Cyclist down London Bridge

spindrift said:

Left-turning lorry didn't see cyclist going west on Tooley Street, she
went under the wheels half an hour ago.

A very sad occurence, any news on the cyclist?

I assume that you mean that the lorry overtook the cyclist and then cut
her up turning left, rather than the cyclist doing the dangerous act of
moving up the inside of a long vehicle with a left indicator on?

Long vehicles, especially buses (who frequently strain to overtake then
pull right in at the next stop), are by far the biggest danger to
cyclists in London

Quoted message said:

From Cycling Plus

CycleLal

London
United Kingdom
238 Posts
Posted - 19/07/2006 : 09:34:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I came across it a few minutes after it had happened - someone said to
me the driver was indicating but the junction is a very tight turn and
she would have been squeezed before it happened, as the lane isn't very
wide. It's just so dangerous to go down the left hand side of a large
vehicle like that. Newbies, take note!

She had been dragged a little way underneath and so was about a third
of the way down the truck, and there was a guy who had climbed in under
there with her. She was conscious and talking, but fortunately no
blood, I think. Hopefully it's going to turn out to be a serious knock
with nothing life threatening, but terrifying all the least. I didn't
hang around as it didn't seem right - she was being looked after by a
few peds and commuters. She was wearing a helmet and I am sure that
having been dragged under a truck, she was glad she was.

Two other female riders stopped at the lights with me and looked really
shocked, so I said I had seen her talking and holding her head up -
then repeated the old mantra of never, never, never undertake an HGV.
Never.

Get better soon to the lady involved and gratitude to the rider who
climbed under to be with her, you're a top guy.

Following on from spindrift's message. . .

Quoted message said:

then repeated the old mantra of never, never, never undertake an HGV.
Never.

Your point is 150% valid and can't be said too many times. However the
OP reported the lorry overtook the cyclist then cut left. Hence the
importance of being well out into the road at LH junctions even if
you're going straight ahead. (Other good reasons as well.) I wish more
people would understand and accept this advice instead of crying
"irresponsible ".

Quoted message said:

Get better soon to the lady involved and gratitude to the rider who
climbed under to be with her, you're a top guy.

Seconded
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the exam marking business failed
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

Peter Fox said:

Following on from spindrift's message. . .

Quoted message said:

then repeated the old mantra of never, never, never undertake an HGV.
Never.

Your point is 150% valid and can't be said too many times.

I agree Peter.

Know something weird?

Half the cycling fatalities in London are left-turning lorries, and
half of these fatalities are women despite them comprising fewer than
half of all London cyclists.

I have no idea why.

spindrift said:

Half the cycling fatalities in London are left-turning lorries, and half
of these fatalities are women despite them comprising fewer than half of
all London cyclists.

I have no idea why.

Lack of confidence to take up the primary riding position, perhaps feeling
it is too agressive an approach for them?

--
Regards
Tony
(Take out the garbage to reply)

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

I spoke to a police woman at the scene about an hour ago who told me
that the lady involved has a broken pelvis and femur.

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=102775

Paul Weaver wrote on 19/07/2006 09:38 +0100:

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

Left-turning lorry didn't see cyclist going west on Tooley Street, she
went under the wheels half an hour ago.

A very sad occurence, any news on the cyclist?

I assume that you mean that the lorry overtook the cyclist and then cut
her up turning left, rather than the cyclist doing the dangerous act of
moving up the inside of a long vehicle with a left indicator on?

Long vehicles, especially buses (who frequently strain to overtake then
pull right in at the next stop), are by far the biggest danger to
cyclists in London

I cycled up Farringdon Road with my daughter last Friday night and we
had one massive flat bed JCB transporter to deal with. I kept it behind
using road positioning until it was safe to pass - not easy for it as
its acceleration was abysmal - but then we stayed behind it, especially
at the lights. But lots of cyclists were cycling up the inside of it at
traffic lights and waiting on the inside just behind the cab. I'm not
suggesting this is the case here but many cyclists are their own worst
enemy with turning trucks in London.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

ooglegroups.com> <[email hidden]>:
Distribution:

Tony Hogarty ([email hidden]) wrote:
: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:32:49 -0700, spindrift wrote:

: > Half the cycling fatalities in London are left-turning lorries, and half
: > of these fatalities are women despite them comprising fewer than half of
: > all London cyclists.
: >
: > I have no idea why.

: Lack of confidence to take up the primary riding position, perhaps feeling
: it is too agressive an approach for them?

The sample size is (hopefully) quite small, so it is plausible that
this is mere coincidence.

m.

Marianne Promberger wrote on 19/07/2006 11:10 +0100:

Quoted message said:

ooglegroups.com> <[email hidden]>:

: Lack of confidence to take up the primary riding position, perhaps feeling
: it is too agressive an approach for them?

The sample size is (hopefully) quite small, so it is plausible that
this is mere coincidence.

Its consistent enough over a larger multi-year sample to not be a
coincidence, but as I noted ^ a lot of it is stupidity on the cyclists
part in getting themselves on the inside of turning trucks. Yes there
are lorry drivers that don't check and ones that overtake and turn
across but there are also lots of cyclists that cycle up the inside of
lorries clearly indicating left and worse still, stop where they can't
easily be seen by the driver.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Peter Fox said:

Following on from spindrift's message. . .

Quoted message said:

then repeated the old mantra of never, never, never undertake an HGV.
Never.

Your point is 150% valid and can't be said too many times. However
the OP reported the lorry overtook the cyclist then cut left. Hence
the importance of being well out into the road at LH junctions even if
you're going straight ahead. (Other good reasons as well.) I wish
more people would understand and accept this advice instead of crying
"irresponsible ".

A cyclist being able to minimise the risk of collision doesn't make a
driver any less irresponsible when the driver is in the wrong.

Just as much criticism of the driver should be voiced as advice to
cyclists.

~PB

Following on from spindrift's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Know something weird?

Half the cycling fatalities in London are left-turning lorries, and
half of these fatalities are women despite them comprising fewer than
half of all London cyclists.

Can you give me the source for this information?

I have the 2003 figures where KSI for this sort of accident (all
vehicles not just lorries) is 9%. (Source London Road Safety Unit. LAAU
topic 2005-2
April 2005. Pedal cyclist casualties in Greater London)

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the submarine business went under
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

Tony Raven ([email hidden]) wrote:
: Marianne Promberger wrote on 19/07/2006 11:10 +0100:
: > The sample size is (hopefully) quite small, so it is plausible that
: > this is mere coincidence.
: >

: Its consistent enough over a larger multi-year sample to not be a
: coincidence,

Could you point me to any data on this?
m.

In article <[email hidden]>
spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

She was wearing a helmet and I am sure that
having been dragged under a truck, she was glad she was.

18 wheels, 30 tonnes, that's 1.5 tonnes/wheel - those little bits of
plastic must be really well engineered ...

Tony Raven said:

there are also lots of cyclists that cycle up the inside of
lorries clearly indicating left and worse still, stop where they can't
easily be seen by the driver.

Not that you can rely on a lack of left turn signal to mean anything.

POHB said:

Not that you can rely on a lack of left turn signal to mean anything.

Or the existence of one for that matter - the other day a car in front
of me on a single carriage one way road indicated left when what he
wanted to do was park on the right. I have a suspicion that his right
rear indicator wasn't working judging by his surprise at me overtaking
him on the right. I've made a mental note to check for side repeaters
next time I'm in this situation.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

"Can you give me the source for this information? "

The majority of cycle fatalities in London involve left turning
vehicles and the majority also involve lorries: in central London the
majority of cyclist fatalities caused by left-turning lorries while in
the rest of London this collision type is 'only' about a quarter of
cyclist fatalities.
http://www.citycyclists.org.uk/

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>
spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

She was wearing a helmet and I am sure that
having been dragged under a truck, she was glad she was.

18 wheels, 30 tonnes, that's 1.5 tonnes/wheel - those little bits of
plastic must be really well engineered ...

I don't think he was suggesting it protected her head as the truck ran over
it

erics wrote on 19/07/2006 15:49 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>
spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

She was wearing a helmet and I am sure that
having been dragged under a truck, she was glad she was.

18 wheels, 30 tonnes, that's 1.5 tonnes/wheel - those little bits of
plastic must be really well engineered ...

I don't think he was suggesting it protected her head as the truck ran over
it

In any case in most situations its the tyre pressure not the axle weight
that matters.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

In any case in most situations its the tyre pressure not the axle weight
that matters.

Not when you are run over by a lorry or car. The problem then is that
it's not the pressure in the tyre that allows the tyre to deform around
the body but that the body deforms around the tyre in order for the
contact patch to be large enough.

This is why rolling a car wheel (without a car attached) over your foot
doesn't hurt at all but do the same thing with the car attached and it
tends to make your eyes water.

Yes, if the pressure in the tyre was low enough (and the tyre easy
enough to deform) then the only danger from being run over by a lorry
would be suffocation but I would guess that the tyre pressure could not
be more than a few hundred mm/Hg above ambient. Quick bit of mental
arithmetic suggests that the contact patch would need to be something
like a square metre per tyre.

It's a similar argument why road damage is proportional to axle load
and not tyre pressure.

Tim.