John B wrote:
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents
arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in
London since the introduction of articulated vehicles."

"Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may
have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious
incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07,
and two in 2007/08."

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...en_answers.pdf

In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor
clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists.

Sorry, it isn't as simple as that. Lack of casualties doesn't equal lack
of danger. It might equally indicate that cyclists are avoiding the
danger in various ways that delay them - taking another route, not
overtaking when they would pass an ordinary bus, for example.

Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in London. It
appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but this may be because
their routes are more predictable rather than because of greater
inherent safety.

I know that:
- if I try to pass a bendy bus at red traffic lights, and it's first in
the queue, it can start moving before I'm past, whereas I can get past a
normal bus between red and green
- as a fairly fast cyclist, bendy buses rarely get completely past me
before having to slow down or move in. Ordinary buses often do.

The obvious solution to lack of capacity on bus services is to get more
people cycling - most London bus journeys can be done quicker by bike.
The way to increase cycling is to help people to feel safe on the road -
e.g. by removing bendy-buses, though that isn't the most important thing
to do.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in
London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but
this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than
because of greater inherent safety.

The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly designed
that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near vulnerable
road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists). On faster roads
they are often dangerous to cars too. For some reasons cement mixers are
some of the worst, even sporting signs on their rears drawing attention to
the fact that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads.

The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.
Buses are much better in those respects.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Oct 23, 12:40*am, wrote:
Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in
London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but
this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than
because of greater inherent safety.

The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly designed
that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near vulnerable
road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists). On faster roads
they are often dangerous to cars too. For some reasons cement mixers are
some of the worst, even sporting signs on their rears drawing attention to
the fact that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement
lorries are obviously terrifying, driven by people who understand
that, and dealt with by pedestrians, drivers and cyclist who
understand that.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Oct 23, 1:24 am, John B wrote:
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement

Them and 7.5 tonners who as far as I can see are generally driven by
transit drivers who've been given a promotion for the day.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:24 am, John B wrote:
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement

Them and 7.5 tonners who as far as I can see are generally driven by
transit drivers who've been given a promotion for the day.

You would both be wrong. Badly-driven vans and LGVs may cause injuries,
but rarely fatalities. In London this year 9 out of 11 cyclist
fatalities have involved HGVs. The long-term average is about 50%.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On Oct 23, 12:40*am, wrote:
Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in
London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but
this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than
because of greater inherent safety.

The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly
designed that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near
vulnerable road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists).
On faster roads they are often dangerous to cars too. For some
reasons cement mixers are some of the worst, even sporting signs on
their rears drawing attention to the fact that they are too dangerous
to be allowed on the roads.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement
lorries are obviously terrifying, driven by people who understand
that, and dealt with by pedestrians, drivers and cyclist who
understand that.

All the recent reports of cyclists killed by lorries that I have seen have
involved mirrors and lack of under-run protection.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:
The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run
protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed
bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the
ground there would be a high risk of grounding.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:
The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run
protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed
bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the
ground there would be a high risk of grounding.

Tippers, Skip Lorries and Cement Lorries are not, I believe, required to
have side protection. This is because they frequently work 'off-road'.
With other vehicles the side guards do offer some protection.
In addition the 'exempt' vehicle are often 'owner drivers' on piece
work. The temptation to cut corners is too great for safety. A left
turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed
evidence about whether he was even indicating. A cyclist hit by an
overtaking bus recieved only relatively minor injuries. If it had been a
skip lorry they would have been lucky to survive.
I think ALL HGVs should have a fully functioning 'black box' rather than
just a tacho.

Jim Chisholm

"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a
junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled
up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame.
If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist
is utterly to blame.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Boltar wrote:

On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:

The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load.

They could put the engine on top of the cab.

That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though.

tom

--
Virtually everything you touch has been mined. -- Prof Keith Atkinson