***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 11 *****
More pedal power chat.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 21 Mar 14 at 01:35
|
www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/london-ban-for-trucks-without-cycle-safety-equipment
Not a good move for Hauliers or the cost of transporting goods which ultimately we all pay for.
Boris vowed to fit mirrors on traffic lights (can't remember their name just now) in 2009 but there are only a handful fitted to date despite planning permission being removed and only costing around £180 per set.
Oldham and most of Greater Manchester have them and they have proved successful.
What an outlay for a lorry that may only go into London a couple of times a year.
Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 30 Jan 14 at 21:23
|
|
Accidents cost organisations money. A lot. Uninsurable losses amount to more than most plan for. They might be better off with these devices! And cyclists.
Last edited by: NIL on Thu 30 Jan 14 at 21:43
|
Shooting from the hip, but my instinct is that this is not going to be well targeted and may not even be effective.
Reminds me of the ASA and the advert ban.
They could, as mooted, begin with construction lorries operating in London and maybe buses, which Boris probably has some control over.
Road design and poor awareness (cyclists and drivers) are probably bigger factors.
Not really pontificating, I'm slightly tired and emotional (though not as t&e as a newt).
|
Largely agree with Manatee. The real problem vehicle wise is tip/skip lorries not couriers or M&S Lunch to Go vans. Careful and relatively cheap modifications to key junctions with short segregated lanes and alternative routes via side streets would ease problems too.
BoJo has long form for shooting from the hip and making impractical or failed promises. This is another for the collection.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 31 Jan 14 at 08:56
|
The real problem is:
The rougher end of the lorry driver's industry versus the increasingly more dominant cycling tactics...and...a more timid or unaware cyclist copying what the more aware or experienced are doing.
If the lorry driver was a bit less throttle and bit more aware...combined with the cyclist being more aware and hanging back from larger vehicles instead of squeezing past and stopping where they can't see you.
...then the problem would be virtually solved.
|
I've been on a bike in London today for first time since November; Boris bike from Euston to Drury Lane. Dropped straight back into the groove as though I'd never been away.
Reminded my self though that there's not much of what WP refers to as dominant cycling tactics on Central London's streets. Road aware commuters for sure and riding assertively enough to keep in sight/mind of motorists. No mouthy hold up the cars stuff.
Note that Southampton Row/Woburn PLace is now a 20 limit.
While of course some of the tip/skip accidents have been result of squeezing past that's not the behaviour of those with experience or training. The other risk is from those who have not asserted themselves and are either turned across while moving or have trucks pull alongside them while they're stopped and which subsequently turn over them
Reputable constructors, including all those working on Crossrail, insist on hauliers having the right gear and training.
I've named convicted drivers before. One was drunk, another having killed a cyclist went on tg run over and kill a pedestrian in Marylebone. The firm that employed the drunk was reportedly the same one that nearly wiped out Boris when the piece of wire coat hanger holding a skip door failed so that door swung open. The RHA and FTA as well as VOSA should be working to drive the cowboys out.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 31 Jan 14 at 16:29
|
for blocking his way in village’s Elm Lane
tinyurl.com/nazagp6
I know just how heavy a lorry door is.
Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:55
|
>> tinyurl.com/nazagp6
>>
>> I know just how heavy a lorry door is.
>>
>> Pat
So some crook on a bike assaults a lorry driver in Suffolk?
And how exactly has that any relevance to bike/lorry accidents in London?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:55
|
|
Pat don't like cyclists. All untoward incidents are grist to the mill:)
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
FYI NIL, you are way off the mark.
I follow this thread and try to see the problem in London from both sides, so much so that I have included a 2 hour slot in my current course I have written on cyclist safety.
Much of the information from 'the cyclists' has been taken from discussions on here and I pride myself on spending time trying to put these views over to my lorry drivers in an objective and reasoned manner.
Much to my surprise, they are perceptive to the problem and watch the videos and discuss it far more reasonably than Bromp seems able to do.
Why do we bother?
Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
London isn't the only place in the world that has cyclist problems Bromp.
How about trying to be a little less defensive and looking at it objectively for once?
Pardon me for posting....I will slink quietly away and leave you to your crusade.
Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
I really cannot believe the attitude to my post.
For London cyclists the problem ends when they arrive home or board a train.
For any lorry driver the problem with cyclists exists in Cambridge, Oxford, Birmingham, Manchester and in fact any city.
It also exists on any country lane where cyclists commute to work in the dark, and fog/rain.
In fact it's something we're trained to be alert for all the time.
Surely you can see that making lorry drivers more aware of the problems will benefit you London cyclists as well as any others?
Contrary to popular belief, the world doesn't end outside of the M25.
Pat
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
I don't understand what difference there is between Pat and Bromptonaut. Both are thoughtful and rational individuals, representatives here and doubtless elsewhere of their road categories, who want to minimize risk, casualties and so on. I just can't see what the difference is.
I note Bromptonaut mentions yet more 20mph crap in Southampton Row, a long-time route and stamping ground of mine. Well bad cess to that, and I will be paying it my usual level of respect and attention when it is possible to exceed 10 mph. Blurring the distinction between carriageway and pavement by turning everything into a sort of precinct floored with stupidly slippery bricks is dumb-ass if you ask me. I blame Mrs Robinson. No, sorry, Ken Livingstone. Someone like that anyway.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
>> I really cannot believe the attitude to my post.
>>
>> For London cyclists the problem ends when they arrive home or board a train.
>>
I worked in London for 35yrs but for 24 of them I lived in Northampton. Biking introduced me to Mrs B and I'm intent on doing 15-25 mile rides as often as I can since I left work.
>> For any lorry driver the problem with cyclists exists in Cambridge, Oxford, Birmingham, Manchester and
>> in fact any city.
>>
>> It also exists on any country lane where cyclists commute to work in the dark,
>> and fog/rain.
>>
>> In fact it's something we're trained to be alert for all the time.
That's because they're there. You define them as a 'problem'.
>> Surely you can see that making lorry drivers more aware of the problems will benefit
>> you London cyclists as well as any others?
Agreed.
>> Contrary to popular belief, the world doesn't end outside of the M25.
>>
Born and raised in the West Riding and living in Northants for pushing 25 years I know that.
Simon
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
>> That's because they're there. You define them as a 'problem'.
I didn't read it like that...IMO you are putting words in Pat's mouth..she hasn't said 'they are a problem'..she said 'the problem'...i.e. the difficulty between vulnerable road users and large road users with limited visibilty.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
>> I didn't read it like that...IMO you are putting words in Pat's mouth..she hasn't said
>> 'they are a problem'..she said 'the problem'...i.e. the difficulty between vulnerable road users and large
>> road users with limited visibilty.
The specific words were the problem with cyclists exists in Cambridge, Oxford, Birmingham, Manchester
I think both she and you see cyclists as a 'problem' that needs to be 'solved'.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
>> I think both she and you see cyclists as a 'problem' that needs to be
>> 'solved'.
>>
That's your slant.
Is it a:
1 - problem with cyclists....i.e. the people pedalling are at fault
2 - a problem that needs solving..and in this case it involves cyclists
I'm seeing it as 2.... Guess which one I think you think I think...if you can accept my Rumsfeldism.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:56
|
tinyurl.com/nevk47p
I think you'll agree Bromp, he got off very lightly.
Pat
|
6 of one and half a dozen of the other if you ask me.
>>After getting out of his cab to speak to the cyclist
That's right. He was getting out for a chat.
|
>> 6 of one and half a dozen of the other if you ask me.
>>
>> >>After getting out of his cab to speak to the cyclist
>>
>> That's right. He was getting out for a chat.
Which is why the sentence is that given.
|
It looks that way but if he admitted the offence then it was probably as good an option as going to court.
At worst in court he'd get suspended, more likely fine and/or community service. Unlikely to get a custodial (unless he had 'form'). If the truck driver was not as white as he's painted by his trade magazine a lawyer making it look two sided might try for a defence or just run that stuff in mitigation.
Presumably police decided it wasn't worth the resource/risk in prosecuting.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 16:48
|
>>Presumably police decided it wasn't worth the resource/risk in prosecuting.<<
Quite right too.
The question I'm asking the board members is: Had the lorry driver knocked the cyclist unconscious, do they think he would have been cautioned?
Pat
|
>> Quite right too.
>>
>> The question I'm asking the board members is: Had the lorry driver knocked the cyclist
>> unconscious, do they think he would have been cautioned?
>>
>> Pat
If he'd got he'd got out of the cab and thumped a cyclist in otherwise similar circs than I'd have thought his chances of caution v court were about same.
There may though be some wiggle room around fact that a lorry is far more intimidating to a cyclist than vice versa - the 'you could have killed me' argument.
|
|
Well clearly not, we all know lorry drivers are persecuted.
|
>>Had the lorry driver knocked the cyclist unconscious, do they think he would have been cautioned?
Who knows? Do you think that the "unconscious" bit was the most important part?
Don't you think that you take this obsession with discrimination of lorry drivers a bit far?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 17:12
|
Not at all, I'm interested in the consensus of opinion on this board.
Zero's sarcasm does him no favours either, just shows an inability to debate the point in question.
>>obsession with discrimination of lorry drivers <<
Obsession with being treated equally as road users, you mean.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 17:16
|
The debate is that you are obsessed with the idea that Lorry Drivers are unfairly discriminated against with respect to any other group of road uses.
There is no debate, you are merely stating a misplaced view. Again.
|
OK Zero, you win.
My research ends here.
My attempts to bridge the gap are pointless simply because you have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt that all road users are totally anti lorries and lorry drivers.
How's that? Is that what you want, to be proved right, yet again.
If you don't want to debate the point then just butt out and leave it to those who do.
How about the budget thread?
Or Rattles service?
AC will be up for a argument since the sun is over the yardarm.
I'll go post on the cycling forums, they make far more sense than here.
Pat
|
>> OK Zero, you win.
>>
>> My research ends here.
You are not doing research.
>> My attempts to bridge the gap
You are not attempting to bridge any gap (with this particular point)
The very question is a statement that you think the lorry driver was unfairly treated. Ok here is the answer. Given that we have only the word of the lorry driver and the cyclist involved, that both appear to be mouthy gits ready for a rumble then Yes, under those circumstances I think the lorry driver would have attracted the same sentence.
But thats not the answer you seek, as it does not fit your original reason for asking it.
Now is that a good debating point or not?
|
>>Now is that a good debating point or not?<<
No, it isn't.
I am genuinely interested in other people's views on this, not just yours because you want to have a whinge at me, or Mark's because he's bored and treats me like a cat to play with to fill in a bit of time.
I shall have this discussion on Friday with a room full of lorry drivers and I will be the opposition then, defending the cyclist.
I need to understand how the wider audience thinks, otherwise I'm crap at my job.
I just find it impossible to do this when I'm accused of being biased towards a lorry driver every time I try and get a discussion going.
I was a lorry driver for 30 years, I know them/us far better than you.
I know the mistakes we make on a regular basis, as do all walks of life.
My situation has changed now and I have an opportunity to at least try and counter the bad feeling lorry drivers have towards cyclists.
You won't change me, I am what I am, but neither will you wear me down or drive me away so live with it.
Pat
|
>> You won't change me, I am what I am, but neither will you wear me
>> down or drive me away so live with it.
How self-centered can one person get?
I don't care whether or not you change, I don't care whether or not you get worn down, and I don't care whether or not you leave this forum.
Don't care. Not a bit, not even slightly.
You post something, I will read it; perhaps be bored by it, agree with it, or disagree with it. If any of those feelings are sufficiently strong, then I will reply. There is no relevance beyond that.
>> I am genuinely interested in other people's views on this,
It doesn't seem so. I don't agree with you, so you dismiss me and my views.
Dismiss away, its your right and freedom. But don't then climb on some evangelical soapbox about how all you want to hear is other peoples' views because you're such an even and right-minded thinking person yourself - because that's just plain sheet.
You wanted views, you got views.
Whether you like it, accept it, or disbelieve it, in my mind you have done more harm to my perception of the open-mindedness of lorry drivers than anything any lorry driver has done on the road over the years.
>> My situation has changed now and I have an opportunity to at least try and
>> counter the bad feeling lorry drivers have towards cyclists.
Well might I suggest you examine the productivity of your approach.
|
The point you two never see is when the pair of you get on your soap boxes and pontificate loudly, everyone else shuts up (in the hope you will too) and the thread dies, whatever the subject or whoever posts it.
It's a recurring problem and one which will eventually have to be dealt with if this forum is to prosper and attract new members.
Pat
|
>> The point you two never see is when the pair of you get on your
>> soap boxes and pontificate loudly, everyone else shuts up (in the hope you will too)
>> and the thread dies, whatever the subject or whoever posts it.
>>
>> It's a recurring problem and one which will eventually have to be dealt with if
>> this forum is to prosper and attract new members.
>>
>> Pat
Perhaps they shut up because they know you are on your lorry drivers soap box?
|
>The point you two never see is ......................
Really? Again?
have you no new records?
|
>> I need to understand how the wider audience thinks, otherwise I'm crap at my job.
In that case you got your answer. We think a: it was fair and b:would not have been different if it were the lorry driver
Given the facts as in this case. Another case, other facts may well be different.
The answer is the mouthy lorry driver met the mouthy cyclist and came off worse. Tell them not every cyclist is a pushover - They'll understand that.
|
>> AC will be up for a argument since the sun is over the yardarm.
Already running on the spot sweetie, but still nearly half an hour to go before the first judicious measure of the evening.
|
Get in AC, sun has gone down her:)
Pat
|
>>sun has gone down her:)
Lucky her.
|
>>nearly half an hour to go before the first judicious measure
And what hour represents the threshold for which beverage?
Beer?
Wine?
spirits?
And what time is the sun over the yardarm? Is that not late morning?
|
>> And what time is the sun over the yardarm? Is that not late morning?
>>
18:00 local is oft regarded as 'yard arm' time. Including by Mrs B. Were she at home now there'd be tutting at the opened bottle of Pelforth Blonde on my desk.
|
|
She'd be throwing conniptions over the almost empty bottle of Santa Helena Gran Reserva on mine then. (its only 14:45 here).
|
>> She'd be throwing conniptions over the almost empty bottle of Santa Helena Gran Reserva on
>> mine then. (its only 14:45 here).
Ruddy hell, haven't even cracked open the Gordons here. (its 17:51)
|
Over generous public sector pensions y'see. Encourages hedonism in the elderly. Should be cut. For their own good.
;-)
|
>> Beer?
Wine?
spirits?
My own tipple is usually vodka and orange. Rarely, or when abroad, I may drink some wine with a meal or beer in a pub, both sometimes at lunch. But rarely.
I hit the vodka after 6, the iron rule of a person denying their incipient alcoholism. The first of those sits before me as I type. Salúd and so on, er...
|
I like Vodka & Orange too. Do you like chilli peppers? Because if so, for an occasional change, may I recommend soaking chilli in the vodka bottle for a few weeks and then making bloody Marys with it. Recipe available with better details if you wish.
Beer at lunchtimes when in the UK. I rarely drink beer here except for the lager-ish stuff when I'm hot.
White wine only on days with a "y2 in them, and then only after noon.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 20 Mar 14 at 01:45
|
>>Obsession with being treated equally as road users, you mean
No, I don't.
Your obsession appears to be with the fact that they are discriminated against, not with achieving equality.
And really, this particular example does rather show you've gone a bit far. Step back, think it through, and then consider if you really think that this is really an example of discrimination, or is rather just recognition that two idiots both got out of order.
|
>> or is rather just recognition that two idiots both got out of order. <<
Every lorry driver in the country would agree with that, BUT they all agree the outcome would have been different had the boot been on the other foot.
This just serves to widen the gap, breed bad feeling and set one sort of road user against another.
Pat
|
Pat,
I see where you're coming from, and I know you have the best intentions, but honest that is just Rubbish.
You seem to be seeking an argument over a case that seemingly was well dealt with by stating that some fantasy case wouldn't have been.
Would you not achieve more by applauding the apparently reasonable decision?
What widens the gap is seeking offence.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 01:25
|
|
In the previous thread, where the white Audi driver thumped a cyclist, does the panel think he should get a caution?
|
|
Remind our addled brains with a link....
|
I'll give you an answer Pat.
Violence deserves a stronger response that that, preferably custodial, subject only to 'mitigating' circumstances, e.g.
- when it is clear that both parties were intent on doing violence on more or less equal terms
- self defence, or genuine fear of coming to serious harm
- extreme provocation
etc.
I have no idea if such mitigation applied here, though it looks as if the first one might be. But I am continually disappointed that the punishment for trivial, victimless and arbitrary motoring 'offences' seems to exceed that for seriously violent behaviour and nastiness of other kinds.
|
Thanks Manatee, much appreciated.
Pat
|
Pat,
You've genuinely got the wrong end of my stick here. Just puzzled as to relevance of 'thug on a bike' story. He's no more representative of cyclists then Denis P U T Z or Jaio Lopez (killers of Catriona Patel and Eilidh Cairns respectively) are of lorry drivers.
While I'm always up for putting the cyclist's POV I'm not on a crusade. I'm also glad you're picking stuff up from here that you can use in delivering your CPD stuff.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:57
|
>> You've genuinely got the wrong end of my stick here.
Not in my eyes she hasn't.
Just puzzled as to relevance
>> of 'thug on a bike' story.
We are or were talking about the general interaction between lorries and bicycles, with a specific angle of safety. This fits that criteria albeit at an extreme end of one of the spectrums..in the same way as Audi man who whacked a cyclist in one of the videos posted. Nobody on here said that video was not relevant or shouldn't have been posted because a thug in a car isn't representative of most motorists?
He's no more representative of cyclists then Denis P
>> U T Z or Jaio Lopez (killers of Catriona Patel and Eilidh Cairns respectively) are
>> of lorry drivers.
So what? Audi man might have been a serial killer, but none of us know... and we all discussed the circumstances of his crime...on here. So why can't we discuss the crime the cyclist did...and yes I've deliberately labelled him 'cyclist', because by pedalling on a bicycle it made him a cyclist.
Some Sunday mornings in the summer, even I'm a cyclist.
>>
>> While I'm always up for putting the cyclist's POV I'm not on a crusade.
It does come across as that...you are exceptionally touchy on the subject and very quick to defend, automatically.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:57
|
>> Pat,
>>
>> You've genuinely got the wrong end of my stick here. Just puzzled as to relevance
>> of 'thug on a bike' story.
As he was on a bike, then it's relevant to this thread (Cycling Corner - 'More pedal power chat').
But it isn't relevant to this 'conversation' ie. 'Ban on trucks without cycle safety equipment', although I doubt Pat meant to imply it was. Is that the issue?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:57
|
>> As he was on a bike, then it's relevant to this thread (Cycling Corner -
>> 'More pedal power chat').
In so far as it goes anywhere I agree.
>> But it isn't relevant to this 'conversation' ie. 'Ban on trucks without cycle safety equipment',
>> although I doubt Pat meant to imply it was. Is that the issue?
Yes.
If Pat had posted it responding to the thread OP and with a new subject line I'd have differently.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:57
|
>> If Pat had posted it responding to the thread OP and with a new subject
>> line I'd have differently.
Thanks Bromp. Pat - had you realised that?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:57
|
No, I hadn't. I always post at the bottom of a thread if I'm not replying directly to a post in it.
Other forums work well that way and I can't see any problem with it.
I think though, wherever I had posted that clip the reaction would have been the same.
Pat
|
>> I think though, wherever I had posted that clip the reaction would have been the
>> same.
When starting a new thread you create a subject header relating to the article you're posting about, so at the very least, changing the subject header might have given people a clue that it was a different topic to the one called "Ban on trucks without cycle safety equipment"
(and would have saved me a whole load of work editing it later)
|
|
Quite a few don't even bother to reply to the right post, even when quoting, so getting them to use the thread-in-thread convention is ambitious :)
|
>> Quite a few don't even bother to reply to the right post, even when quoting,
Yes, another pet hate of mine.
|
|
Ditto. It seemed gratuitous and a non sequitur, but revealing. I can understand, and accept, that Pat has devoted time and energy to seeing how the other x% live, but why spoil that with a lashing-out? I stick to my first post. Pat don't like cyclists, and no amount of ex-post posturing will cancel that out IMHO.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 00:57
|
>>Pat has devoted time and energy to seeing how the other x% live, but
>> why spoil that with a lashing-out?<<
Lashing out NIL?
I am trying to do something about a very real problem which we all agree, does exists.
I'm prepared to stand in front of a room full of lorry drivers (with an auditor present), and ask the question 'What do you think is the problem with cyclists, and what can we do about it?'
Most trainers won't even go there.... (the reaction can cause total disruption!)
I've been pleasantly surprised at some of the suggestions and the reaction I've had when explaining the reasons cyclists do some of the things they do.....all learned from this forum.
I want my lads to be aware ALL the time, not just when driving a lorry in London.
If that bit of extra awareness is there 100% of the time then it's an automatic reaction in London just as changing gear or using an indicator.
If that means a bit of heated discussion then so be it.
>> Pat don't like
>> cyclists,<<
I don't like yummy mummy's in 4x4's who park outside of the school gates either, or tractors that do around 38MPH with huge machinery behind them.
They all cause me a problem in as much as the accident risk is a lot higher
>> and no amount of ex-post posturing will cancel that out IMHO.
>>
I'm not really concerned about your honest opinion on this one NIL, I know why I'm doing what I do, and that's good enough for me.
Pat
|
|
We 'll have to agree to differ on the reasons for posting what you did. Which is what was raised, not your training sessions to enlighten.
|
>> But it isn't relevant to this 'conversation' ie. 'Ban on trucks without cycle safety equipment', although I doubt Pat meant to imply it was. Is that the issue?
I've now sorted all that out, amended the header and moved to the right place in the thread.
|
I once saw a pedestrian knock the driver of a rough white Transit pickup out through the open driver's window just off Marylebone road.
There are some truly horrible people about. I've seen a few incidents in my time but I was a bit shocked.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 01:09
|
Well that's one cyclist I am happy to disown. With friends like that...I hope they track him down.
Obviously cyclists are not immune from road rage.
The steel cocoon is often blamed but it can't be that for bikes - I don't think it's that at all, some people are just are just aggressive and lack the necessary imagination to interact properly with anybody else.
In other aspects of life, they tend to be avoided or tip-toed around, and can largely mix with similar idiots or be loners. On the roads we are all forced together.
It resembles the Friday night "what are you looking at" argument in a rough pub. Nothing really to do with driving or cycling for the habitual ragers, it just happens to be what they are doing at the time.
|
Reading Pats link, it seems that the lorry driver was a kind and thoughtful person.
The driver pulled over to allow for a car that was approaching in the opposite direction. At this point he noticed a push bike coming up behind him; concerned that the cyclist may not have seen the car coming he held his arm out of the window and flagged the bike down.
two things I wonder..
1/ has he been on one of Pats courses?
2/ will he be so thoughtful the next time he encounters a cyclist?
|
>>2/ will he be so thoughtful the next time he encounters a cyclist?
Yes, I'm sure he will be as he doesn't want to kill them. The 'problem' with cyclists is that:
1. No driver (of car, motorbike or lorry) wants to knock a cyclist off his bike. Because that way the driver ends up (a) being interviewed by police; (b) spending a night in the cells; (c) obtaining a conviction; or possibly (d) spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
2a. Cyclists know that drivers are scared stiff of them and so take the mickey. Or
2b. Some cyclists are just too stupid to realise how invisible/dangerous to themselves that they are.
I think both sides will agree that:
3. A live cyclist is better than a dead cyclist.
The difference is how we reach position 3. Is it:
4a. All cyclists should be segregated in bike lanes for their own safety; or
4b. All motorised vehicle drivers should be kept out of busy cities. (But of course the cyclist reserves the right to live in a new-build flat that requires endless loads of concrete, and demands to be able to shop at Tesco Metro that requires endless loads of bananas.)
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 10:28
|
2/ will he be so thoughtful the next time he encounters a cyclist?
>> Yes, I'm sure he will be as he doesn't want to kill them.
The thoughtfulness was indicating a risk to the cyclist NOT noticing him!
The 'problem' with cyclists is that:
2b. Some cyclists are just too stupid to realise how invisible/dangerous to themselves that they are.
exactly this.
4a. All cyclists should be segregated in bike lanes for their own safety; or
>>
>> 4b. All motorised vehicle drivers should be kept out of busy cities. (But of course the cyclist reserves the right to live in a new-build flat that requires endless loads of concrete, and demands to be able to shop at Tesco Metro that requires endless loads of bananas.)
4a wouldn't happen as cyclists have the God given right to ride on the public highway..
4b would be impossible, as deliverys must be made, and night deliveries would disturb residents sleep.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 10:43
|
"cyclists have the God given right to ride on the public highway"
I think the clue to the origins of this belief may lie in the word "public".
|
>> "cyclists have the God given right to ride on the public highway"
>>
>> I think the clue to the origins of this belief may lie in the word "public".
>>
Exactly.
And many will use that right even when safer options are given to them.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 11:33
|
>> 4a wouldn't happen as cyclists have the God given right to ride on the public
>> highway..
>> 4b would be impossible, as deliverys must be made, and night deliveries would disturb residents
>> sleep.
4a won't happen because it's physically impossible and financially unattainable. Neither does it eliminate conflictions at junctions. $b is impossible for reasons outlined. Those two options are not the only choices. Much could be achieved by focussing on key junctions.
Generally speaking and excepting the construction lorry issue bikes mix reasonably well in central London. If they achieved the same proportion of traffic in other big cities then the same would apply there.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Feb 14 at 11:35
|
>> 4a. All cyclists should be segregated in bike lanes for their own safety; or
>> >>
>> >> 4b. All motorised vehicle drivers should be kept out of busy cities. (But of
>> course the cyclist reserves the right to live in a new-build flat that requires endless
>> loads of concrete, and demands to be able to shop at Tesco Metro that requires
>> endless loads of bananas.)
...or 4c. Everyone should look out for others and try to assist them if they can. No one outfit should think they are above the rest or should have more benefit or are more important.
|
>> No one outfit should think they are above the rest or should have more
>> benefit or are more important.
>>
..and that's the issue for me.
Where I now live, there's loads of horse riders. By far the majority, will try to facilitate your progress in the lanes and will give you a nice 'thank you' wave for your patience and care.
Occasionally there will be two who will ride side by side and make no effort to move back to single file or help you past..and no doubt think' I'm alright Jack, I don't care about you or your needs, you can sort yourself out'. Well in my view that's selfish and unnecessary.
Same with bikes...exactly the same principle.
|
TIC I hope.
The great majority of cyclists and drivers (I'd guess most cyclists drive) do their best to get along.
Passing too close and too fast, and just not seeing cycles, isn't usually badly intentioned. Nor, usually, is using a bit of road when you need to on a bike.
As with everything, a bit of education and looking for the mote in our own eye helps.
If education means 'public information' campaigns they need to be very carefully done not to be seen as pandering to one category or the other.
The shocking thing about the ASA's reaction to the Cycling Scotland campaign was the assymetric nature of it that clearly identified with one 'side' of the relationship. The message to the motorist applies of course whether or not the cyclist is too far out or wearing a lid.
Maybe Cycling Scotland should revisit that, if the ASA's response is an indication of how it might be received by the target audience - and I don't mean putting a helmet on the cyclist and making her ride in the gutter. Perhaps they hadn't even tested it outside of their own skewed circle.
|
>> The shocking thing about the ASA's reaction to the Cycling Scotland campaign was the assymetric
>> nature of it that clearly identified with one 'side' of the relationship. The message to
>> the motorist applies of course whether or not the cyclist is too far out or
>> wearing a lid.
>>
>> Maybe Cycling Scotland should revisit that, if the ASA's response is an indication of how
>> it might be received by the target audience - and I don't mean putting a
>> helmet on the cyclist and making her ride in the gutter. Perhaps they hadn't even
>> tested it outside of their own skewed circle.
I suspect itt was commissioned through an advertising agency who would have chosen the scenes/theme. Assuming it aired in the whole of Scotland it had an audience of five million. There were five complaints.
|
What a tragedy.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10638141/Police-chase-car-hits-and-kills-two-cyclists.html
Bet the clown doesn't get much bird.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 14 Feb 14 at 17:54
|
Elephant and Castle roundabout together with over thirty other dangerous junctions to be removed or modified.
www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/02/sixties-relics-to-be-ripped-out-as-cycle-transformation-begins
The CTC who've been campaigning for this are cock-a-hoop!!
|
|
Remind me what a CTC is please?
|
Cyclist's Touring Club, main body representing UK leisure etc cycling. Some overlap with British Cycling which was historically race/TT oriented.
There's also a London Cycling Campaign who's focus is evident from its name.
|
>> also a London Cycling Campaign who's focus is evident from its name.
Don't make frequent use of its acronym though. People will drop dead like flies from heart attacks if they think Ken Livingstone has made a comeback.
|
>> Elephant and Castle roundabout together with over thirty other dangerous junctions to be removed or
>> modified.
>>
>> The CTC who've been campaigning for this are cock-a-hoop!!
>>
The junctions themselves are not dangerous. It is how they are used (or abused) by all users which causes the danger.
I will be interested to see the details of these alterations. I do hope that they do not end up causing unnecessary delays for the majority to accommodate the minority.
|
they could ban the cyclists from the elephant and castle roundabout. Plenty of rat runs they could use and would save lives.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Feb 14 at 17:41
|
>> Plenty of rat runs they could use and would save lives.
Don't they know and use them already? Just as cyclists soon learn where it's prudent to dismount and masquerade as a pedestrian with an embarrassing bit of wheeled kit through the underpass and over a couple of bridges? Saves time as well as lives, but it's hard work.
Personally I'd rather drive and turn up an hour late with advanced carbon monoxide poisoning. It's always stood me in good stead, that.
|
>> Plenty of rat runs they could use and would save lives.
Sometimes there are. Going south from Euston you can avoid the Woburn Place/S'oton Row/Kingsway nexus by keeping a block to west and using Gordon St/Malet St etc. But E/W options from there towards Westmister or Victoria seem to be Strand or Embankment.
A few short bits of segregated running plus allowing bikes to run wrong way in particular One Way streets an achieve a lot though - see New Oxford St via Newton St to Long Acre.
Which particular streets avoid E&C without posing other dangers before or after?
|
|
Check the map, there are loads.
|
>> Check the map, there are loads.
>
Not doubting you but coming from say Walworth Rd and heading for the City it's not immediately clear where 'loads' are. You might find something that works for you personally (as I did with Gordon St/Malet St/Montague St) but those routes are not evident to first timers or casual users.
|
Casual or first time riders won't be anywhere near
the elephant and castle.
|
>> Casual or first time riders won't be anywhere near
>> the elephant and castle.
They will, cos it's the obvious route on a map and/or the one the bus takes. Been there, got the 1979 vintage T shirt for Upper St/Islington High St/Old St/Angel to Rosebery Avenue. Or the one for Edgware Rd and it's iterations from Kingsbury to Marble Arch a year later.
|
Its south of the river,
First timers don't cycle south of the river. Its a whole different world down there. No place for saddle virgins.
|
>> they could ban the cyclists from the elephant and castle roundabout. Plenty of rat runs
>> they could use and would save lives.
>>
I'm guessing the roundabout with be replaced with traffic lights.
Then cyclists won't need to stop at all....
|
Left the gym in the dark this evening, exit onto a dual carriageway, initially certain carriageway and cycle lane were clear, then had one of those moments of doubt - there was something, not close, but there was something
Up to the roundabout and back down the other side dual carriageway to get home, what did I see but a black clad cyclist with a faint flashing RED light on the front of his bike.
Better than nothing, or likely to make people think he was heading awayfrom them ?
|
|
Quite a few clad in black round here, although unsurprisingly we are in a 'red route' so lots injured on all forms of transports. Many in the road when there are cycle lanes, not well light. Not helped at all by some many in cars with lights not working. Round here many are dozy on bikes and cars.
|
|
Whether improvisation or stupidity it beggars belief. Thinking about the weedy Ever Ready lights I rode all night trips using 30yrs ago and the mid range LED Cateye I used tonight for a trip to the shop why would anybody not get lit up?
|
A fortnight ago I went out on my bike for the first time this year - it was in the evening and it was dry. I deliberately went down a local road that although its a dual carriageway, it is new, its fully lit and speed limit is 30mph.
I had two solid lights on the front, a flashing light on the front, and a flashing light on my helmet. Going round a roundabout, a Peugeot 406 coupe pulled out in front of me, did not see me at all and just as I was making the decision on hitting him sqare on or trying to drop the bike, he accelerated and I just missed him.
A perfect example of the Think Bike adverts - he just did not see me, he had obviously looked to his right as he approached the roundabout, a quick glance didn't see any car headlights to his right so pulled out without actually looking onto the roundabout itself.
|
Bobby,
Be prepared, watch their eyes; are they really looking?
|
|
Couldn't see his eyes! Oh and forgot to include my luminous yellow waterproof and hi vis vest!
|
I remain convinced the red Polo driver who knocked me off on a roundabout in the dark had seen me - but either thought he was quicker than a bike, or he saw, and didn't observe.
I was lucky, bike undamaged, but a very sore knee and I got rather fed up with colleagues saying I should go to hospital.
|
Ban on trucks without cycle safety equipment - Pat
