+years of cycling has a car driver usefully beeped at me for my benefit eg. to warn of a hazard.
Can't believe the media is blaming the cyclists for their own deaths, sounds like there is a massive fucking elephant in the room in the shape of an HGV....
(http://s8.postimg.org/641ue703p/elephant.jpg)
-
More statistics on the safety of cycling (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425)
Couple of things.
Slackers - Cherry picking research which supports your beliefs per chance? You should know better than that ;)
And that other link - What relevance does an Australian study on cycling have to cycling in a busy British city with different road design, driver habits, cyclist habits, weather, light, etc etc etc.
After reading this report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425) I'm still no wiser about what the statistics are for serious injuries and deaths for cyclists in busy cities versus serious injuries and deaths among cyclists nationwide. To see the difference you have to dig a bit deeper.
Would you use nationwide crime statistics when looking at a particular area for buying a house? No. You'd use what's relevant to the specific area. Why would it be any different for cycling? Cycling is specific to a local area with its own unique set of circumstances and thus statistics.
These figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:
Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:
Pedestrians 5,272 Cyclists 4,619 Motorcyclists 4,653 Cars 12,298
Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:
There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.
There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.
There are more (but not many) motorcyclists than cyclists.
When you look at the report's statistics for Central London boroughs it looks like this:
Deaths & serious injuries 2012, by borough:
Camden
Pedestrians 208 Cyclists 246 Motorcyclists 170 Cars 160
City of London
Pedestrians 102 Cyclists 150 Motorcyclists 73 Cars 66
Kensington and Chelsea
Pedestrians 159 Cyclists 190 Motorcyclists 187 Cars 161
Lambeth
Pedestrians 202 Cyclists 301 Motorcyclists 290 Cars 322
The ratio's are far worse.
Also interesting is how the ratios of deaths/serious injuries between Pedestrians and Cyclists almost reverse between Central London boroughs and Greater London boroughs. I.e. the figures are higher for pedestrians and lower for cyclists in Greater London boroughs.
If I were to consider commuting by bike in a busy built-up area like Central London (or any other area) I'd want to know some bits of information. Firstly I'd want to know the likelihood of being in a serious accident for that area - not the likelihood nationwide or even in neighboring boroughs which have different dynamics. Secondly I'd want to know the likely consequences of that accident.
Common sense already tells me the consequences of being in an accident on a bike - not good. Going off the above figures combined with common sense about the number of cyclists you see around you versus the number of pedestrians, cars and motorbikes, I'd estimate commuting by bike in Central London to be too risky to me to make it worth the other benefits it brings. And I love relatively hard winter climbing...
-
Couple of things.
Slackers - Cherry picking research which supports your beliefs per chance? You should know better than that ;)
No linking to things I found in two seconds searching the internet.
I didn't even read it because its not my place to peer-review for UKB, you're all capable of reading them for yourselves and judging their relevance, validity and so forth. Had I read it I might have included my thoughts/comments/critiques rather than just linking to it.
And that other link - What relevance does an Australian study on cycling have to cycling in a busy British city with different road design, driver habits, cyclist habits, weather, light, etc etc etc.
Its called "Generalisability", yes there are differences in the things you highlight, but one would expect there to be common themes across geographical locations, Melbourne, whilst being in Australia is a big city with traffic and cyclists co-existing. By reporting one study it might encourage others to repeat the study in their locality and compare and contrast.
This may even have been done, but I didn't look at the papers listed which cite the one I linked to because despite outward appearances I do work as well as post on UKB.
-
Fair enough, point taken.
-
Sorry if that came across as overly defensive, not meant that way at all.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html)
I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html)
I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?
Stats show that most deaths on the bike are caused by other factors not attributed to head collision and therefore helmets wouldnt have stopped it. As such making it compulsory wont help as much as people think. Personally I always wear one and would always advise to wear one as every little helps.
-
In Londinium as 64% of this years fatalities are caused by trucks - that are 5% of traffic - it seems quite clear that the two need to be separated - either spatially, temporally or both....
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html)
I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?
Depends whether you consider the proximity with which cyclists are passed by cars is a factor. If so you could just grow your hair long and look like a girl....
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ (http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/)
Usual caveats of sample size, reading the paper yourself and drawing your own conclusions apply, and of course there may be spatial differences due to the factors that petejh highlighted which are discussed in this blog post.
http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html (http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html)
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html)
I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?
Stats show that most deaths on the bike are caused by other factors not attributed to head collision and therefore helmets wouldnt have stopped it. As such making it compulsory wont help as much as people think. Personally I always wear one and would always advise to wear one as every little helps.
Well OK, not necessarily death, but reduce chance of serious head injury.
-
These figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:
Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:
Pedestrians 5,272 Cyclists 4,619 Motorcyclists 4,653 Cars 12,298
Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:
There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.
There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.
The figures quoted here
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/move-over-amsterdam-the-london-cycling-revolution-is-in-top-gear-8671069.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/move-over-amsterdam-the-london-cycling-revolution-is-in-top-gear-8671069.html)
would suggest that your impressions are simply wrong & that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but
all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.
-
IIRC, the whole 'helmets makes you worse off' debate is based on one Australian study (where its compulsory) where they measured how close people drive to cyclists with and without helmets. They showed (nto sure how well) that motorists drove closer to those with helmets - to which the paper 'interpreted' this to mean that motorists assumed those wearing helmets were protected to a degree so they could drive closer to them.
I know of no other study that supports these (oft cited) findings - but am happy to be corrected otherwise..
In the meantime - all mention of people wearing helmets being worse off is bollocks (IMHO..) :)
-
that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but
all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.
Not commenting on the rest of what you said - but the above introduces another interesting concept whereby as the amount of cyclists increase you reach a tipping point where it gets safer as there are so many cyclists they start to outnumber cars - and by being the dominant form of transport car drivers are forced to take more notice of them - and thus cyclist accident/death rates fall at a higher rate.. theres a name for it (sorry forgotten - but its named after the person who came up with the idea - its Sydneys law or something like that..)
-
Cole's law :)
(edit - included smiley as it's a joke, sorry)
-
Cole's law
Thanks - memory lik......
-
that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but
all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.
- and thus cyclist accident/death rates fall at a higher rate.. theres a name for it
it's called "the presence of witnesses"
-
IIRC, the whole 'helmets makes you worse off' debate is based on one Australian study (where its compulsory) where they measured how close people drive to cyclists with and without helmets. They showed (nto sure how well) that motorists drove closer to those with helmets - to which the paper 'interpreted' this to mean that motorists assumed those wearing helmets were protected to a degree so they could drive closer to them.
I know of no other study that supports these (oft cited) findings - but am happy to be corrected otherwise..
See the last link I posted which is data from the UK from a guy who commutes in Bath and recorded just such data. Someone in the US attempted to replicate it (also linked in my post below).
When considering whether helmets reduce the overall risk of dying (or being seriously injured) from cranial trauma* then in light of the evidence which suggests cars pass closer when cyclists are wearing a helmet (or appear to be male) it becomes more complicated because you have two factors in play...
1) The probability of being hit in the first place.
2) The probability of dying/sustaining serious injury from cranial trauma.
Wearing a helmet increases the probability of 1) happening but wearing a helmet decreases 2) (conditional on the helmet actually being worn properly**). Whether the decrease in the later is sufficient to offset the former I've no idea and, and from a crude literature search, there aren't any studies/reports on it.
* They're of no use if you're run over by an HGV which crushes you, or hit at high speed and tossed around like a rag doll.
** I'd contest from cycling around for a number of years that many aren't worn properly, particularly in winter when people squeeze them on over wooly hats.
Not commenting on the rest of what you said - but the above introduces another interesting concept whereby as the amount of cyclists increase you reach a tipping point where it gets safer as there are so many cyclists they start to outnumber cars - and by being the dominant form of transport car drivers are forced to take more notice of them - and thus cyclist accident/death rates fall at a higher rate.. theres a name for it (sorry forgotten - but its named after the person who came up with the idea - its Sydneys law or something like that..)
Holland is a good example of this taken to the extreme. Cycling is so popular that in many places (not in Amsterdam though where space is limited) they build 3m wide paths parallel to roads to segregate cars and cyclists from each other. Plenty of blog posts and scholarly articles out there for those interested.
-
These figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:
Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:
Pedestrians 5,272 Cyclists 4,619 Motorcyclists 4,653 Cars 12,298
Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:
There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.
There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.
The figures quoted here
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/move-over-amsterdam-the-london-cycling-revolution-is-in-top-gear-8671069.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/move-over-amsterdam-the-london-cycling-revolution-is-in-top-gear-8671069.html)
would suggest that your impressions are simply wrong & that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but
all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.
It doesn't suggest my impressions were wrong at all, in fact if you dig into the London Evening Standard report and compare it with the Department for Transport accident statistics it reinforces what I'm saying about the relative risk of cycling/cars in Central London.
If you read the LES report down to mid-way, it gives an overall figure for road use in Central London: 'Bikes now account for 24 per cent of all road traffic in central London during the morning peak and 16 per cent across the whole day.'
Accidents don't just happen during the two rush hours.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2012 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2012)) The accident statistics for the 8 Central London boroughs (City, Camden, Chelsea/Kensignton, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Southwark, Westminster) show that there were a total of 8112 serious injuries or deaths between two groupings of road user:
Group 1: cars, vans and light goods vehicles combined,
Group 2: cyclists.
There were 2068 cars/vans/light goods users killed or seriously injured in the 8 central London boroughs - which equals 25% of total injuries/deaths of all road users in those boroughs.
There were 2128 cyclists killed or seriously injured, that equals 26.2% of total injuries/deaths of all road users.
So cyclists make up 16% of total road users in Central London throughout the day according to the most recent and most comprehensive census, yet cyclists make up 26% of serious injuries or deaths in 8 Central London boroughs.
I'm not pro or anti cyclist btw, and there does seem to me to be a lot of in-group biases going on in any discussions about cycling safety. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at the injury statistics in the DfT report. The injury statistics for central London boroughs make for sobering reading and should inform your opinion about the risk of cycling in those locales.
For me personally the figures would make me seriously consider whether the risk of cycling in those locations was worth it. That's all. I'm not interested in hearing biased opinions from any group either pro or anti cycling, the statistics, a pair of eyes and a brain tell you all you need to form a balanced opinion about the relative risk. Hopefully numbers of bikes will continue to increase in all UK cities until they are the dominant vehicle, Coles Law is in full effect and they are the most obvious and safe choice. But that's clearly not where we're at right now.
-
16% of the traffic is not consistent with "There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists."
At the very most it means that there are 6.25 times as many & that assumes that there are no taxis lorries or buses.
-
16% of the traffic is not consistent with "There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists."
At the very most it means that there are 6.25 times as many & that assumes that there are no taxis lorries or buses.
For the sake of brevity I typed 'cars' to mean all motorised vehicles, it was a throwaway term. But not 'hundreds', no. The interesting part of my post is the accident ratio no?
-
Jesus wept, wish I hadn't asked as I'll be dead by Christmas.
-
:lol:
Least you won't die ignorant.
-
But not 'hundreds', no. The interesting part of my post is the accident ratio no?
Not hundreds, or tens , or ten or even five. Perhaps you have the figures for the % of vehicles in the car/van group,I don't?
Perhaps twice as many cars ??
Given that, surprising thing about your accident figures , for me, is that car travel doesn't actually appear to be that much safer than cycling despite all the money spent on it , the viciously anti-bike mayor & everything else.
-
Jesus wept, wish I hadn't asked as I'll be dead by Christmas.
It has to be said, the run up to Christmas is the most "exciting" period for commuting. Probably all the office parties :alky:
-
what ianv said... and agree with bubba on filtering ++
and.. though im not a fan... high Viz wear of some sort is now the norm... so get some..
keep safe.
-
...
Given that, surprising thing about your accident figures , for me, is that car travel doesn't actually appear to be that much safer than cycling despite all the money spent on it , the viciously anti-bike mayor & everything else.
It needs someone better equipped than me to work out the relative risks but the answer will be in what percentage of road users are in the car/van/lightgoods group. If bikes account for 16% road traffic overall throughout the day then all the different motor vehicles must account for the remaining 84%. Take away buses and large trucks and you have the figure. Lets say, for sake of argument, the remaining 50% are cars and vans etc.
So,
25% of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in C.London come from a group (cars/vans etc.) comprising 50% of total road users.
26% of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in C.London come from a group (cyclists) comprising 16% of total road users.
That looks to me like you're approx 3 times more likely to end up seriously injured or killed in a road accident if you cycle in central London every day than if you drive a car or van, but someone better than me with my D-grade maths would need to look at it to do it properly. Of course it doesn't mean that much if the likelihood of injury/death (for car drivers etc.) is so extremely tiny as to be not worth worrying about in the first place...
-
Micromorts (http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue55/features/risk/index) are useful, a concept introduced by David Spiegelhalter (http://understandinguncertainty.org/) (who's in the video I linked quite a bit below). These are of course averages and don't account for geographical variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)
-
Take away buses and large trucks and you have the figure. Lets say, for sake of argument, the remaining 50% are cars and vans etc.
So,
25% of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in C.London come from a group (cars/vans etc.) comprising 50% of total road users.
26% of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in C.London come from a group (cyclists) comprising 16% of total road users.
There are all sorts of reasons for believing that that 16% figure is an underestimate of the number of cyclists but I'd guess we're in the right sort of ballpark now i.e. 3 times as many cars as cycles on the road overall.
Importantly , during busy periods, when road space is at a premium, this is much lower.
If we take your guesstimate that 36% of traffic is buses lorries & taxis & 24% is cycles then it's less than twice as many.
It's easy to assume that transport in London is car dominated because they are allocated all the space, priority & money but in practice the numbers are (relatively) extremely low.
Sorry to bore everyone crapless with this but the technique that you (I assume inadvertently) used, of associating genuine stats with a whopping great lie, is one that the tories & the right-wing press use frequently to peddle their shit & it really winds me up.
-
Ummm... What? :shrug:
I'm not coming at this from any political angle?! - I don't have the faintest idea of what the various parties views are about cycling, either nationally or in London. The accident figures are what they are and these, when related to the approximate numbers of different vehicle types is what I find interesting because it's how you can cut through any bullshit and see what are the true relative risks.
The figures suggest two groups (cars/vans/lightgoods, and cyclists) with the same overall number of road accidents yet one group outnumbers the other by approx 3:1. Therefore that suggests an accident is 3 times more likely for people in the smaller group. There's nothing political about that.
You seem to agree with the figures, but then again maybe you don't because then you suggest it's all a political big fat lie by someone or other - 'tories' - with a grudge against cyclists. Talk about none so blind as those who won't see.
I don't understand how you relate this sentence:
There are all sorts of reasons for believing that that 16% figure is an underestimate of the number of cyclists but I'd guess we're in the right sort of ballpark now i.e. 3 times as many cars as cycles on the road overall.
to this one:
It's easy to assume that transport in London is car dominated because they are allocated all the space, priority & money but in practice the numbers are (relatively) extremely low.
Sorry to bore everyone crapless with this but the technique that you (I assume inadvertently) used, of associating genuine stats with a whopping great lie, is one that the tories & the right-wing press use frequently to peddle their shit & it really winds me up.
edit: I've just read the reader comments on that LES news report - fuck me I see why you're so defensive now, didn't realise I was talking about religion here!
I too apologise for boring everyone crapless.
-
But you have shifted from your original assertion that there are "hundreds of times more cars than cycles" (which would lead to the conclusion that cycling is 100s of times more dangerous) to the position that there are around 3 times as many.
TFL & the mayor have a vested interest in people beleiving that this ratio is much higher than it actually is in order to justify the way that they choose to allocate resources
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html)
I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?
Depends whether you consider the proximity with which cyclists are passed by cars is a factor. If so you could just grow your hair long and look like a girl....
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ (http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/)
Usual caveats of sample size, reading the paper yourself and drawing your own conclusions apply, and of course there may be spatial differences due to the factors that petejh highlighted which are discussed in this blog post.
http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html (http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html)
Re the helmets, we've been here before. Here's what I said/think. I've seen a few more since then as well:
Quote from: Duma on August 02, 2012, 07:22:24 pm
(really think having a lid on will make the slightest difference when a juggernaut turns left onto you?),
Yes. It will increase your chance of not having a permanent head injury if you pull through. Several times a year I have the pleasure of seeing cyclists in Sheffield in the Royal Hallamshire. There are exceptions, but most of the ones with brain contusions and questionable neurological prognoses weren't wearing a helmet
I'm sure you can find a few links telling me I'm wrong Slackers!
-
I wear headphones cycling (but not at max volume). I'm certainly not about to look over my shoulder just because a vehicle is approaching. I'll look behind me before signalling to manoeuvre and not wearing headphones would not change this one bit.
Should deaf or hearing impaired people not be allowed to cycle because they can't hear whats going on around them? (which is presumably the logic behind proposing a ban on headphones).
Of course not, but then they don't have a choice do they........
If you want to make bizarre comparisons, why don't you cycle to work on a hand cycle bike? My mate whose missing his legs would much prefer to have a normal bike given the choice.
(Ps I said in my original post a ban was ridiculous), I still think your crazy, still its a free country and neuro care is free!
-
Jesus wept, wish I hadn't asked as I'll be dead by Christmas.
Maybe rethink your attire needs..
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/SOCIETE-LA-FRANCAISE-BICYCLE-BIKE-DIAMANT-TIRE-KNIGHT-FRENCH-POSTER-ca-1900-/00/s/MTYwMFgxMTQw/$(KGrHqFHJBEE8+i(NON+BPWK6zbpDg~~60_35.JPG)
-
But you have shifted from your original assertion that there are "hundreds of times more cars than cycles" (which would lead to the conclusion that cycling is 100s of times more dangerous) to the position that there are around 3 times as many.
TFL & the mayor have a vested interest in people beleiving that this ratio is much higher than it actually is in order to justify the way that they choose to allocate resources
I know, and I already said I was wrong, my 'hundreds' comment was a throwaway without looking at any figures, which you've got hung up on - even though I've since looked at the figures and said the actual ratio is more like 3:1.
I have no vested interest, other than simple curiosity to find out some facts.
-
Re the helmets, we've been here before. Here's what I said/think. I've seen a few more since then as well:
Quote from: Duma on August 02, 2012, 07:22:24 pm
(really think having a lid on will make the slightest difference when a juggernaut turns left onto you?),
Yes. It will increase your chance of not having a permanent head injury if you pull through. Several times a year I have the pleasure of seeing cyclists in Sheffield in the Royal Hallamshire. There are exceptions, but most of the ones with brain contusions and questionable neurological prognoses weren't wearing a helmet
I'm sure you can find a few links telling me I'm wrong Slackers!
No need, read the other posts I've made and you'll see that I agree with you on this. :tease:
-
http://dutchbikeguy.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/ultra-shocking-video-about-lorry-blind-spots/ (http://dutchbikeguy.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/ultra-shocking-video-about-lorry-blind-spots/)
Interesting vid (sorry if posted already!)
-
Maybe rethink your attire needs..
I never let my lad out of the house unless he is suitably attired. Just need to spray him in dayglow yellow for total peace of mind. :-\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/7677455562_1170f35384.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37621241@N05/7677455562/)
002 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37621241@N05/7677455562/#) by ianvincent (http://www.flickr.com/people/37621241@N05/), on Flickr
Off to the shops!
-
I spent a few years cycling around Sydney without ever wearing a helmet and until now didn't even know it was supposed to be compulsory, so it's obviously not a law that's ruthlessly enforced which would cast doubt on any statistics based on it.
-
I used to commute in London by both motorbike AND bicycle. I gave up the former because it was too dangerous (got knocked off too many times). Didn't enjoy it.
Push bike didn't feel safer. It is, clearly, but it didn't feel it.
I also have to take issue with the politics here. "Anti cycling mayor" is just ill informed, unjustified polical bullshit. I mean, he brought in the boris bike (I think, or at least didn't can it), and he cycles everywhere! Just because he can't spend millions on it or pedestrianise oxford street (note: they're not doing that at christmas this year as the businesses don't want it).
There has to be some balance, in people's reactions, in the media, and everything: there isn't. Cycling is dangerous, but part of that is unavoidable risk and users need to decide if they can accept it. And stop doing daft things like cycling up the inside of everything from a smart car to an artic.
Also, unless you've been on the A3 between oval and elephant, you've not seen anything. Standards of cyclist behaviour, and how difficult it is to drive in a cycling dense environment where they overtake each other and perform crazy manouevres has to be seen to be believed. I'm surprised there aren't more dead.
-
I really rate those Leyzne micro drive lights Tom mentioned, amazing. I'm charging them at my desk right now, someone else is paying for the power.
Mudguards are essential.
Use quieter roads if possible rather than the more obvious main thoroughfare with a bus lane. Be confident, stand your ground.
Cycling to work is cheaper, quicker and might keep you fit too. (Within my current situation), I wouldn't get to work work by any other means.
As a vulnerable road user it is your responsibility to not put yourself in a situation that could be more dangerous, ie, where a lorry driver on the phone not using his mirrors could knock you off.
-
he brought in the boris bike (I think, or at least didn't can it
It was Red Ken's policy so "didn't can it" is right. They should be called Kencycles really......
-
I "didn't can it" is right.
He did however
cancel the London Cycle Network,
abolish the western extension to the CC (which was to have funded cycling infrastructure) encouraging more cars
freeze cost of remaining CC (ditto)
drastically cut back cycle infrastructure spending
initiate a program of removing pedestrian crossings & re-phasing lights to try & increase traffic speeds
cancel planned expansion of bus lanes
introduce motorbikes in bus lanes trial (& then ignore results)
…. Oh I'm bored now
note that this is contrasted with Ken's plans (hardly mister cycle himself)
-
I "didn't can it" is right.
He did however
... stuff ...
That's probably because there is more to life than cycling, and there has to be some balance. You win some, you lose others.
-
its a thread about cycle commuting, with salient points thereof... of course there is more to life... but c'mon.. this isn't farcebook.. its an informed discussion / debate with posts trying to be evidence based / supported.. its a forum.
-
Well I'm still alive so screw the stats!
Had my 1st shouty moment at a taxi driver today, feel like a pro.
Good tips Cowboy hat, I genuinely think car drivers make better cyclists. When I was a Driving Instructor I used to get loads of cyclists saying they ccouldn't believe how dangerous they used to be.
One question, how long will the god damn saddle soreness last?
-
about 10 days mate...
-
One question, how long will the god damn saddle soreness last?
You are wearing padded shorts right? I used to find that when I had a break from riding it only took a few days and then I was back in the saddle :sorry: If you werent a regular rider then a couple of weeks should have you sorted and actually a couple of days off at the weekend may help.
-
Er, no padded shorts! I think I will invest in some...
-
Buy them basic to fit under anything. And get a few cheaper pairs rather than one expensive so you can always go clean and dry. Decathlon is your friend.
-
ok just read about headphones and then didn't read all the rest of the thread :spank:
but I personally just don't wear them for commuting in a city - to me my ears are like wing mirrors in a car. You can hear if a bus or lorry is coming up behind you, you can here if the car behind you is slowing down (are they going to turn left into you?), it seems just stupid to omit that info - it's another little piece of awareness of what's going on around you - why wouldn't you use it (in what can be quite a hostile environment).
I don't think anyone should be blamed for not wearing a helmet or for choosing to wear headphones. I personally think a cultural and legal shift is required in this country where it isn't just seen as understandable that you didn't see someone. I think proper prosecution of drivers who hit cyclists would do a lot more than a few segregated bike lanes.
-
You can hear if a bus or lorry is coming up behind you, you can here if the car behind you is slowing down (are they going to turn left into you?),
I've only ever worn earphones a couple of times on the bike, but I could still hear stuff like this fine. I didn't have them at nosebleed volume though obviously.
-
I personally think a cultural and legal shift is required in this country where it isn't just seen as understandable that you didn't see someone. I think proper prosecution of drivers who hit cyclists would do a lot more than a few segregated bike lanes.
You should watch this for a proper explanation of what the problem is. It's quite frightening.
TfL Lorry Blind Spots Film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU#ws)
How to solve it? Road design, so that users are kept segregated, and cyclists can't go up the inside thinking they can be seen when they can't, for example.
There are plenty of instances where drivers aren't punished enough - e.g. car driver tweeting about hitting a cyclist who didn't pay their road tax - but in the london commuting safety case, it's not so much about blaming individuals.
It's not good enough to say "well, it's just the cyclists fault". Because although it sometimes is, the price they pay is too high.
-
There isn't a great deal a cyclist can do if a driver decides to turn left without noticing the cyclist in front of them, regardless of whether the cyclist can hear them or not. Nor do I see any benefit to knowing there are lorries/buses/vehicles in general approaching.
What are the possible scenarios...
1) Look over your shoulder at vehicles approaching from behind. This takes the attention off of the road in front and can often have a destabilising effect both of which carry risks which are exacerbated if there is a vehicle approaching (e.g. wobble or hit a pot-hole that throws you further into the "line of fire").
2) Slow down/stop when vehicles approach but this would defeat the objective of cycling in the first place as you'd be relegated to walking.
3) ?
-
Motorists lose badge of superiority to cyclists (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/motorists-lose-badge-of-superiority-to-cyclists-2013120681761)
-
its wrong to speculate on why cyclists have died specifically as none of us were there to see what happened BUT the responsibility IMHO is on all sides.
The road designers: need to design sensibly, I dont believe full segregation is the answer, when designers segregate it usually leads to conflicts with pedestrians (who usually begin to use the bike lanes as footpaths) and arguments with car drivers who think its mandatory bikes should be in the bike lane.
Drivers: to check as much as possible when they turn left nobody is there. Clearly the video shows how tricky this is for them, they need both the technology to assist and also the barriers on vehicles to block bikes getting pulled under wheels. I personally would like to see in London a rush hour ban on large vehicles, HGV's and the likes.
Bike riders: as a bike rider myself I agree with car drivers that we have a responsibility to try and avoid ending up in a road position where we arent seen. The rule I apply is not to filter inside a lorry/buss/hgv at lights unless I know the light sequence well enough to know I have time to get well in front of the said vehicle where the driver can see me. I have on two occasions shouted warnings to other cyclist to stop them undertaking as a bus/lorry turned and on one occasion grabbed the silly man by the shoulder and stopped him as the bus cut the corner off across the in place bike lane.
As for tax discs, glad they're going, but I suspect it wont change the impression soem drivers have that they are still in some way paying a road tax for use of the road versus bikes they wrongly think dont. But glad its gone.
p.s. hows the commute going? ;)
-
How to solve it?
Well based on that clip, better mirrors for lorries? Can't be that hard to fit one.
-
Exactly. Or just adjust the lower one. Or, even simpler, check the mirrors BEFORE starting to turn.
-
Could use technology and have little cameras fitted to show whats down the side of lorries, just like the ones that some cars have for reversing.
-
Could use technology and have little cameras fitted to show whats down the side of lorries, just like the ones that some cars have for reversing.
I believe that in Londinium for the construction trucks they are trying to get some sort of beeper/siren/"look out" alert fitted where it is set off every time a truck turns left.
Personally I think the sensible thing is to have a curfew time on large trucks (>7.5 tonnes).. And if that makes building in London too expensive - well other parts of the UK (plc) do exist...
-
Or, even simpler, check the mirrors BEFORE starting to turn.
Don't tell me you're supposed to check mirrors before turning, next you'll be telling me people are supposed to actually use indicators just after checking their mirrors to let others know of their intention. :P
-
Well based on that clip, better mirrors for lorries? Can't be that hard to fit one.
I have seen an example of some more advanced lorry mirrors that give a wider angle view (can't find the link atm) but it's not as simple as bolting a huge bank of mirrors on the side of a lorry in order to see cyclists because that just creates another huge blind spot for the driver behind the mirrors.
Some units I've driven are bad enough already on this front - I've nearly t-boned a car when turning right out of a junction because the car approaching from the left was completely hidden by the blindspot behind the large mirrors in a DAF XF that I'd not driven before. It was almost identical to the example of the "invisible cyclists" in the video above but with a different blind spot.
Exactly. Or just adjust the lower one.
Not sure what you mean? The lower mirror is a wide-angle mirror that is used to supplement the main mirror in order to spot hazards outside the limits of that mirror. Again, this is a compromise - on the one hand it's there to see objects close to the lorry but it's also to see objects far away, for example when changing lanes on a motorway it may help the driver spot a vehicle two lanes away that the main mirrors don't really "see" and prevent a side-swipe.
Or, even simpler, check the mirrors BEFORE starting to turn.
There's still a significant blind-spot that cyclists can dissapear into even when the unit and trailer are in a straight line before starting a turn. In a busy city environment the driver could be sat at the lights waiting for them to change. In the time that it takes for him to watch the lights turn from red to yellow to green and then for him to check his right hand mirrors and then his left, it's entirely possible for a cyclist to have slipped unnoticed into a blind spot to the left of the lorry. The cyclist may assume that the driver has seen them but he may be completely unaware.
I'm not just trying to blindly defend the lorry driver here - I'm a cyclist of many years but also happen to drive artics for a living at the moment (for my sins). Whilst many people have first hand knowledge of cycling on city streets, far fewer know what it's like to drive an LGV in the same environment. Whilst there are some undoubtedly careless, stupid lorry drivers, the majority of drivers (even those who see cyclists as a pain in the arse and an inconvenience) will go out of their way not to endanger them.
Could use technology and have little cameras fitted to show whats down the side of lorries, just like the ones that some cars have for reversing.
I think this would be a great solution. Two little screens inside the cab could offer a clean view down each side of the lorry. A driver would soon get into the habit of checking each screen before moving just as they would do their mirrors. Such camera systems already exist but I've only ever seen video from them after an accident has taken place rather than them being used as a precautionary measure.
I believe that in Londinium for the construction trucks they are trying to get some sort of beeper/siren/"look out" alert fitted where it is set off every time a truck turns left.
I think this system has a lot of potential: Cycle Alert (http://www.cyclealert.com/) but it relies upon ALL cyclists and all LGVs having it fitted - see some of the reservations raised here (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/541046/why-is-cycle-alert-causing-alarm.html).
Personally I think the sensible thing is to have a curfew time on large trucks (>7.5 tonnes).. And if that makes building in London too expensive - well other parts of the UK (plc) do exist...
Whilst a rush hour curfew on LGVs is nice PR from Boris and kind of makes sense in theory, how on earth would this be implemented? What do all those lorries that are near the curfew zone at 10 to 4 (or whatever) do? Park up? Where? Chaos ensues. I just can't see it working in reality.
Personally as a cyclist I steer well clear of large vehicles. I would never filter up beside anything larger than a car. I think education of both cyclists and lorry drivers might help but really infrastructure needs to change - I'd like to see more proper cycle lanes in place that actually protect cyclists and are more than just a 3ft wide token gesture painted on at the side of busy streets.
I like this a lot. (http://lcc.org.uk/pages/go-dutch-gallery)
-
Great post Bubba.
-
Personally I think the sensible thing is to have a curfew time on large trucks (>7.5 tonnes).. And if that makes building in London too expensive - well other parts of the UK (plc) do exist...
Whilst a rush hour curfew on LGVs is nice PR from Boris and kind of makes sense in theory, how on earth would this be implemented? What do all those lorries that are near the curfew zone at 10 to 4 (or whatever) do? Park up? Where? Chaos ensues. I just can't see it working in reality.
:agree:
Construction is not the only industry using LGVs. A human being who needs to be in central London at a specific time has various other options open to them if they are unable to cycle. Something that's being transported into central London in a 40 foot artic is probably difficult or impossible to move any other way.
-
France have no qualms about imposing HGV restrictions
http://about-france.com/hgv.htm (http://about-france.com/hgv.htm)
-
On a separate note from HGV related cycling issues, I've found that Merino cycling tops are great for commuting. They don't have to be washed as often as synthetic based tops
-
"There are exceptions for trucks carrying perishable produce or refrigerated produce, trucks servicing sporting events or trade fairs, and a few other cases."
Restrictions, sure. There are already various localised restrictions in place, but any kind of blanket ban doesn't seem realistic, and if one was enforced it would have significant negative economic and cultural consequences in areas far removed from cyclist injury statistics.
-
if one was enforced it would have significant negative economic and cultural consequences in areas far removed from cyclist injury statistics.
Could you be more descriptive please as personally I think lives are slightly more important than profit and can't think what you refer to by "cultural consequences".
-
On a separate note from HGV related cycling issues, I've found that Merino cycling tops are great for commuting. They don't have to be washed as often as synthetic based tops
(http://irishjaunt.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/father-ted-careful-now.jpg)
You run the risk of bring the thread back on track ;)
-
I'm sure that a ban could be trialled for 6 months... and i am sure the HGV's can schedule their deliveries so as not to all be sat in car parks outside the centre until 10am. It isnt rocket science, put the goods into smaller less risky vans or deliver later.
-
France have no qualms about imposing HGV restrictions
http://about-france.com/hgv.htm (http://about-france.com/hgv.htm)
France:
Most heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes are banned from the French road and motorway network every weekend between the hours of 10 p.m Saturday and 10 p.m Sunday.
There are exceptions for trucks carrying perishable produce or refrigerated produce, trucks servicing sporting events or trade fairs, and a few other cases
in Paris:
HGVs cannot enter the Paris area on Mondays and day following a public holiday, from 6 a.m to 10 a.m,
HGVs cannot leave the Paris area on Fridays and days preceding a public holiday, usually from 4 p.m. onwards.
Now, London:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/london_lorry_control_scheme.aspx (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/london_lorry_control_scheme.aspx)
The LLCS restricts the movement of HGVs in London at night and weekends. [...]
21:00 to 07:00, Monday to Saturday
13:00 Saturdays to 07:00 Mondays
So, it seems the only difference... is that France doesn't have early morning and late night restrictions during the week, where London does; the French are more restrictive on Monday mornings, friday afternoons, and on bank holidays; and London is more permissive on a Saturday morning.
In both cases, on dark, wet, miserable wednesday morning, at 8.30am, you run the risk of being crushed by a dumper truck.
So I fail to see why following the example of the French is a good idea. (In fact, when exactly would this have been a good idea in any case, why would you do what those cheese eating surrender monkey's do? Wars were fought over this shit, come on guys FFS)
Especially over road safety...
Then again, they did invent the bicycle. Maybe we've actually come across the heart of the problem.
-
Put my hand up and say I was unaware of any restrictions in London. As our cousins across t'watter say, my bad.
-
if one was enforced it would have significant negative economic and cultural consequences in areas far removed from cyclist injury statistics.
Could you be more descriptive please as personally I think lives are slightly more important than profit and can't think what you refer to by "cultural consequences".
Sorry for being vague. I am admittedly looking at this from my own narrow world view and thinking mainly of entertainment industry logistics. Shows that tour in trucks often do so on tight schedules and budgets, venues and crew are not cheap. A truck showing up two hours late can be the difference between a production making or losing money. Introducing situations where trucks need to wait around outside cities overnight, or equipment has to be cross-loaded into a fleet of vans will in many cases mean the show is no longer economically viable and just doesn't happen. Which means less shows, which means less work for me and all the other freelancers trying to make ends meet in London. With lower budget shows often being the most creatively interesting it also means an unquantifiable slump in the cultural wealth of the city. This is just one specific example of how increased HGV restrictions could have far-reaching knock-on effects, but I'm sure there are many more.
Of course lives are more important than profits, and of course we should continually try to minimise the amount of cyclists being killed by trucks, but the 'truck hits cyclist therefore ban all trucks' line of reasoning just seems a bit simplistic and unrealistic to me.
-
Again, not the focus of the topic... But I have to question the policing of the french HGV laws at the weekends, unless autoroutes are different, coz 9 a.m on a Sunday on the autoroute de Titans... Out of Geneva... Its fecking rammed.. In 5 consecutive years of experience...
-
Sorry for being vague.
Thanks miso that context makes things clearer.
Could use technology and have little cameras fitted to show whats down the side of lorries, just like the ones that some cars have for reversing.
I think this would be a great solution. Two little screens inside the cab could offer a clean view down each side of the lorry. A driver would soon get into the habit of checking each screen before moving just as they would do their mirrors. Such camera systems already exist but I've only ever seen video from them after an accident has taken place rather than them being used as a precautionary measure.
As if by magic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25340635)
-
Editorial piece in the BMJ on cycle helmets, risk and public policy (posting as much for the articles it cites).... http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref
-
When is a 'cluster' a cluster (http://understandinguncertainty.org/when-cluster-real-cluster) a blog post from David Speigelhalter covering the statistical analysis of the cluster of deaths in London recently based on a article he's co-authored in Significance (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2013.00715.x/abstract) (pay-walled). I've no idea where the 108/208 figure which underpins the calculations comes from though.
-
Reading up on 'bone conduction headphones'. If anyone wants to listen to tunes but is worried about not hearing traffic noise whilst commuting in traffic they might be handy...
http://www.aftershokz.co.uk/Bone-Conduction-Headphones-AfterShokz-s/1818.htm (http://www.aftershokz.co.uk/Bone-Conduction-Headphones-AfterShokz-s/1818.htm)
(like most things developed for the military which finds it way into civvy use it is usually pretty 8) )