***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 21 *****
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 13 Mar 15 at 10:22
|
This new volume thing kills threads dead.
Any chance of getting the last bits of London trucks and silly dads debates copied over?
|
Quite so Norton. For Gawd's sake don't encourage 'em Bromp. With any luck we might get up to three consecutive posts without any anti bike vitriol now that it's a new thread !
;-)
|
>> Any chance of getting the last bits of London trucks and silly dads debates copied
>> over?
Why not just continue the debate here by making a quick copy/paste reference to whatever you want to reply to from that thread?
|
>> Why not just continue the debate here by making a quick copy/paste reference to whatever
>> you want to reply to from that thread?
>>
Don't forget, cyclists can't get started again once they have stopped, proven by the fact they don't stop at junctions/red lights....
;-)
|
I agree the new thread is difficult to post a reply on. I was working all day yesterday and have only just got back to this one only to find I'm trying to reply to an old post!
Two of the deaths this year have not been mentioned on here at all.
Both of those two appeared to clearly be the fault of the cyclist.
Is that coincidence?
Or could it be a case of 'blame' already being apportioned when a cyclists death is reported on car4play in the eyes of some?
The problem with the solutions always put forward by Boris and the like, is that they always involve many lorries and lorry drivers who never venture within the M25 causing huge expense and time to the industry to address a problem prevalent only in London.
The DCPC has a wide syllabus, designed to be targeted at whatever sector of the haulage industry the driver actually works in, while maintaining a core section (optional) on Drivers Hours law which is extraordinarily complex, and walk round vehicle safety checks.
I consider both of the above to be essential to all lorry drivers wherever they drive and if those two are complied with most of the rest will fall into place.
Pressure from Boris and co. has now seen us forced to include, from April 2015, a section of no less than one hour of every seven hour course on VRU's (Vulnerable road users/cyclists).
Any course I write will be checked when I submit it for approval, and this hour of twaddle must be included to get passed for delivery. I can leave out H&S, safety checks, Drivers Hours, First Aid, accident prevention but VRU's are compulsory.
So, lets look at this sensibly, HM who drives daily to farms in Wales and never goes near London in his present job will have to have an hour of training which will be wasted completely on him. The Fenland sugar beet lorries likewise, the Scottish loggers likewise and it goes on and on.
During this hour they could be doing something useful to their every day job during the last five years but not any more......they now have to learn how to avoid a London cyclist.
Is it any wonder the Haulage Industry, as a whole, is tired of taking responsibility for a small section of irresponsible cyclists who refuse to even consider the problem may, just may, be of their own making.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 05:03
|
Pat,
I was at best only peripherally aware of the first three accidents. I'm no longer in London regularly so off the capital riders' grapevine and not seeing the Evening Standard. This week's in Victoria hit the nationals, probably because its location by a main line station meant there were lots of pictures from phone cameras. Also four fatals in five weeks looks like a repeat of Q4/2013. The involvement of a Boris Bike might also have made it more newsworthy.
How do you know the cyclists were to blame in any of them? I doubt police/CPS have come to final conclusions, never mind courts of law. Neither will inquests have been held yet. Do you by any chance have links to the press reports?
Whilst I don't know exactly what 'VRU' training involves the fact that you, a professional trainer, describe it as twaddle and assume it wasted on drivers outside London speaks volumes for the attitude of the haulage industry. Believe me, there are plenty of accidents with LGVs on rural A/B roads as well as in cities outside London. Maybe not enough fatalities to get in the national press but plenty on the 'SI' side of KSI; I mean life changing not just an overnight in casualty. And that doesn't count the cases that are merely terrifying.
And as you well know cyclists are not the only VRUs.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 09:10
|
>> How do you know the cyclists were to blame in any of them? I doubt
>> police/CPS have come to final conclusions, never mind courts of law. Neither will inquests have
>> been held yet. Do you by any chance have links to the press reports?
Allow me to repeat - AGAIN - because the driver has not been arrested and as you know that would be a first step and has nothing to do with the CPS. If there is a any doubt the driver is arrested so he can be interviewed under caution.
You utterly refuse to even consider the idea that cyclists could be responsible for their own downfall in any shape.
MOST ( i accept not all but more than half) cyclist deaths are those crushed under the wheels of a left turning tipper lorry. You could reduce the deaths in a number of ways
1/ Enclose the wheelbase with a guard. It can be done
2/ Fit an effective mirror arrangement
3/ Driver training
4/ Cyclist Training and education
5/ Effective and large warning signs on the nearside of lorries
However a simple normal step like no 5 gets attacked by the cyclist lobby, lets be blunt here YOU in fact, who claim is too easy for the driver to shirk his responsibilities because he has a sign. You and your ilk have no concept of the responsibility of the cyclist to tray and protect his own life with any passive measure (like your refusal to wear hi-viz), instead trying to postulate aggressive cycling as the cure. You are and you ilk are part of the problem and utterly refuse to accept it in any way.
I bet you even disagree with 4.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 09:22
|
>> You utterly refuse to even consider the idea that cyclists could be responsible for their
>> own downfall in any shape.
No I don't. I do though refuse to accept the narrative of some on here (ON being a particularly shining example) who say it's the cyclist's fault for being there.
>>
>> MOST ( i accept not all but more than half) cyclist deaths are those crushed
>> under the wheels of a left turning tipper lorry. You could reduce the deaths in
>> a number of ways
>> 1/ Enclose the wheelbase with a guard. It can be done
>> 2/ Fit an effective mirror arrangement
>> 3/ Driver training
>> 4/ Cyclist Training and education
>> 5/ Effective and large warning signs on the nearside of lorries
>>
The London issue is mainly tipper lorries. Far more than half I think. 1,2 and 3 above are in the hands of the industry. There's progress but it's slow.
If you bother to try and understand what I've written on this subject you'll see I repeatedly advocate cyclist training and education. I'm not in favour testing simply because it's not clear that the benefit would be worth anything. Current drivers would surely be passported/grandfathered through in same way they are now for mopeds, minibuses or towing caravans. The bureaucracy needed to enforce rider licensing would be costly, complex and ultimately ineffective except in driving riders back into cars or tubes.
If you bothered to read what I said on the subject you'd also see I'm in favour of signs that warn of the danger in passing nearside of LGVs, buses etc. I'm critical of the 'mission creep' where signage cautions against ANY pass and spreads down to Corsa sized vans. Looks like an attempt to wriggle off their driver's negligence by showing advice, however petty, was ignored. Ultimately I guess a court will have to decide that one but it needs a lawyer and funding body with the c****** to take it on instead of rolling over for a 10% cont negligence finding.
|
>> >> You utterly refuse to even consider the idea that cyclists could be responsible for their
>> >> own downfall in any shape.
>>
>> No I don't. I do though refuse to accept the narrative of some on here
>> (ON being a particularly shining example) who say it's the cyclist's fault for being there.
>>
My position is that cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety just like other road users.
|
>> My position is that cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety just like other
>> road users.
No. Your position is that if cyclists get hurt it's their own fault - see the Edinburgh tram thread.
|
>> No. Your position is that if cyclists get hurt it's their own fault - see
>> the Edinburgh tram thread.
>>
If they are daft enough to ride along tram tracks whose fault is it if they fall off?
And then blame a motorist if hey get hit after falling in front of a car, bus, etc.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 22:33
|
>> My position is that cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety just like other
>> road users.
Well that's a stupid position then. And I'm sure it's not what you do. We all have responsibility for our own and others' safety - do you think that's wrong?
Anybody driving a motor vehicle has a responsibility to other road users, especially the ones who can easily be killed if they are hit - pedestrians and cyclists being the main examples.
I am astonished by the hostile attitude of a handful of posters which is why I stopped replying on cycle threads despite it being a topic I am interested in.
What the hell is wrong with looking out for cyclists and trying not to endanger them?
The majority of drivers are self-absorbed and inattentive most of the time as far as I can see. Walking on a road bordered by hedges with no footways last week I had to throw myself into the hedge because the driver of an oncoming car could not move out because of oncoming traffic - no sign of him working out that he needed to slow and then drive round me.
Much the same thing happens to cyclists all the time - they are close-passed because so many drivers are too idle, thick or just misanthropic that they won't treat a cyclist as a person.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 22:37
|
>> Anybody driving a motor vehicle has a responsibility to other road users, especially the ones who can easily be killed if they are hit - pedestrians and cyclists being the main examples.
Well how about this for a stunning concept, all road users use common sense.
This includes not riding into lorries blind spots or tram tracks.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 23 Feb 15 at 01:04
|
>> Well how about this for a stunning concept, all road users use common sense.
>>
>> This includes not riding into lorries blind spots or tram tracks.
QED. You are beyond reasonable discussion - wilfully I suspect - and you can leave off your trolling with me, I'm not interested.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 22:45
|
>> QED. You are beyond reasonable discussion - wilfully I suspect - and you can leave
>> off your trolling with me, I'm not interested.
I wish he was trolling but his posting history suggests he really believes this stuff.
|
>>
>> I wish he was trolling but his posting history suggests he really believes this stuff.
>>
I do believe it. Please explain how someone who puts themselves into danger is using common sense.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 22:55
|
>> >> MOST ( i accept not all but more than half) cyclist deaths are those
>> crushed
>> >> under the wheels of a left turning tipper lorry. You could reduce the deaths
>> in
>> >> a number of ways
>> >> 1/ Enclose the wheelbase with a guard. It can be done
>> >> 2/ Fit an effective mirror arrangement
>> >> 3/ Driver training
>> >> 4/ Cyclist Training and education
>> >> 5/ Effective and large warning signs on the nearside of lorries
>> >>
>>
1) Indeed it can, but it wouldn't last five minutes. Has it not occurred to you that part of the reason why these vehicles are so ruggedly constructed is that they tend to spend a fair portion of their lives away from tarmac roads? That's why they have high front bumpers, folding cab steps etc. Not because it looks macho, but because the normal ones would get smashed inside a day just by the driver doing his normal job.
2) My lorry, in common with most others, has SIX mirrors; two normal, two wide-angle, kerbside and front down-facing. It also has a CCTV system which defaults to rear, but cuts to side view when the indicators are used. I, however, as the driver, have only the one pair of eyes. Sorry but I was born that way and there's not much I can do to improve it.
3) Yes, it can help.
4) Needs to be compulsory. No ifs, no buts, no high b***** moral ground because your form of transport is greener than mine; cyclists need to be trained. I do however agree with your comment that licensing would be pointless, though there is a way round it. You make insurance compulsory and production of a proficiency certificate a condition of said insurance.
5) Already being fitted. Unfortunately all they do is state the bleeding obvious, and if a cyclist can't see a lorry's flashing indicator in front of him, or the sticker already commonly seen on the back end of many lorries, he ain't going to take a lot of notice of a dirty great big sign attached to the side guards which is more visible to an approaching train driver than other road users.
|
>> 1) Indeed it can, but it wouldn't last five minutes. Has it not occurred to
>> you that part of the reason why these vehicles are so ruggedly constructed is that
>> they tend to spend a fair portion of their lives away from tarmac roads?
Of course it occurred to me, which is why I added the part "it can be done" They said that covers could never be put on skip loads to stop the contents coming out.
There is no operation or technical reason why some form of moveable guard can not be installed between the front and rear axles.
|
|
I can keep my car from going under lorries, including articulated ones, on roundabouts, bends, and corners, even if I have to hang back for a few seconds to give them room. How come some cyclists can't manage it even if it risks their life? I would never intentionally put a cyclist at risk and have incurred the wrath of other motorists when waiting for a cyclist to clear a problem. BUT until cyclists take responsibility for their own safety my point of view will not change.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 23 Feb 15 at 08:47
|
|
This is a remarkably biased viewpoint you have ON, and I'm surprised. Undoubtedly some cyclists seem unaware or rash. But many deaths are due to left-hooks where the truck overtakes then the cyclist is crushed under the rear wheels. Oddly, many of the deaths in London are of females who when driving are usually more careful, suffer fewer major accidents than males. This points to aggressive truck driving in the tipper sector, does it not?
|
>>This points to aggressive truck driving in the tipper sector, does it not? <<
Not necessarily.
How many of the accidents with a left turning lorry are because the lorry was waiting at lights or in a queue of traffic with a left hand indicator showing and the cyclist still rode up the inside instead of staying behind?
If we could educate cyclists to respect indicators on trucks we'd be getting somewhere.
Pat
|
>> >>This points to aggressive truck driving in the tipper sector, does it not? <<
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> How many of the accidents with a left turning lorry are because the lorry was
>> waiting at lights or in a queue of traffic with a left hand indicator showing
>> and the cyclist still rode up the inside instead of staying behind?
>>
>> If we could educate cyclists to respect indicators on trucks we'd be getting somewhere.
>>
>> Pat
It's not just when they're indicating Pat. The training message should be don't go up the inside of a lorry at any time. In fact any sort of filtering on inside should be discouraged. While overtaking a queue on the offside feels intuitively less safe that's not the case.
But if it was just about riders blindly creeping up nearside other vehicles, including buses and artics would surely feature more? There's something about the tipper industry that deserves close attention from VOSA etc. Some of the same names come up in repeat accidents, and it's not the big players.
|
>> This is a remarkably biased viewpoint you have ON,
Really?
I occaisionally ride a bike on the road, admittedly not in a city, and never in a thousand years would I get alongside a lorry, or anything else liable to kill me. If I can manage my own safety why do some with a biased viewpoint blame any and everything but the cyclist?
|
>> I can keep my car from going under lorries, including articulated ones, on roundabouts, bends,
>> and corners, even if I have to hang back for a few seconds to give
>> them room. How come some cyclists can't manage it even if it risks their life?
You're not making a straight comparison ON. Some of these accidents happen because cyclists inadvertently put themselves at a risk. Even if you or I think that risk is blindingly obvious we need to understand why. Sometimes it's road markings, plenty places in London where carpy bike lanes, including Boris's CS routes, put riders into dangerous positions.
However she got into the truck's blind spot the fate of last week's victim was sealed because the road was bounded by metal site fencing and hoardings. This, or more commonly the sort of fencing used to segregate pavement from road at junctions, is another common factor - the means by which the trap springs shut. A consequence of guard rails would be to make this scenario worse. Not saying that means they're not a good idea but remember the law of unintended consequence.
A bike is not a car and cannot accelerate out of trouble. I'm firmly of the opinion that a significant proportion of these tip/skip encounters arise because the truck overtakes and 'loses' the cyclist in his blindspot. If truck then moves left, either changing lane or for a turn the cyclist is in same place as those motorists over-run by LHD lorries on the motorway. A Skilled rider might manage that by 'taking his lane' while truck is still behind and preventing the pass but that takes a level of assertiveness that not all possess. That is possibly one reason young women are over represented as victims in these cases - they're nervous and think they're safe if they keep by the kerb.
|
>> However she got into the truck's blind spot
Funny init. In your world the cyclists stupidity becomes "however" Will you ever accept that cyclists have to take their share of the blame? Even when they are in the wrong, you slide the blame elsewhere. Every time.
|
>>
>> >> However she got into the truck's blind spot
>>
>> Funny init. In your world the cyclists stupidity becomes "however" Will you ever accept that
>> cyclists have to take their share of the blame? Even when they are in the
>> wrong, you slide the blame elsewhere. Every time.
I'm sure Bromp would accept the addendum "whether it was her fault or not".
Self preservation is a pretty powerful instinct for a cyclist who can be put in hospital, or worse, by a glancing blow. To suggest that cyclists do not try their best not to be killed is just silly (yes I know that was not you).
I agree that education can only be a good thing, for all road users. There also needs IMO to be some attitudinal change.
Bromp makes, inter alia, the very good point that the instinct for self preservation may be what is leading to some of these incidents - i.e. nervous or inexperienced cyclists keeping close to the kerb or even in a "cycle lane". That may be so. It's difficult to credit that cyclists generally aren't alert to how dangerous this can be, but think about it - amongst the hundreds of thousands of cyclists in London there will always be the inexperienced - even 1% would be probably 5,000, and a tiny proportion of those actually end up as fatalities, so perhaps the average cyclist is not that bad at keeping out of trouble - not surprising really when the stakes are so high.
Blame is not cause. I hope somebody is looking hard at cause rather than just asking whether drivers or cyclists can be prosecuted, and who is at fault.
|
>> Funny init. In your world the cyclists stupidity becomes "however" Will you ever accept that
>> cyclists have to take their share of the blame? Even when they are in the
>> wrong, you slide the blame elsewhere. Every time.
Secondary safety Z. It's about mitigating the consequences IF something goes wrong. It's not just cyclists who've been crushed against railings it happens to pedestrians too.
|
|
Do we know that the lorry was there (at the traffic lights) first, and not the cyclist?
|
>> Do we know that the lorry was there (at the traffic lights) first, and not
>> the cyclist?
The problem with these accidents is that even in the most egregious cases such as Catriona Patel's death under the truck driven by the drunken P u t z reporting of outcomes is hit and miss. We can speculate now based on where the victim ended up and on extrapolations from whether driver was arrested at the scene. Only after any 'causing death by' case is tried and/or an inquest held will there be conclusive information.
Olof Storbeck's spreadsheet is best source I know:
tinyurl.com/bo28n4v
But judging by the blanks under 'what happened later' even a journalist has trouble discovering final outcomes.
One of the cases where there is an outcome was for the rider killed in Vernon Place by a left turning coach in November 2013. That was a clear case cyclist at fault, he failed to see that coach was swinging right in order to negotiate a tight left turn. The coroner though was highly critical of Camden LBC's failure to tackle the junction's layout.
They'd still not done anything last month when another rider died nearby.
|
From experience of driving a lorry in London it doesn't matter who was there first.
When a lorry stops with a left hand indicator flashing the driver is trying to look alongside his nearside, watch the traffic lights for a green to go, check no-one has come up the offside because of tail swing, watch for pedestrians crossing just under the windscreen and while doing all this repeatedly, a cyclist will come up the nearside while you're doing all the other checks.
When the light changes green there are checks for pedestrians, cyclists and anyone jumping the lights to do before moving.
In that time the cyclist will have moved completely, so we need to 'site' him again to be sure.
Pat
|
>> From experience of driving a lorry in London it doesn't matter who was there first.
Eh?
If the cyclist is there first and lorry pulls alongside then turns left and runs him over then driver is surely culpable. Cyclist who doesn't notice and react to a truck stopped alongside for any length of time might be thought lacking in self preservation dept but fault is 100% clear.
|
>> it doesn't matter who was there first.<<
Only you would misunderstand the irony of that remark Bromp *shakes head and walks away*
Just for you....Of course, if the cyclist is there first the lorry stays behind so it is always in his front vision.
This is all we want reciprocated from cyclists.
Pat
|
>> Only you would misunderstand the irony of that remark Bromp *shakes head and walks away*
The irony is not evident even now you've claimed it was intended, It reads more like part of the 'you're the vulnerable one' message which tends to be Westpig's response in these circumstances.
|
If that was what I meant, that is what I would have said Bromp.
I credited you with a modicum of understanding of my way with words after all this time.
However, once again you divert to criticism of something that doesn't exist instead of appreciating the actual situation from a cab for a lorry driver in that situation.
tinyurl.com/kwkarav
Why not pop along to this?
Pat
|
|
I'm afraid I read it the same as Bromp Pat, and was going to query it but Bromp beat me to it.
|
I really shouldn't have to explain myself....twice.
I managed to stand in front of 15 lorry drivers on a regular basis and make myself clearly understood.
If you read the remark in context with the rest of the post, I was trying to demonstrate that whoever 'got there first' the constant safety checks a driver does are the same, and very often while you glance to check the lights a cyclist has come up the inside.
I wish it was as simple as 'who gets there first', it isn't though.
I still maintain you will never be able to help those who aren't prepared to help themselves either.
Pat
|
Whatever. One post asked who was there first.
Your response said it didn't matter.
Not surprising you were misunderstood.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 Feb 15 at 16:43
|
>> I'm afraid I read it the same as Bromp Pat, and was going to query it but Bromp beat me to it.
>>
I read it, and understood it straight away.
Theres none so blind, as those that don't want to see....
|
>> >> I'm afraid I read it the same as Bromp Pat, and was going to
>> query it but Bromp beat me to it.
>> >>
>>
>> I read it, and understood it straight away.
>> Theres none so blind, as those that don't want to see....
You talking about me, or you? :)
I also understood Pat's post (and I didn't ask her to explain it twice), but as far as I can tell we're talking at cross purposes.
All I was attempting to suggest was that if a (left-turning) lorry gets to the lights first, then the cyclist should wait behind the lorry. If the cyclist gets there first, the lorry waits behind them, keeping them in sight. Of course I expect a good lorry driver will still check for idiots going up the inside, so in that respect it doesn't matter to the lorry driver, But it very much does matter in terms of positioning on the road.
And as Bromp pointed out, if there is an accident, I would have thought a lorry driver who got to the lights first and was undertalen by the cyclist is going to have a stronger case than if the cyclist got there first and the (left-turning) lorry pulled up alongside rather than waiting behind.
|
>> If that was what I meant, that is what I would have said Bromp.
>>
>> I credited you with a modicum of understanding of my way with words after all
>> this time.
I just read the words on the page. And as regards the 'shakes head' comment above and 'crediting you with a modicum of understanding' you're quite rightly the first to complain when people supposedly get personal with you.
>> However, once again you divert to criticism of something that doesn't exist instead of appreciating
>> the actual situation from a cab for a lorry driver in that situation.
At best I misunderstood an attempt at irony - there was no diversion.
I've sat in the cab of a Keltbray lorry more than once at roadside exhibitions and cycle shows. I'd hate to have to drive one round central London and I've no criticism of professional drivers who do the job properly. The fact remains that there seems to be a dodgy end to the skip/tip trade where drivers like p u t z can probably still find employment.
>> tinyurl.com/kwkarav
>>
>> Why not pop along to this?
>>
>> Pat
I'm not in London anymore.
|
>> The fact remains that there seems to be a dodgy end to the skip/tip trade where drivers like p u t z can probably still find employment<<
So you find one rogue firm and all skip/tipper drivers are tarred with the same brush?
I genuinely thought you may be interested in visiting the CLOCS exhibition as I know London isn't too far for you, and you were asking about it yesterday........*sigh*
Pat
|
>> So you find one rogue firm and all skip/tipper drivers are tarred with the same
>> brush?
That firm had a longish history of VOSA prohibitions/restrictions, some overturned by Commissioners hearings or the Transport Tribunal. As well as Catriona Patel it was involved in another fatality where drivers drinking and/or drug use were in play. Some coverage suggests it's 'pulled its socks up' and is now a FORS approved operator.
Then there was the one that nearly killed Boris in East London
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8066461.stm
The door was secured with a piece of coat hanger.
The police/VOSA crackdown with random stops after the Q3/2013 accidents found plenty of loading, C&U and tacho offences.
I was emphatically not saying they're all bad. The firm clearing Cursitor St/Chancery Lane area two years ago were exemplary. But can you seriously deny that tip skip is a dark corner of the haulage industry with more than it's fair share of cowboys?
>> I genuinely thought you may be interested in visiting the CLOCS exhibition as I know
>> London isn't too far for you, and you were asking about it yesterday........*sigh*
I'm certainly interested in CLOCS though I wonder what it's doing to connect with cyclists as as well as the industry. If I were still working in London I might have tried to make time to get out to Excel. Other stuff this week means I've not got the time for what amounts to a day trip.
|
>> Do we know that the lorry was there (at the traffic lights) first, and not the cyclist?
I believe the lorry was there first.
On a cycling forum I read posts from a cyclist who was behind the lorry at the lights, and saw the woman cycle up the inside. We will probably never know why but a tragic outcome for all involved.
|
>> On a cycling forum I read posts from a cyclist who was behind the lorry
>> at the lights, and saw the woman cycle up the inside.
Is the Steve Hunter posting on the CTC forum Crocks? If he's right then this one looks like cyclist's fault. Still a lethal road layout though; no margin for error on anybody's part.
|
>>...the Steve Hunter posting on the CTC forum..?
Yes, that's the one. Interesting that the police accident investigator found his post and asked him to contact them.
|
|
While lorries and cyclists mix on crowded and dangerous streets there will always be accidents. Arguing as to who is t0 blame seems to singularly miss the point. People are are being killed. Lorries and cyclists need to be separated wherever possible. In particularly dangerous spots where this is not possible either trucks or cyclists need to be banned at least at certain hours of the day. They are simply not compatible
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 23 Feb 15 at 15:36
|
In particularly dangerous
>> spots where this is not possible either trucks or cyclists need to be banned at
>> least at certain hours of the day. They are simply not compatible
>>
I don't think that would go down too well. Chances are it will just carry on.
|
>> I don't think that would go down too well. Chances are it will just carry
>> on.
>>
As long as deaths and serious injuries are at a politically acceptable level nothing will be done. Maybe people should take some responsibility for their safety and not rely on the state. Should we ban people from sea front areas in storm conditions? A few get drowned each year playing chicken with the waves, or banning level crossings, they claim a few.
|
>> As long as deaths and serious injuries are at a politically acceptable level nothing will
>> be done. Maybe people should take some responsibility for their safety and not rely on
>> the state. Should we ban people from sea front areas in storm conditions? A few
>> get drowned each year playing chicken with the waves, or banning level crossings, they claim
>> a few.
>>
That's my thinking ON, until it gets much higher or hits the national news beyond provincial news, nothing will really change.
|
>> That's my thinking ON, until it gets much higher or hits the national news beyond
>> provincial news, nothing will really change.
There's a view of this that goes along lines:
Cycling in London, particularly in the centre (inside circle line/tfl zone one) is actually a pretty safe activity. There are a huge number of cyclists, the traffic is slow and for most part everything rubs along.
The issue is that of those who die, albeit less than 20 a year, the majority are encounters with trucks of the type carrying waste from (or occasionally raw material too) construction sites.
If it was just a mix of stupidity and bad luck around large vehicles how come the much more numerous buses don't feature more? Neither do conventional lorries serving the supermarkets and remaining commercial users (eg Smithfield meat market).
If the tip/skip issue could be solved the fatalities would be reduced by 50%.
Cement mixers used to be part of the problem but less so now. What have Cemex and the other big players done to achieve that hanged.
|
>> supermarkets and remaining commercial users (eg Smithfield meat market).
In smithfield the traffic rarely mixes with cyclists, due to its location and road feed/layout. There are few large supermarkets in the centre of london, and comparatively fewer cyclists out of the centre of london so that does not apply either. Large articulated lorries don't do sharp left hooks, they can't - to get the trailer round a sharp left kerb you have to do a wide turn right first - its pretty clear to all whats going on. Buses are normally in bus lanes and rarely have to "hook" left, and if you do get hooked by a bus you don't end up under the wheels.
The number of cycling collisions with Goods Vehicles, lorries, buses and cars is remarkably consistent across the range, the only difference is that you have a higher chance of dying under a tipper, because of the exposed side wheelbase. Its the type of vehicle that is the problem, not the operator.
|
>> >> That's my thinking ON, until it gets much higher or hits the national news
>> beyond
>> >> provincial news, nothing will really change.
>>
>> There's a view of this that goes along lines:
>>
I'm sure your right, I can't say I know the ins and outs of London traffic, but like I said I don't it being a big enough issues in the media beyond provincial news. Not enough traction means I think it will just carry on.
|
Lorries and cyclists need to be separated wherever possible. In particularly dangerous
>> spots where this is not possible either trucks or cyclists need to be banned at
>> least at certain hours of the day. They are simply not compatible
>>
It would be nice to keep the two separate; trouble is, whilst it's highly unlikely that you'd find lorries on the cycle path, you can bet your bottom dollar that if the dedicated lorry lane looks to be an easier route it'll soon fill up with pedal-powered kamikazes because a lot of them think they have a god-given right to cycle where the hell they want to.
|
>> with pedal-powered kamikazes because a lot of them think they have a god-given right to
>> cycle where the hell they want to.
The situation now is they have that right, as corrected above, excepting motorways and a few roads with specific prohibitions. If you want to change it then there needs to be a convincing case and a reasonably quick and direct alternative.
And if you think lorries or vehicles generally keep out of bike lanes, particularly for purpose of 'parking' then you're missing something.
|
>> The situation now is they have that right, as corrected above, excepting motorways and a
>> few roads with specific prohibitions. If you want to change it then there needs to
>> be a convincing case and a reasonably quick and direct alternative.
>>
They do indeed have the right; unfortunately, as outlined in my comment above regarding cycle paths, a fair few are also stupid enough to exercise that right in places where they really shouldn't, then go crying to mummy when it all goes mammaries skywards.
|
>> paths, a fair few are also stupid enough to exercise that right in places where
>> they really shouldn't, then go crying to mummy when it all goes mammaries skywards.
What are these places they really shouldn't go?
|
>> What are these places they really shouldn't go?
>>
The places where it is blatantly obvious to all but the brain dead that it is dangerous to the point of being life threatening.
|
|
All sorts of things are perceived as life life threatening by people not brain dead. Flying for a start.
|
>> All sorts of things are perceived as life threatening by people not brain dead.
>> Flying for a start.
>>
True. But when you fly, you either abide by the rules or get kicked off the plane and pay a hefty fine. You wouldn't, for example, go walkabout on the runway and then get all antsy when the security bundled you into a van, and you then ended up in court charged with endangering the safety of others.
But it seems that a small minority of cyclists think that it's OK to ride where they want to, because the law does not prohibit them from doing so, and then kick up a fuss when they end up eating hospital food, or worse.
I don't by any means lump you into this category Bromp, but I do get a bit fed up with the "right to roam" mentality which seems to pervade the cycling lobby.
|
>> I don't by any means lump you into this category Bromp, but I do get
>> a bit fed up with the "right to roam" mentality which seems to pervade the
>> cycling lobby.
>>
And the blaming everyone and everything except the cyclist when it goes wrong. And I do accept that drivers also get it wrong sometimes.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 24 Feb 15 at 08:47
|
>> Of course it occurred to me, which is why I added the part "it can
>> be done" They said that covers could never be put on skip loads to stop
>> the contents coming out.
>>
>> There is no operation or technical reason why some form of moveable guard can not
>> be installed between the front and rear axles.
>>
They're already being fitted on new trucks; along with the pointless sign I referred to.
As I originally read your post, I assumed it was the wheels themselves which you were asking to be covered, not the area between the axles. Just re-read it, so comment above now applies.
Incidentally, my observation of skip covers tells me that they're only a qualified success.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Mon 23 Feb 15 at 21:12
|
>> Incidentally, my observation of skip covers tells me that they're only a qualified success.
They work well if they are properly fitted, used and maintained. None of that happens often tho.
|
>> They work well if they are properly fitted, used and maintained. None of that happens
>> often tho.
Which is consistent with theory that the skip/tip trade has a compliance problem?
|
>> >> They work well if they are properly fitted, used and maintained. None of that
>> happens
>> >> often tho.
>>
>> Which is consistent with theory that the skip/tip trade has a compliance problem?
I don't think many cyclists get killed by crap falling out of skips. You appear to be trying to grind an axe here and lay the blame solely on the drivers and operators at the expense of any other cause. See my post about vehicle types.
|
>> I don't think many cyclists get killed by crap falling out of skips. You appear
>> to be trying to grind an axe here and lay the blame solely on the
>> drivers and operators at the expense of any other cause. See my post about vehicle
>> types.
Not really. While I'd quibble over some detail - the numerous small local/metro etc supermarkets are still supplied by artics and Smithfield is plumb between City and West End - I think you have a point about vehicle design and higher probability of ending up under the wheels.
I'm not grinding an axe but I'm not yet convinced the pay by load/small operator thing isn't an issue.
|
>> pay by load/small operator thing isn't an issue<<
You're about 10 years behind the times there Bromp, there are few firms paying that way anymore.
It attracts VOSA's targeted enforcement attention, so perhaps it could be vehicle design.
Perhaps it could be that educating cyclists to be very wary of this type of vehicle simply because of it's design might work?
By explaining that wearing helmet cams doesn't save their lives, it still needs a bit of sensible self preservation too.
Teaching them that great British tradition, the queue, actually applies to them too, if they want to stay safe?
I can preach defensive driving to my lads, motorbike courses are available for riders and are invaluable, so why not teach defensive riding to London cyclists?
After all, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near such a problem in Cambridge, Manchester Birmingham or Edinburgh.
Pat
|
Pat,
In bullet points!!
Thanks for the info on paymt by load, I of course accept what you say about VOSA. Is there still though a pressure on drivers, whether by targets or more subliminal pressures to get the job done as quickly as possible? Or stuff like the loading bay timeslots you mention affecting Ian's job.
Educating cyclists about dangers of this design of vehicle is exactly the sort of thing that should be in cyclist training. I don't think there's any difference between us on that.
Helmet cams are worn for same reasons buses, trains and no doubt some trucks have CCTV; evidential value in case of an incident. See also inquiries here along lines of what is best dashcam.
We did the queue jumping scheiss in last or previous volume. As (IIRC) a current or former motorcyclist you know the answer; filtering is a reasonable technique in urban traffic.
See point three re training. I'm sure Bikeability and courses for older riders teach the defensive method. It's also at the heart of the 'official' cycling manual - Cyclecraft. Older riders might have learned it from the excellent chapter 'Traffic Jamming' in the late Richard Ballantine's book.
The urban construction boom thing combined with very high volumes of cyclists is probably unique to London. ON though reminded us about Edinburgh's trams. And don't try and tell the residents of Cambridge that cyclists are not a problem :-)
|
I’ll try and answer this as honestly as possible!
In bullet points!!
>>Is there still though a pressure on drivers, whether by targets or more subliminal pressures to get the job done as quickly as possible?<<
There’s always rogue firms, just as there are rogue plumbers/electricians etc., who will threaten with the sack but really are few and far between now.
The pressure is there to make a profit for the firm you work for as that’s the only way to a pay rise next year.
Booking times are a pain on multidrop as we do, but we’re always told to be at the first one on time and the office staff will rebook the rest if we’re held up.
The pressure to keep moving doesn’t (honestly!) mean speed or drive irresponsibly. It means don’t stop for breakfast and hour into your day then find you have to have a 45 mins tacho break 3 hours later. As a lorry driver you eat when the tacho dictates or when driving!
>>Educating cyclists about dangers of this design of vehicle is exactly the sort of thing that should be in cyclist training. I don't think there's any difference between us on that. <<
I agree, the only way we differ is there is no compulsory training.
>>Helmet cams are worn for same reasons buses, trains and no doubt some trucks have CCTV; <<
Most do now, but this is dictated by the insurance companies and the reduction in premium not just to post videos on You Tube.
>>See point three re training. <<
All good, but as in point three, there are few cyclist who will bother to read books or attend classes and as with lorry drivers, it has to be made compulsory to catch the rogue ones.
Pat
|
>> MOST ( i accept not all but more than half) cyclist deaths are those crushed under the wheels of a left turning tipper lorry. You could reduce the deaths in a number of ways
>>
>> 1/ Enclose the wheelbase with a guard. It can be done
>> 2/ Fit an effective mirror arrangement
>> 3/ Driver training
>> 4/ Cyclist Training and education
>> 5/ Effective and large warning signs on the nearside of lorries
1/ Yes, good idea. I am sure though that on some vehicles guards may get in the way of certain operations, so would need to be mad removable.
2/ The one I have issues with.
Mirrors are ONLY effective when being look in. As some trucks now have upwards of five mirrors, and a windscreen, how much time can be spent looking in each?
How much information is missed?
A bike can make its was up the nearside whilst the driver is looking in the others points of vison, to end up in a blind spot.
Even CCTV in the cab would muddy the waters more... another place to look at, reducing time spent looking in the other places...
3/ Yup, This would help, but within this thread covered by Pat, Zero, and I'm sure later HM etc...
3/ and 4/ This is where I feel the biggest difference is to be made.
Or.. could be made... if only cyclists wanted to be taught.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 10:24
|
Agree with ST that more mirrors, plus possible CCTV and proximity sensors, risk driver overload. The correct route is to improve driver visibility generally as in some of the concept vehicles proposed to replace current designs.
I don't think there's any truth in suggestion that cyclists don't want to be taught but what's needed is in way of public information not classrooms and testing. Don't confuse argument over usefulness of imposed solutions like helmets and hi-viz with unwillingness to learn. The degree to which the 'get out of car and onto verge' for hard shoulder stops message has been absorbed shows that behaviour can be changed.
There are also far too many places where the road layout places cyclists at risk or actively leads them into danger - nearside filters into ASL boxes being a case in point.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 13:05
|
>>
>> How do you know the cyclists were to blame in any of them? I doubt
>> police/CPS have come to final conclusions, never mind courts of law. Neither will inquests have
>> been held yet.
Of course I don't know but I'm as qualified to make an educated guess as you are and a good indication for me is that if it 'appears' to be the cyclist at fault, the accident isn't reported on here.
>> Do you by any chance have links to the press reports? <<
This is the only one I can find now tinyurl.com/m3fy5au the BBC one has now been reduced to a small report.
>> Whilst I don't know exactly what 'VRU' training involves the fact that you, a professional
>> trainer, describe it as twaddle and assume it wasted on drivers outside London speaks volumes
>> for the attitude of the haulage industry.<<
Lorry drivers are required to have just 7 hours a year ongoing training. I think using a compulsory one hour of that time on something pertaining to a very small percentage of lorry drivers from all over the UK a complete waste of time. It should be an option within the seven hours to pinpoint those drivers who deliver within the M25. By making it compulsory it will become a 'token gesture' to the vast majority and undermine the training for those who really need it.
>> And as you well know cyclists are not the only VRUs.
>>
Of course not, but the syllabus available to us already allows this to be covered, and in fact has been covered during 3 of the last 5 courses I've had approved, so why make it compulsory for a trainer in Perth or Carmarthen to cover it.
I'll let HM tell you how many VRU's he meets in the course of a working week!
Pat
|
I look at the Evening Standard website most days. It seems to me that they report virtually every road accident where someone is killed or seriously injured. Here's the link to the site:
www.standard.co.uk/
and here's the shortened link to a "Cyclist killed" search I've just done on there:
tinyurl.com/mho878w
|
Thanks for that link Pat. I'd already explained why I only posted after last week's case so I don't understand why you're continuing to suggest I'm avoiding cases where cyclist might be to blame.
The accident described was in Hackney and was the second cyclist fatality in that Borough in 2015. The victim in first is named in the article so I was able to locate a report. It was in January and like the one you link involved a tipper. The victim was a 29yo physiotherapist - double family tragedy as her sister died in childbirth last year.
tinyurl.com/pzrbj4e (Daily Mail).
In that case the driver was arrested. I don't share Z's conviction that lack of arrest at scene = automatic excusal for driver. Neither does arrest mean he's automatically guilty. Question of circumstance at scene and probably the attitude test too.
If VRU training were focussed solely on tippers in London but delivered to all I'd agree with you. But that's not really the case is it? There are VRU's who are not cyclists and there are plenty of cycle tourists in Camarthenshire as well as pedestrians in both urban and rural settings.
|
But still no comment to make on the Homerton accident, Bromp?
Norton, I am not against compulsory training but as lorry drivers only get 7 hours per year and it is designed to be targeted at the field they work in (Tanker/tipper/containers/recovery etc.) nothing is already compulsory.
Should this be the route DVSA want to go down then the core section of compulsory training must be in a field which affects all drivers such as drivers hours, walkround safety checks, driving with a professional attitude.
Those items alone would cover VRU's as mine have already done.
Pat
|
No comment on the Homerton one Pat 'cos there's not enough to go on in the BBC report. We know it was a left turning tipper truck. We don't know whether the cyclist was undertaking or whether the truck 'left hooked' him. The driver was not arrested at scene but was later 'helping police with their inquiries'. A phrase that once held its own pejorative meaning......
The fourth accident was in the West End, junction of Bloomsbury Sq and Vernon Place. I know that bit well as it was part of my Euston to Chancery Lane route for several years.
Vernon Place is barely a quarter mile in length. Part of the Oxford St-Holborn nexus at a point where the east and westbound carriageways are a block apart. It's eastbound and crosses Southampton Row to become Theobald's Rd by the Cochrane theatre.
tinyurl.com/ov6d9bo
While needing both care and a fair bit of assertion it didn't strike me as intrinsically dangerous. The fact that there have been at least four fatalities on it in last seven years suggests otherwise.
It needs a better layout but I'm jiggered if I can work out how.
|
|
That would make sense, Pat. But maybe not to DVSA....
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 11:20
|
>> I'll let HM tell you how many VRU's he meets in the course of a
>> working week!
>>
More than you might think, actually; especially during the holiday season. But nowhere near big city levels of course.
Most of the cyclists I come across fall into two categories; the Chris Hoy wannabee's and the mud-plugging mountain-bike brigade. The former are, as anywhere else, the greater hazard as they usually seem to be more focused on their own pace than the environment around them; furthermore they seem less likely (by my observation) to be showing lights, presumably with the excuse that the excess weight and drag will hamper their aspirations towards Olympic greatness. They're also far more likely, passing my house, to be using the busy dual carriageway instead of the more than adequate cycle path which our local council have provided for their protection. That irks me intensely; I happily concede that some cycle paths are not really fit for purpose but where they are, cyclists should be compelled to use them.
The mountain-bikers aren't nearly as much of a problem; by nature of their more upright riding position they're usually more aware of approaching traffic. Tends to be a good idea to keep an eye out for them popping out of fields where there's a bridleway though.
I'm inclined to agree with Pat that a whole hour on this is probably 50 minutes too much, although it should at least be mentioned in a general section on defensive driving . I'd also counter that if it has to be so, there should also be some sort of compulsory training for cyclists too; preferably with a section on anger management. ;-)
|
>>speaks volumes for the attitude of the haulage industry<<
I think the haulage industry initiatives such as FORS and CLOCS speak for themselves.
Both schemes believe in targeting vehicles and drivers who need it, not making it a blanket requirement.
Pat
|
|
How are drivers "who need it" identified? It seems very strange to be so vehemently against such training, when drivers could be called on to work in many environments. Being alert to VRU's is not useful just within the M25, surely?
|
>> >>speaks volumes for the attitude of the haulage industry<<
>>
>> I think the haulage industry initiatives such as FORS and CLOCS speak for themselves.
>>
>> Both schemes believe in targeting vehicles and drivers who need it, not making it a
>> blanket requirement.
I'd heard of FORS but not CLOCS:
www.clocs.org.uk/
A step in the right direction.
They do though seem short on cyclist representation. Have they tried to get input from CTC/LCC etc or is it and 'industry only' set up?
Telling that two of the four main conclusions to their formative sessions are:
* Road safety was not considered in same way as health and safety on-site; and
* There was little understanding of the impact of construction activity on road safety
No sh*% Sherlock......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 21:55
|
We are going out for a nice bike ride today. It'll rain later so we're off soon to catch the best of the weather. We'll almost certainly not come into conflict with anyone or even slightly worry about that possibility.
Have a good day all.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 22 Feb 15 at 10:02
|
>> We are going out for a nice bike ride today. It'll rain later so we're
>> off soon to catch the best of the weather. We'll almost certainly not come into
>> conflict with anyone or even slightly worry about that possibility.
>>
>> Have a good day all.
Let us know if you find a tipper truck halfway up your thin hill trail.
jeez talk about apples and pears.
|
London cyclists in 23,000 accidents over five years.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31612253
|
As Henry's link + cycling budget underspend
tinyurl.com/mdw8lg6
|
|
You're letting your prejudices hang out again ON. Why shouldn't they express an opinion?
|
|
Not at all, why should a minority deprive motorists of 22km of road lanes?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 27 Feb 15 at 20:06
|
>> Not at all, why should a minority deprive motorists of 22km of road lanes?
They won't. Just like a new bus lane the council will make the decision. And while fact that protagonists might be minority/majority will be persuasive it won't be conclusive. :-)
|
|
There you go, fixed it for you. Fill your boots.
|
|
Better than a one sided incestious cyclists love in. :)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 27 Feb 15 at 20:14
|
|
I'm surprised that no effort is made to ditch the left-hand lead-in lanes to advanced stop boxes which pretty much legitimise riding down the left hand side of traffic queuing for a junction.
|
|
Yes, rather like the miles of painted road that indicates cyclists should go up the inside? All along the traffic jams....
|
>> I'm surprised that no effort is made to ditch the left-hand lead-in lanes to advanced
>> stop boxes which pretty much legitimise riding down the left hand side of traffic queuing
>> for a junction.
IIRC they have at least repealed the law making it an offence to enter the box other than via the lead in lane.
|
Give the guy a bit more room ?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-31726226
The source of the bike ?
|
>> The source of the bike ?
Came on the plane with him? I know of people who've taken sports or touring bikes to Majorca.
Advice on how to fly with a Brompton has FAQ status in folding circles. Some even suggest one woud be OK as cabin baggage in the overhead lockers. What might happen in event of a hard landing, never mind an emergency doesn't bear thinking of; ten kg of bike on your skull?
|
>>Came on the plane with him? I know of people who've taken sports or touring bikes to Majorca
>>
I have seen many bikes being checked in at many airports around the world but most appeared to have been lightweight models. Not seen any Bromptons at airports.
From the poor photo this Bulgarian rider appears to be on neither type but on a BMX type.
|
>> What might
>> happen in event of a hard landing, never mind an emergency doesn't bear thinking of;
>> ten kg of bike on your skull?
You could always wear a helmet.
|
Cycling Corner - Volume 20 - Bromptonaut
