Cyclist single mum recalls terrifying moment she thought she was going to die during crash with Tesco lorry in Clapham Post Reply

[NoodleFan]

Bikes are “king of the road”? Is that why they repeatedly go through the traffic lights on red at the Broomwood Rd / Northcote Rd junction?

Best wishes to the poor woman - I will donate some money now.

[janee]

Bathtub: it is your sort of attitude which causes problems.  You have no right of priority on roads or pavements and yet this is so often the attitude displayed.  If cyclists are undertaking, rather than overtaking, then they have a responsibility to ensure that it is safe to do.  I'm afraid that too many cyclists are claiming the moral high ground whilst showing a complete disregard for the law and others.  How often do you go through red lights?  How often do you ride on footpaths?  Opposite my house there is a footpath which shows signs banning cyclists and motorcyclists.  Cyclists regularly ignore the sign - one I spoke to didn't know what the sign meant - another was rude.  Unfortunately the cycling lobby assumes that any accident involving a cyclist is caused by the other person.

[NoodleFan]

I don’t want to deflect from the horrible plight of this poor lady, but well-said Janee.
It seems to me that cyclists want to treated as vehicles when it suits them and pedestrians when it doesn’t.

[juliantenniscoach]

Well if all road users obeyed the law and Highway Code then we wouldn’t have this issue. Rather than pointing the finger at others just be better. That’s the way I see making the roads safer.

[juliantenniscoach]

I invariably concede the space. It’s a lot harder for the cyclist to stop and get going again.

Also there aren’t many situations where there isn’t space for both. However both should slow down and acknowledge each other.

[chorister]

I too concede the space, and if necessary stop, and always try to remember the old guidance about giving a cyclist as much space as a car when overtaking.  But it really is an effort sometimes, because cyclists so often claim the moral high ground.

A couple of years ago, in a car, I came out of one of the roads onto Thurleigh Road - possibly Hillier, I'm not sure.  I didn't see a cyclist coming down at speed, tight to the kerb, until the last moment, and then braked hard.  Thank God there wasn't an accident.  I immediately apologised - to be greeted with a volley of "what the f__k do you think you are doing".  I said that I was trying to apologise, to which the response was "don't f__cking well try to excuse yourself".  Then I gave up.

Cyclists so seldom acknowledge one giving way that one remembers when they do.  Perhaps they might remember that a "thank you" gesture costs very little.

[juliantenniscoach]

I think it's really important to avoid the "them and us" mindset which always causes division.  If a person acts badly on a cycle, pretty much guaranteed they are going to be the same behind the wheel of a car, or crossing the road.

The big difference is that the worst thing a cyclist/cycle can do to a car is scratch it or break a wing mirror, the worst thing a car driver/car can do is kill.  Big difference, which is in the forefront of my mind driving in these packed streets.

[SouthLondonDaddy]

We need to distinguish between what is or should be legal or illegal, and what is wise. Let’s start with the latter. I am a motorcyclist, so I know a thing or two about being vulnerable on the road. Many motorcyclists learn to ride defensively; this means riding assuming there are only 3 categories of road users (note I say “road users”, i.e. every category, including motorcyslists):

1. the idiots who’ll kill you
   
2. the idiots who’ll kill themselves, and
   
3. the idiots who’ll kill themselves and you.
   

This isn’t always true, of course – it just means hope for the best, but plan for the worst.For example, I make sure I stay the hell back from large vehicles at bends, because of their wide turning angles. Or I make sure I am never riding on the inside of another vehicle, regardless of size, when a junction is approaching. None of this is required by law – it is simply common sense. It wouldn’t help my orphan much to know that her father died in full compliance with the highway code! I do this on a large and powerful motorcycle, which can accelerate away from danger way more easily than a pushbike, and is much more visible and audible than a pushbike. Not to mention all the protective gear I wear, and which cyclists don’t.
When I see cyclists than don’t behave like this, despite all the additional dangers of a pushbike, I am really lost for words.

One big problem I have with cycling lobbies is that they are often more interested in promoting a sense of entitlement than in making sure cyclists understand the risks they are exposed to and behave accordingly. For example, there was a – successful – campaign to remove the stickers “cyclists and motorcyclists, stay back” from lorries and replace the wording with something less “offensive” to the snowflake sensitivity of cyclists (AFAIK motorcyclists never objected). This is stupid and wrong, because it is imperative that cyclists be fully aware of the risks of undertaking larger vehicles – and I say this as someone to whom the stickers were addressed (a motorcyclist) and who has never been the least offended.

As for what should be legal, inverting the burden of proof would be a total catastrophe. It would mean that the minority of aggressive cyclists who ignore the rules would feel even more entitled to behave even worse on the road. It is also fake news that the drivers are always assumed to be at fault in the Netherlands – e.g. see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013 ... therlands/ I appreciate that, in the era of Brexit Trump Bolsonaro The 5-star-movement etc it is asking much, but I really wish people spent a few seconds of their lives doing minimal research before writing something which is factually wrong.  

[Historytutor]

In the Netherlands, yes, they are.