wrote:
In article


Those figures read dangerous to me. How many bendies are there and how
many accidents involving other buses are there, and how many of them are
there?


339 in intensive daily service, many 24 hours a day, so as John points
out, given the tiny number of serious incidents there's a large margin
for error - one cyclist killed by a bendy tomorrow would skew the
figures enormously, which in itself suggest they aren't dangerous.

The death toll of cyclists rose last year to 19, incidentally. Lorries
seem to be the big killers. According to TfL:

"Every year, more than half of all cyclist deaths on London's roads
follow a collision with a goods vehicle."

"In 2006, nine of the 19 cyclists who died on London's roads were
involved in a collision with a goods vehicle. Provisional data from the
Metropolitan Police Service for 2007 indicates that nine out of the 16
cyclists who died on London's roads last year were involved in a
collision with a goods vehicle."

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...hive/7695.aspx

Which is more dangerous, a type of vehicle that kills nearly ten
cyclists a year or one that hasn't killed anyone in six years?

The bendy replacement plans currently available*, apart from being
expensive, result in far more buses on the street. I don't think the
figures of accidents per million miles are adjusted for bus capacity, in
which case the replacements are actually likely to have more accidents
purely because of the increased mileage (along with using more fuel and
employing more drivers and generally costing more to operate).

The main point is still 'who told Boris they squished cyclists, or did
he just make it up?'.

Tom

* 3 for 2 replacement with 12m single deckers on the 507/521 Red Arrows,
7 for 5 replacement with double deckers on the 38. One of the Red Arrow
routes would have something insane like a bus timetabled every 120
seconds to keep capacity up. I'm half-convinced they're drawing up the
plans to show Boris his ideas are wrong, in a Serpell Report kind of way.

On 22 Oct, 10:56, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote:
In article

Those figures read dangerous to me. How many bendies are there and how
many accidents involving other buses are there, and how many of them are
there?

339 in intensive daily service, many 24 hours a day, so as John points
out, given the tiny number of serious incidents there's a large margin
for error - one cyclist killed by a bendy tomorrow would skew the
figures enormously, which in itself suggest they aren't dangerous.

The death toll of cyclists rose last year to 19, incidentally. *Lorries
seem to be the big killers. *According to TfL:

"Every year, more than half of all cyclist deaths on London's roads
follow a collision with a goods vehicle."

"In 2006, nine of the 19 cyclists who died on London's roads were
involved in a collision with a goods vehicle. Provisional data from the
Metropolitan Police Service for 2007 indicates that nine out of the 16
cyclists who died on London's roads last year were involved in a
collision with a goods vehicle."

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...hive/7695.aspx

Which is more dangerous, a type of vehicle that kills nearly ten
cyclists a year or one that hasn't killed anyone in six years?

The bendy replacement plans currently available*, apart from being
expensive, result in far more buses on the street. *I don't think the
figures of accidents per million miles are adjusted for bus capacity, in
which case the replacements are actually likely to have more accidents
purely because of the increased mileage (along with using more fuel and
employing more drivers and generally costing more to operate).

The main point is still 'who told Boris they squished cyclists, or did
he just make it up?'.

The vehicle that collides isn't necessarily the one that caused the
collision. Maybe overtaking bendys puts cyclists in the path of
lorries. Maybe people who have to walk in the middle of the road when
the crossing is blocked by a bendy get hit by a motorbike.

On Oct 22, 11:47 am, MIG wrote:
The vehicle that collides isn't necessarily the one that caused the
collision. Maybe overtaking bendys puts cyclists in the path of
lorries. Maybe people who have to walk in the middle of the road when
the crossing is blocked by a bendy get hit by a motorbike.

If a cyclist is dumb enough to get wiped out by a bendy bus they'd
probably have been squished by an HGV sooner or later anyway. The
golden rule of cycling is you do not pass any sort of vehicle on the
inside near a left turn.

B2003

On 22 Oct, 12:10, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:47 am, MIG wrote:

The vehicle that collides isn't necessarily the one that caused the
collision. *Maybe overtaking bendys puts cyclists in the path of
lorries. *Maybe people who have to walk in the middle of the road when
the crossing is blocked by a bendy get hit by a motorbike.

If a cyclist is dumb enough to get wiped out by a bendy bus they'd
probably have been squished by an HGV sooner or later anyway. The
golden rule of cycling is you do not pass any sort of vehicle on the
inside near a left turn.

B2003

I didn't mention the inside or left turns.

On Oct 22, 12:13 pm, MIG wrote:
I didn't mention the inside or left turns.

Thats generally where it happens though. If its any sort of other
accident then I don't see how the bus being bendy or not would make
any difference.

B2003

On 22 Oct, 12:10, Boltar wrote:
If a cyclist is dumb enough to get wiped out by a bendy bus they'd
probably have been squished by an HGV sooner or later anyway. The
golden rule of cycling is you do not pass any sort of vehicle on the
inside near a left turn.

All very nice in theory, until the poor judgement, stupidity, mistake
or incompetence of another road user puts them in that situation. Or
the HGV chooses to stop alongside them and then decides to turn left.
Or the HGV pulls out in front of them. Etc etc.

(Having said that the standard of cycling in London is not good, but
is still much better than that of most drivers).