***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 28 *****
==========================================================
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 Thu 5 Nov 15 at 00:51
|
A ban on "unsafe lorries" in London, introduced as part of efforts to protect cyclists, has come into force.
Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) must now be fitted with side guards to prevent cyclists being dragged underneath.
HGVs must also be fitted with a certain type of mirror to give drivers a better view of cyclists and pedestrians.
But hauliers criticised the move as a "blunt regulatory tool" and said more should be done to target a minority of rule-breakers on London's roads.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34111067
|
|
Mirrors and targetting of the minority of rule breakers are not alternatives. AIUI 'intelligence led' joint operations by VOSA and Met/City police have produced rich pickings.
|
|
Its time the COL police were disbanded and roiled into the Met.
|
>> Its time the COL police were disbanded and roiled into the Met.
Probably true but too many vested interests for it to happen.
|
"Its time the COL police were disbanded and roiled into the Met."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current set up. Nothing needs fixing.
|
>>targetting of the minority of rule breakers are not alternatives<<
How come?
Has it ever been tried in a sustained manner?
What do you base that theory on?
Pat
|
>> What do you base that theory on?
>>
>> Pat
Maybe I wasn't clear. The hauliers comment, as reported by the BBC, seemed to suggest that better protection and targeting were either/or alternatives. At best it sounds like nabbed speeders saying the cops should be out catching burglars instead.
I'm saying lets have the extra protection AND the regulators keeping the dodgy end of the trade on its toes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Sep 15 at 16:03
|
>>AND the regulators keeping the dodgy end of the trade on its toes<<
It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut as usual and it's the rare visitors to London who get caught for the expense while the 'dodgy' hauliers will still dodge with style.
I listened to an interview with a reputable haulier this morning at 4am who stated the cost of fitting his fleet with the required items was in excess of £300,000.
How many can afford that?
How many will afford that or just refuse to go into London or 'chance it'?
Why SHOULD they afford that?
It's a solution that requires no expense or effort from the cycling commuters, so of course, it's the only acceptable one considered.
Self protection, self preservation and self education is what's needed by the two wheeled commuter who they interviewed this morning, and said after sitting in a lorry seat 'I had no idea the driver couldn't see me'
Words fail me.
Bearing in mind the lorry was indicating to turn left, she didn't comment on her inability to see the indicator.
Pat
|
>> I listened to an interview with a reputable haulier this morning at 4am who stated
>> the cost of fitting his fleet with the required items was in excess of £300,000.
>>
>> How many can afford that?
Which haulier and how big is his fleet.
>> It's a solution that requires no expense or effort from the cycling commuters, so of
>> course, it's the only acceptable one considered.
I'm not getting on the hamster wheel again but as London is almost certainly the biggest most congested and complicated conurbation in Europe is it unreasonable to demand special protection when ordinary lorries use it's streets?
|
Between 2009 & 2013 14 pedestrians were killed and 334 were injured by bicycles.
Seems to me that while the current moves against trucks may be driven by genuine concerns, cycles have a bit of cleaning up to do with their own act as well.
|
>>
>> Between 2009 & 2013 14 pedestrians were killed and 334 were injured by bicycles.
>>
>> Seems to me that while the current moves against trucks may be driven by genuine
>> concerns, cycles have a bit of cleaning up to do with their own act as
>> well.
Not denying the potential need for cyclists to clean up their act but.........
CTC have a publication putting those numbers in a wider context.
www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf
Is there any indication of a common theme as with cyclist deaths and lorries in London?
|
>>Which haulier and how big is his fleet<<
It was on 4 times between 2am and 4am on BBC News 24. I need more coffee before I can listen to that.
One Haulier featured in Commercial Motor a few weeks ago stated quite clearly it would cost him £2500 per lorry to meet the FORS and CLOCS standards. Only a small amount of his fleet goes into London but to gain the accreditation for those vehicle ha has to meet the requirements for the whole fleet.
Of course, it will be the end user who pays in the end!
Pat
|
>
>> I listened to an interview with a reputable haulier this morning at 4am who stated
>> the cost of fitting his fleet with the required items was in excess of £300,000.
>>
>> How many can afford that?
all of them, their fuel costs have plummeted in the last 12 months,
|
Unfortunately a Haulage companies fuel escalator works both ways....up and down.
Next???
Pat
|
>> Unfortunately a Haulage companies fuel escalator works both ways....up and down.
>>
>> Next???
its been down for 12 months, and its going to be down for the next 12 months. Thats 24 months down, enough saving for each lorry to pay for the changes. When it goes up they will have paid for the changes
Next?
|
I don't think you understand how the fuel escalator works in Haulage.
When fuel goes down so do the haulage rates. Profit stays the same, likewise when it goes up.
So where is that available 'saving' coming from?
Pat
|
>> >>[Mirrors and] targetting of the minority of rule breakers are not alternatives<<
>>
>> How come?
I took that to mean that you don't have to do one or the other.
'Natalie Chapman, of the Freight Transport Association, said funds used to launch the scheme would be better spent on targeting "a small proportion of lorries that don't comply with existing regulations".'
Silly statement anyway, unless it is the case the the fatalities mostly involved lorries (a) in the minority, and (b) not complying with the old regs.
My understanding is that blind spots and people going under the lorry are common factors, so the approach seems reasonable.
|
Woudn't a more reasonable approach be to educate cyclists about >>> blind spots and people going under the lorry are common factors,<<<
I see this morning they mentioned a plan to stop lorries turning left in London.....
That will improve the carbon footprint and help the known rat runs already used!
Pat
|
We probably need to take a deep breath here and try to see the bigger picture.
I saw the film on BBC News too - when it is impossible for a driver to see a cyclist on his left, 12 feet away and abreast of the driver, I would say that the design of the vehicle is probably unsuitable for the environment it is in.
Of course people on bicycles should take care not to get in their way; but it is wrong to suggest that they don't - one journey in 500,000 ends in a KSI according to this story
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002701
so 99.9998% manage not to get run over. That makes a nonsense of the generalisation that cyclists are the problem.
By the same token, a massive majority of lorries do not kill cyclists or pedestrians, so it is equally wrong to suggest that drivers in general are the problem.
Both 'sides' are presumably doing their best to avoid squashing or being squashed. The decision is probably either to change something physical, or just put up with the level of casualties. Just telling people to be careful and look out for themselves has probably reached the limit of its effectiveness.
|
I would say that the design of the vehicle is probably unsuitable for the
>> environment it is in.
It's pretty much the same design as used all over the world. So why is it unsuitable for London, specifically?
>> Of course people on bicycles should take care not to get in their way; but
>> it is wrong to suggest that they don't - one journey in 500,000 ends in
>> a KSI so 99.9998% manage not to get run over. That makes a nonsense of the generalisation that cyclists are the problem.
Not quite. That's the number who manage to avoid getting killed or seriously injured. It overlooks the scrapes, near misses, wobbles and bruises, The nature of the beast is that all of those will be cyclists regardless of which party is to blame.
>> By the same token, a massive majority of lorries do not kill cyclists or pedestrians,
>> so it is equally wrong to suggest that drivers in general are the problem.
>>
>> Both 'sides' are presumably doing their best to avoid squashing or being squashed. The decision is probably either to change something physical, or just put up with the level of
casualties. Just telling people to be careful and look out for themselves has probably reached the limit of its effectiveness.
Fair and reasonable points. These measures may indeed help but they're not a total solution and should not be viewed as such. Unfortunately it would prove impossible to separate lorries and cyclists completely whist still retaining viable levels of logistical service. So what else do we change?
|
SQ 4 LB
>> Not quite. That's the number who manage to avoid getting killed or seriously injured. It
>> overlooks the scrapes, near misses, wobbles and bruises,
Yes, I ignored that. But if 10 times as many are involved as are KSI'd, the figure becomes 99.998%, or for 100 times, 99.98%. So I think the point stands. Mutatis mutandis the same sort of logic applies to the drivers.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 1 Sep 15 at 21:13
|
>>
>> Yes, I ignored that. But if 10 times as many are involved as are KSI'd,
>> the figure becomes 99.998%, or for 100 times, 99.98%. So I think the point stands.
>> Mutatis mutandis the same sort of logic applies to the drivers.
>>
Yes, agreed.
|
There is of course no single cause.
The physical environment is a contributory factor, as is the design and construction of the lorries, lorry driver and operator issues, and the attitude, abilities and common sense of cyclists.
Ergo, there is no single cure and to be effective will be the sum of a host of small changes. No party involved should throw blame or take an entrenched viewpoint.
I am of the opinion that there is no real new issue. Doing nothing is a valid option.
|
>> tinyurl.com/pp8ubew
Better than nothing, and hopefully will appeal to some of those who don't currently use lights. But I couldn't find much in the way of technical details eg. how bright, and how water/rain proof. Any links?
|
"Better than nothing"
Mine look like that after I've ridden to Woolpit for a cup of tea. I must get that seat adjusted :-(
|
>> >> tinyurl.com/pp8ubew
>>
>> Better than nothing, and hopefully will appeal to some of those who don't currently use
>> lights. But I couldn't find much in the way of technical details eg. how bright,
>> and how water/rain proof. Any links?
I'd imagine they're as rain proof as any properly approved rear light. Don't look all that bright though.
At best a novelty toy. At worst a distraction from paying what's probably less money for a proper light with the right safety approvals.
|
>> I'd imagine they're as rain proof as any properly approved rear light.
Are they approved?
|
>> Are they approved?
I'd be very surprised if they were.
My point was that approved rear lights are far from rainproof and can fail due to water penetration. Personal experience of such things.
|
>> My point was that approved rear lights are far from rainproof and can fail due
>> to water penetration.
Ah right.
|
My work requires me to drive to properties and for years I drove to work and then used the car for work. Then a year ago we got a pool car at work, meaning I was not bound to drive to work. The traffic had been getting steadily worse, and so I did my CBT with a view to getting a 125 bike. Up till then my cycling consisted of a brief mountain-bike ride maybe half a dozen times a year.
Mrs BB wasn't keen on a m/bike, and the statistics for their accidents do make grim reading. So I thought I would get the train and, rather than Tube, a folding bike and commute that way. Cycling rather than underground would be as quick, healthier and, in the long run cheaper (reckoned my man-maths). I bought a Brompton one year ago yesterday. In that year I have cycled approx. 1,800 miles commuting and more than recouped the (not inconsiderable) purchase price through savings on Underground fares. The added fitness has come for free!
Bitten by the cycling bug I bought a Cube Agree road bike, on which I have cycled a further 1,100 miles since March. I did the Prudential Ride London-Surrey this year, raising £1,500 for aArthritis Research, nearly 30% more than the cost of the bike. I occasionally ride all the way to work on this from Surrey to NW London (saving further travel costs).
So, a perfect vindication of man-maths with added health and fitness for free. I'm happy!
|
>> Bitten by the cycling bug I bought a Cube Agree road bike
One of these?
www.chainreactioncycles.com/cube-agree-gtc-race-compact-road-bike-2015/rp-prod127967
Best part of £1200 - sheesh. A brand new CBR125 only costs£3600 :)
Seriously, well done!
Last edited by: Focusless on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 21:20
|
|
That is seriously good value, a carbon frame and Ultegra 11 speed for £1200. 15 years ago a top professional would have torn your arm off for that.
|
>> That is seriously good value, a carbon frame and Ultegra 11 speed for £1200. 15
>> years ago a top professional would have torn your arm off for that.
>>
Mine was a 2014 model reduced to £1,099. Like you say, fantastic value!
|
>>So, a perfect vindication of man-maths with added health and fitness for free. I'm happy!
Similar with my Bromptons. The first, bought 1999 for around £700, paid for itself inside two years - and I wasn't an everyday user of bus/tube, quite often walking Kingsway to Euston.
|
Now sold it, but I had a Bickerton folder. More than paid for itself in less than a year as it saved using a car and paying for parking at the railway station.
Used it a couple of times at the Porlock car hillclimb to 'walk' the course. Saved me catching the coach to the start. Not the cycle event, but the car speed hillclimb which I think is no longer run - was probably the longest one in the UK.
|
>> Now sold it, but I had a Bickerton folder. More than paid for itself in
>> less than a year as it saved using a car and paying for parking at
>> the railway station.
Interesting bike and the one which led Andrew Ritchie to decide he could do something better. The result was the Brompton. The big problem with the Bickerton, IIRC, was 'flex' in the all aluminium frame
Somebody in the village was selling one for £50 a couple of years ago. Nearly bought it as an 'N+1' and curio. SWMBO was quite forceful about 9 bikes in the garage being enough and when were (a) her Peugeot tourer and (b) the older Brompton to be restored to action.
|
Interesting bike and the one which led Andrew Ritchie to decide he could do something better. The result was the Brompton. The big problem with the Bickerton, IIRC, was 'flex' in the all aluminium frame
Frame was ok - what there was of it, but the handlebars were both long and flexy. A tad more metal there would have greatly helped. If you flex aluminium, it eventually breaks although I didn't have a problem, I could see others might. Rode a bit more gently than I ride non-folders.
|
A bit of Googling finds that the Bickerton brand has been revived by the son of the original machine's inventor.
www.bickertonportables.co.uk/
Not sure how original they are - some look like re-badged Dahon/Tern products.
|
>> Not sure how original they are - some look like re-badged Dahon/Tern products.
Wiki says they're Terns from Taiwan but possibly with bespoke additions.
Not necessarily any worse for that. Tern split off from Dahon who's bikes are second only to Brompton in their usability for commuting.
|
Not sure how original they are - some look like re-badged Dahon/Tern products
Not in the slightest original. The thing that made Bickertons easily identifiable was an oblong section to the main tube. That being said, the pictures suggest it might be a good buy, depending on the price, but for low depreciation, a Brompton takes a lot of beating.
And having had to mend the Bickerton carrying bag a few times, the transport of a Brompton also makes more sense.
|
I doubt you could anyway. If I tried cycling across that shiny floor the bike would just slip away from me.
youtu.be/P3WnQ246f1g
|
There's a metro station close to my house, and a fairly significant bus stop. The local council offers secure, free parking for bicycles from 06:00am to 01:00am - one parks and retrieves on your ID card or passport.
Heavily used and seemingly a brilliant idea for reducing traffic.
People cycle from quite a distance and park their bikes before getting on the metro or bus to get to their office / school / whatever.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPUe80oBZw
:)))))))
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 9 Sep 15 at 01:40
|
London had won the bid to host the start of the 2017 Tour de France, but turned it down one day before the contract was due to be signed. Organisers not happy.
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/34385718
|
|
And no doubt a sigh of relief from the residents who will not have to suffer the closed roads and general travel disruption.
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3264603/Is-world-s-stubborn-cyclist-Swedish-biker-ten-minute-stand-lorry-driver-refusing-let-pass-right-way-things-reach-aggressive-finale.html
can you reply to the topmost post in this thread when posting something new, as per the "please note" request. Thanks. Post now moved to correct part of the thread
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 8 Oct 15 at 21:16
|
It's a good job the lorry driver wasn't me...I'd have got back in the cab, locked the door, put the kettle on with my feet visible on the dashboard, and made a coffee.
He'd have ran out of steam when he saw I was enjoying the break!
Pat
|
Cyclists with 'attitude' not just a Brit thing then?
Love the way the Mail says he had room to get past on the pavement. The same paper that fulminates over 'lycra louts' doing just that.
|
|
It's the Wail, huge chunk of salt to be taken. :-)
|
Too much swearing....disgusting !
|
|
Sorry, I usually browse sound off.
|
>> Love the way the Mail says he had room to get past on the pavement.
>> The same paper that fulminates over 'lycra louts' doing just that.
>>
Why on earth didn't he walk his bike past the lorry, then cycle on his way?
Why did he wish to seek confrontation?
Why couldn't he be more understanding of someone else driving something big, compared to his ease of manoeuvre with something small?
I do, when I'm out in my Vx Combo van...if I can help, I do....it makes the journey more pleasant and is quicker.
Why wouldn't you, unless you are an a***?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 12:20
|
>> Why wouldn't you, unless you are an a***?
>>
Exactly. A couple of days ago I was approaching a main road along a narrow (ish) road. There was an artic with a 40ft trailer waiting to turn right into this road. I stopped about 100ft short of the junction, waited until the lorry had made his turn, and received aa wave of thanks. Maybe a cyclist would have riden up to the stop line and got crushed just to be difficult.
|
@WP
Trouble is the video doesn't start until the stand-off is under way so other than the Mail's assertion that the lorry driver 'failed to see' the cyclist we don't know for certain how they got into that position.
If it's a one off failure to accommodate a lorry driver's lack of observation then I'd agree the cyclist is being silly. If on the other hand the lorry just ignores the priority through the pinch and his/his company's doing so relying on bulk and 'inability' to back up is a regular thing then maybe there's a reason; confronting a bully.
Since that's a course you routinely advocate I'm surprised you don't see the point here.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 13:17
|
>> Since that's a course you routinely advocate I'm surprised you don't see the point here.
I regularly drive in Devon's small lanes and 'A' roads, in a small van. I sometimes meet people who cannot or will not reverse. Occasionally I'll meet the ignorant and sometimes the stupid who cannot read the road and plan ahead.
Skip lorries can be bad in my less than scientific observations.
I tend to give way and reverse, it's quicker, less stressful... and I bear in mind I don't always know why the other person hasn't given way.
It's rare I stand my ground and only when there's a really obvious space available to the other person that they've missed / ignored....and even then, I'll often do a long reverse on the mirrors at a reasonable rate of knots, to embarrass them.
I always let lorries, buses, tractors and towed vehicles have a lot more leeway... because they are more unwieldy. Even the ignorant usually wave.. my day goes quicker and I'm not stressed.
You are right, I don't see the point here. I think the cyclist was a total, 100% clown who looks unnecessarily for confrontation and got it. Is it reasonable for such a large vehicle to reverse for such a small one regardless of the circumstances?....No it isn't.
|
>I'll often do a long reverse on the mirrors at a reasonable rate of knots, to embarrass them.
I seem to recall reading a review in Motorsport of the 512BB. Apparently the ratio in reverse gear gave it almost 70mph at the red line.
Try that on mirrors :-)
|
I'll often do a long reverse on the mirrors at a reasonable rate of knots, to embarrass them.
I once won the class in a car gymkhana largely because I was prepared and did do the backwards part of the course so fast I hit the rev limiter in reverse. 36 mph I think, and it was on grass too, not nice smooth tarmac.
The vintage car though has no reverse gear, but you get used to not getting into situations that need an uphill reverse.
|
You are right, I don't see the point here. I think the cyclist was a total, 100% clown who looks unnecessarily for confrontation and got it. Is it reasonable for such a large vehicle to reverse for such a small one regardless of the circumstances?....No it isn't.
Rather like the aquatic version, steam gives way to sail. But best not to assert ones rights in a Mirror dinghy against a channel ferry.
|
>> Rather like the aquatic version, steam gives way to sail. But best not to assert
>> ones rights in a Mirror dinghy against a channel ferry.
>>
youtu.be/_tUoUxzt9sI
|
|
Been sailing around there before, no great surprise. Now that is the place if you want to go to see plenty of people full of themselves and their rights. All the gear and no idea.
|
>> Been sailing around there before, no great surprise. Now that is the place if you
>> want to go to see plenty of people full of themselves and their rights. All
>> the gear and no idea.
Yeah, I sail there three or four times a year. Its not as tho you can't see the big shipping, or know where they will be in 5 minutes time. Most people think the big cruise liners blow their horns on departure for dramatic effect. Its actually a "Lookout I am coming out and I aint stopping for you" warning.
|
>> >> Rather like the aquatic version, steam gives way to sail. But best not to
>> assert
>> >> ones rights in a Mirror dinghy against a channel ferry.
An extract from the maritime rules of the road.
A sailing vessel must give way to:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
a vessel engaged in fishing.
Basically anything big in shallow water.
|
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
a vessel engaged in fishing.
Basically anything big in shallow water.
None of those fit a channel ferry, the moves they can pull off are remarkable (mostly due to bow thrusters). But a captain of a ferry will be considering the passengers and anyone who thinks they'll make one move from sailing a dinghy is not long for this world.
As with most things in life, although one may be in the right, being right and dead is not a good combination.
|
>> None of those fit a channel ferry, >>
The first two most certainly can. Could you be having a problem with definitions?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 21:43
|
>> >> None of those fit a channel ferry, >>
>>
>> The first two most certainly can. Could you be having a problem with definitions?
>>
Clarification's
Not under command = A vessel not under control, it could be aground, or have a steering or propulsion failure. It would display the appropriate lights or shapes on its mast.
Restricted in its ability to manoeuvre = A vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre by other traffic, a narrow channel, or any obstruction, either geographic or man made, this could include shallow water or harbour structures.
A fishing vessel fishing is obviously restricted in its ability to manoeuvre.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 22:21
|
.and even then, I'll often do a
>> long reverse on the mirrors at a reasonable rate of knots, to embarrass them.
Do you think they are actually embarrassed though?
|
>> Do you think they are actually embarrassed though?
>>
You're right, probably not.... you do get a good wave though, quite often from more than just the driver, so maybe a few times the driver feels a chump.
|
Typical of the worst of cycling attitudes.
It takes one total t*** like this to give another 10,000 cyclists a bad name.
|
>> Typical of the worst of cycling attitudes.
Is it really a cycling attitude Mark? At best it's a 50/50; either could have given way, neither did.
Seen similar stand offs with cars/LGVs (though not for as long) on the various narrow rail/river/canal bridges hereabouts.
|
>> >> Typical of the worst of cycling attitudes.
I assume the bloke is b***** minded whether he is on his bike or not. I don't think cycling makes people that way.
I don't agree on the 50/50. far easier for the man on the bike to resolve the situation or indeed just to have got out of the way in the first place, regardless of whose fault it was.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 8 Oct 15 at 17:38
|
>>Is it really a cycling attitude Mark?
Yes.
Of course, the guy is probably a total dick off his bike as well, but a cyclist getting all confrontational about his own rights / space / etc whilst 5 minutes later hammering down a sidewalk is absolutely a b***** typical cycling attitude.
|
>> Seen similar stand offs with cars/LGVs (though not for as long) on the various narrow
>> rail/river/canal bridges hereabouts.
>>
I see plenty of them; the point is that in this case it was far easier for the cyclist to simply pick his bike up, stand on the pavement and let the lorry pass and continue on his way, but he was too pig-headed to do so. And sorry,yes, if I do get that attitude from other road users it does by and large tend to be from cyclists.
It's also worth pointing out that if a lorry is going through a narrow road like that you can bet any money there will be at least one car behind him, and you can take it from me that they don't leave you any room to back up; had similar this morning down on the Gower where I met up with a tractor and trailer coming t'other way, fortunately the two cars further back were locals who know how to reverse, one of them then watched me back to let the tractor through.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 13 Oct 15 at 01:30
|
>> I see plenty of them; the point is that in this case it was far
>> easier for the cyclist to simply pick his bike up, stand on the pavement and
>> let the lorry pass and continue on his way, but he was too pig-headed to
>> do so.
And I get accused of defending the indefensible!
This wasn't some random meet on a rural Welsh road or a club run 'sticking together'. It happened in an urban setting where a 'pinch point' slows traffic for a school etc. All the lorry driver had to do was observe the traffic and give way according to the signage.
Maybe, as the report says, he failed to spot the cyclist. OTOH maybe he's just a bully and does this every day. Cyclist has met him there before and been forced onto the pavement; this time he takes a stand.
The truck driver's sweariness tells us plenty about HIS attitude.
And while it's easy to pick up your bike once you've been forced to a stop and dismounted mounting the kerb under pressure of a large vehicle being driven in a threatening manner is another thing altogether.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 08:41
|
>> And I get accused of defending the indefensible!
>>
I don't speak Swedish and I didn't have the sound on, so I'm only going by what I saw on the video. Might I ask though what is "indefensible" about simple common sense? What's the truck driver supposed to do; roll the damn thing up and put it in his back pocket? It's a drawbar outfit, not a Transit van; unlikely to have a reversing camera and even if he did there'd be cars up his backside as I said earlier.
Whole thing could have been sorted in five seconds flat had the cyclist not succumbed to "small man syndrome". For some reason folk think that large HGV's travel down narrow roads just to annoy other road users. Trust me when I say there is not one lorry driver who would sooner avoid them wherever possible; however delivery points frequently require use of said narrow roads in order for us to simply do our job.
As I see it it was the lorry driver whose progress was impeded by a silly arrogant man. It matters not a jot in a situation like this whose right of way it is; in this kind of situation common sense and a desire to keep traffic moving should overcome egos on both sides.
The attitude of some cyclists is that simply because your vehicle is bigger and less manouverable you are a bully. Thankfully most of them are more sensible than that. BTW if a lorry is stood still it cannot by definition be driven in a threatening manner.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 12:01
|
@ HM see my reply to WP above on the substance.
As to needing sound and a grounding in Swedish to understand whether the driver was swearing, it says so in the Mail so it must be true :-P
|
>> As to needing sound and a grounding in Swedish to understand whether the driver was
>> swearing, it says so in the Mail so it must be true :-P
>>
An attitude like that of the cyclist would reduce a bishop to swearing.
As to your point to WP; exactly, we don't know what happened before. Which makes your suggestion that this wasn't the first time it had happened, and was therefore the lorry driver's fault, even more fatuous.
And it's not "inability" to back up. That driver could probably put his lorry and trailer, in pitch dark, into a space that you would struggle to get a van into in broad daylight. If he has cars behind him, right up his backside, as would be inevitable, the driver, quite rightly, has to consider the safety of those people; there being a sensible solution (presumably to everyone else but the cyclist) he is quite within his rights to stand his ground.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 13:29
|
>> As to your point to WP; exactly, we don't know what happened before. Which makes
>> your suggestion that this wasn't the first time it had happened, and was therefore the
>> lorry driver's fault, even more fatuous.
No it makes it a surmise, a guess even. It's no more fatuous then a suggestion that the cyclist simply stopped the truck for no reason beyond 'small man syndrome'.
|
>> No it makes it a surmise, a guess even. It's no more fatuous then a
>> suggestion that the cyclist simply stopped the truck for no reason beyond 'small man syndrome'.
>>
Missed edit: Since we don't know what happened we can only work out probable scenarios.
|
>> No it makes it a surmise, a guess even. It's no more fatuous then a
>> suggestion that the cyclist simply stopped the truck for no reason beyond 'small man syndrome'.
>>
Despite the fact that the video, combined with the actions of others after it finished, seems to bear this out?
|
>> Despite the fact that the video, combined with the actions of others after it finished,
>> seems to bear this out?
The video starts with them both stopped. It doesn't tell us anything about how they came to that situation.
TBH even I'd agree he let it go on far too long so if he got abused and/or busted for obstruction then not too much of a surprise.
|
|
Whatever the initial cause, the cyclist was a prat. Even over on Cycle Chat he isn't getting a lot of sympathy. I just don't understand why people get into confrontations on the road over stupid stuff like this. Ok, if someone barges you into a tree you're going to be pretty annoyed and fighting mad in the immediate aftermath, but if an oncoming driver doesn't give way when he should just let him through and get over it. What's the problem?
|
The wonder is that no one threw his bike into the nearest ditch sooner.
People who think they have 'rights' entitling them to inconvenience others at whim are one of the banes of the modern world. I blame the education system, and jumped-up idiot parents.
|
|
As a life long cyclist I have to say that sort of behaviour is cringe worthy and embarrassing. You're on a bike, FFS, it's easy enough to pull in find the room to let a truck pass. I wish cycling was an unpopular geek sport again, it attracted a much better class of person then.
|
|
Is it just me are other people annoyed when people don't use landscape format when recording stuff?
|
|
No it's not just you. I sometimes get unusable submissions for the local scout website of stills take that way too.
|
>> It's a good job the lorry driver wasn't me...I'd have got back in the cab,
>> locked the door, put the kettle on with my feet visible on the dashboard, and
>> made a coffee.
>>
>> He'd have ran out of steam when he saw I was enjoying the break!
>>
>> Pat
>>
That wouldn't be very 'professional driving' would it ?
Perhaps you should have a look here www.pda-uk.org/ ...........
:-}))
|
There's a long, awkwardly-curved single track humpback bridge thing, with a Bailey bridge extension, on one of the roads near us. It quite often happens that vehicles meet on it because they can't see each other coming.
I met a lady in a car a year or two back when I had got nearly all the way across. She knew that and she knew it was really up to her to do the short reverse, but was looking fazed and helpless. Rather than doing the long awkward reverse on my side, I got out and asked the lady gently if she would let me reverse her car off the bridge.
She accepted gratefully, so I did it and that was that.
|
On the contrary Rick O'Shea that would be absolutely professional.
Remain calm and refuse to be drawn into road rage, no swearing and bringing the name on the door of the lorry into disrepute.
Rising above idiots is something that can be done well:)))
Pat
|
>> Remain calm and refuse to be drawn into road rage, no swearing and bringing the
>> name on the door of the lorry into disrepute.
>>
And, if the other chap is as prattish as that cyclist, sneaking a crafty 15 minute WTD break in as well. ;-)
|
For Harleyman as he's probably the only one who will understand the implications of this:)
I have a DCPC session today and one of my 'drivers, is a recently retired top man at VOSA who wants to do a bit of driving to keep his hand in.
He's from your old home town and travelling all the way to the Fen for my training when he could get it locally....I wonder why???
Bet we get the 6 hour rule!
Note to self: Must be spot on with everything all day:)
Pat
|
>> I have a DCPC session today and one of my 'drivers, is a recently retired
>> top man at VOSA who wants to do a bit of driving to keep his
>> hand in.
>>
I'd love to be the TM who gives him his first rollicking for an infringement! :-)
|
He told us that story.....again,.....and again.......and again:)
Pat
|
>> It's a good job the lorry driver wasn't me...I'd have got back in the cab,
>> locked the door, put the kettle on with my feet visible on the dashboard, and
>> made a coffee.
>>
>> He'd have ran out of steam when he saw I was enjoying the break!
>>
>> Pat
>>
So you don't think putting your feet on top of the dash and having a coffee would be provocative ?
|
'unsafe lorry' ban starts in London - Focusless
