Lorries cause more cycling accidents

[Mark300zx]

Everybody needs to do something to stop people being hurt and if everyone acted more sensibly on the road including cyclists this would happen, starting off a pseudo argument by saying you do x so I can do y, is not the way forward.

[Kermit power]

Mr Snrub said:

AVV EM said:

Cyclists cause more cycling accidents.

Such as this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821609/Mo...


Very sad she lost her life, but no helmet, been out drinking and too busy taking selfies to look at the road

Why on earth is the husband calling for cycling without a helmet to be banned? Surely it would make more sense to call for taking selfies whilst cycling to be banned?

[Einion Yrth]

Derek Smith said:

Cyclists are on the road by right. If a cyclist is injured by a lorry because the cyclist was out of the view of the lorry driver's field of view, then it is the lorry driver who is at fault.

Point one is true, because history; it doesn't necessarily make any sense in the modern world.

Point two is, quite frankly, fking ridiculous. I would never seek to harm another road user and neither would most others, lorry drivers included. It would however,I think, behove the most vulnerable on the roads to at least make some attempt to protect their own well being.

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/30/lo...

So 58% of all cycling accidents with vehicles are with HGVs etc yet they represent 4% of the vehicles on the UK roads.

It doesn't say that. It says 58% of cycling deaths are with HGV's. That's hardly a surprising statistic largely irrespective of the number of them on the roads or the number of accidents they are involved in. Cyclists go over cars and under HGV's. As a biker IMO the uncomfortable truth is that 9 times out of 10 if a bike is in a position to be crushed it's the bikes fault not the HGV drivers. We've all seen it dozens of times. I sometimes wonder if cyclists shouldn't have to sit a test to be allowed on the roads.

[rolex]

Kermit power said:

Mr Snrub said:

AVV EM said:

Cyclists cause more cycling accidents.

Such as this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821609/Mo...


Very sad she lost her life, but no helmet, been out drinking and too busy taking selfies to look at the road

Why on earth is the husband calling for cycling without a helmet to be banned? Surely it would make more sense to call for taking selfies whilst cycling to be banned?

She apparently died twice.The headline reads she died just moments after she took this smiling selfie, but underneath it says she died 6 days later. Could the Mail have possibly got something wrong?

[Mr Snrub]

rolex said:

Kermit power said:

Mr Snrub said:

AVV EM said:

Cyclists cause more cycling accidents.

Such as this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821609/Mo...


Very sad she lost her life, but no helmet, been out drinking and too busy taking selfies to look at the road

Why on earth is the husband calling for cycling without a helmet to be banned? Surely it would make more sense to call for taking selfies whilst cycling to be banned?

She apparently died twice.The headline reads she died just moments after she took this smiling selfie, but underneath it says she died 6 days later. Could the Mail have possibly got something wrong?

Either way it's a couple of children who are going to grow up without a parent. Whether your mode of transport has an engine or not, taking a selfie whilst travelling on a public road is utterly stupid

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Snrub said:

AVV EM said:

Cyclists cause more cycling accidents.

Such as this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821609/Mo...


Very sad she lost her life, but no helmet, been out drinking and too busy taking selfies to look at the road

Or how about this one, another mother of two, was wearing a helmet, cycling in a straight line in conditions of perfect visibility, run down and killed by a driver who could offer no explanation. Driver wasn't fined, wasn't required to take another driving test, no further tuition, no eye tests, nothing at all to try to ensure the young driver doesnt kill again, which is typical of drivers who kill cyclists.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-new...

[italianjob1275]

"Cyclists stay back" signs offensive to cyclists

http://www.commercialmotor.com/news/fors-clamp-dow...

[Maxf]

Cycling up St James' Street this morning, joining from Pall Mall - this is a right hand bend which needs a little caution but usually isn't too bad.

Massive rear wheel steering low loader joining at the same time (one of the ones which you deliver diggers to a site on), so I hang back and let it get onto the straight bit before I work out how to pass it/if to. A girl goes straight past me, up alongside the lorry - and looks back at me like I'm a moron for slowing her down. She gets past the lorry, cycles another 100ft then hitches up onto the kerb as she's reached her destination.

Sure it's all fine and everybody was ok, but I've never seen a rws low loader on that corner before (using all of the lanes), so I bet she hadn't either - she still raced up along side it to try and cut in front. I assume she just didnt think to hang back a few seconds? Education would seem to be needed, IMO.

[Shakermaker]

Maxf said:

Cycling up St James' Street this morning, joining from Pall Mall - this is a right hand bend which needs a little caution but usually isn't too bad.

Massive rear wheel steering low loader joining at the same time (one of the ones which you deliver diggers to a site on), so I hang back and let it get onto the straight bit before I work out how to pass it/if to. A girl goes straight past me, up alongside the lorry - and looks back at me like I'm a moron for slowing her down. She gets past the lorry, cycles another 100ft then hitches up onto the kerb as she's reached her destination.

Sure it's all fine and everybody was ok, but I've never seen a rws low loader on that corner before (using all of the lanes), so I bet she hadn't either - she still raced up along side it to try and cut in front. I assume she just didnt think to hang back a few seconds? Education would seem to be needed, IMO.

I wouldn't go up the inside of one of those in my car if there was any ambiguity about their direction/intentions of travel. Ever since I saw a chap wreck his car by trying to get around one taking the necessary wide path on a rounadbout 10 years ago, its hard to understand why people think they will come off in better shape than 44 tons of metal.

[anonymous-user]

italianjob1275 said:

"Cyclists stay back" signs offensive to cyclists

http://www.commercialmotor.com/news/fors-clamp-dow...

Idiots.

[Rich_W]

italianjob1275 said:

"Cyclists stay back" signs offensive to cyclists

http://www.commercialmotor.com/news/fors-clamp-dow...

I've wondered about the wording. It is an order and people in general don't like being told what to do.

Perhaps

"Cyclists, be aware that the driver 'passed' his test in Romania so won't bother indicating and hasn't even seen his mirrors today"

Not all HGV drivers are up to the standards of some of the people on this thread. ISTR there was a larger percentage of those lorries involved in incidents being LHD./ Registered aborad/Foreign drivers?

Can we also have a PH ban on the phrases

"Cyclists MUST have insurance" No, they really don't. It will be an additional cost for nothing. They aren't going to write off your car. If they crash into a person they are still liable for their injuries (assuming it is proven to be their fault) If they take off your mirror it's criminal damage (or whatever) so they are liable.
"Cyclists MUST have licence plates" Again No. Licence plates do fk all to stop bad driving so why would they make a difference to cycling? PLUS we'd need another million Police constables to enforce it. Not going to happen, unless you can convince everyone to bump up their Taxes to pay for it


Plus any phrase that says "cyclists" or "HGV Drivers" as a singular all identical group. Try using more specific phrases. Someone earlier said "57 plate A6". Great. Try "cyclist on hybrid wearing jeans" or "yellow concrete hgv driver" And if we can avoid "riding on the pavement" and "red light jumping" for the same group. Be specific. "I saw this lady just sail through the red and nearly get killed"


ta in advance

[babelfish]

I almost hit a cyclist yesterday that had jumped off his bike to retrieve the mobile phone he had dropped in front of my car as he was using it whilst cycling along!!

[Kermit power]

babelfish said:

I almost hit a cyclist yesterday that had jumped off his bike to retrieve the mobile phone he had dropped in front of my car as he was using it whilst cycling along!!

Congratulations! I suspect you've probably just identified the area where the greatest possible number of cyclists can claim the reverse, as in nearly being knocked off by bellends using their mobiles whilst driving.

[RWD cossie wil]

Natural selection indeed.... coming back from nights this morning, driving down a dark B road, I pick up a cyclist in my headlights, virtually all in dark colours, save one tiny strip of reflective on his back, no rear light at all, front light on but obviously hardly visible from behind.

I wound my window down & shouted "scuse' me mate, you have no lights on & you are really hard to see", only to be met with a barrage of abuse & being called "fking blind". I'd say I hope the tosser gets run over, but it's so unfair on whichever poor sod ends up killing the fkwit

[powerstroke]

RWD cossie wil said:

Natural selection indeed.... coming back from nights this morning, driving down a dark B road, I pick up a cyclist in my headlights, virtually all in dark colours, save one tiny strip of reflective on his back, no rear light at all, front light on but obviously hardly visible from behind.

I wound my window down & shouted "scuse' me mate, you have no lights on & you are really hard to see", only to be met with a barrage of abuse & being called "fking blind". I'd say I hope the tosser gets run over, but it's so unfair on whichever poor sod ends up killing the fkwit

seltish s thats all, we need general police not Interceptors and social worker police like we now have !!!
Maybe they could give the lost shopper /plastic police powers to deal with the lycra louts and other non motorised
needledicks????


]

Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 25th October 07:58

[anonymous-user]

powerstroke said:

RWD cossie wil said:

Natural selection indeed.... coming back from nights this morning, driving down a dark B road, I pick up a cyclist in my headlights, virtually all in dark colours, save one tiny strip of reflective on his back, no rear light at all, front light on but obviously hardly visible from behind.

I wound my window down & shouted "scuse' me mate, you have no lights on & you are really hard to see", only to be met with a barrage of abuse & being called "fking blind". I'd say I hope the tosser gets run over, but it's so unfair on whichever poor sod ends up killing the fkwit

seltish s thats all, we need general police not Interceptors and social worker police like we now have !!!
Maybe they could give the lost shopper /plastic police powers to deal with the lycra louts and other non motorised
needledicks????


]

Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 25th October 07:58

Lycra louts

[316Mining]

Many cyclists don't do themselves any favours - riding with earphones and music blaring doesn't help ....

but the biggest issue for cyclists is junctions and momentum - a cyclist doesn't want to stop as they prefer to keep moving to conserve their momentum. So a cyclist approaching a set of traffic lights on red will slow slightly in the approach, and try to keep moving, up the inside of traffic, rather than stop in the queue. So they get to the front of the queue just after the lights change and as the traffic at the front of the queue starts moving off. Then they don't even notice the lorry at the front intends to turn left. They've past his rear indicators without processing that info somehow. I saw a truck recently and it had indicators right up the side of his load area right to the front, a great idea.


The other factor I think is a planning issue. There are massively more trucks on the roads of London since they started Cross Rail. I'd love to know the stats for accidents involving Cross Rail employed trucks - who I guess are probably employed on a 'per load' basis. Perhaps that has had a bearing on the numbers killed? Perhaps the authorities need to rethink putting so many big trucks on the streets of London to achieve these big infrastructure works....

[Pan Pan Pan]

One of the problems for ALL road users (and pedestrians) is that signaling has not been made compulsory.
We currently have a ridiculous focus on speed, but if the authorities and public in general `really' wanted to cut accidents at a stroke, they would make signaling compulsory (not just something that `some' people do to pass a driving test, which they then forget altogether)
Of course for some who are mentally challenged, the extra effort of operating a vehicle of any kind, `and' giving signals at the same time is just too much for their pea sized grey matter, which then starts to smoke and self incinerate if they attempt to do more than one thing at the same time.
Signaling works for everyone including pedestrians, and is similar to the oil in an engine, in that it helps to stop various moving parts from coming together.
The quality of a driver can often be determined by the way that they signal (or unfortunately don't signal) better too many signals than none at all. Highly skilled people like rally/ racing drivers, good snooker players, sailing skippers etc, tend to think ahead of the game, and are making arrangements / adjustments, long before they reach the point at which an action is required of them.
When approaching a junction a driver who gives a signal in good time, demonstrates that they know where they are going and are thinking ahead. A driver, who gives a signal at the last second, shows that they don't really know where they are going, or that they don't understand what a signal is for. Those who don't give signals at all, are actually just brain dead morons.
If the operator of any vehicle, from a bicycle, to an articulated truck believes that there is anyone on the road about them (INCLUDING pedestrians) who would benefit from a signal, then they should make a signal.
My driving instructor from years ago told me they make the rule for giving a signal so simple even a moron `should' be able to grasp it,
If approaching a junction, and there is more than ONE way you can go, then give a signal to show which way you intend to go.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 25th October 11:30

[Lucas CAV]

316Mining said:

Many cyclists don't do themselves any favours - riding with earphones and music blaring doesn't help ....

but the biggest issue for cyclists is junctions and momentum - a cyclist doesn't want to stop as they prefer to keep moving to conserve their momentum. So a cyclist approaching a set of traffic lights on red will slow slightly in the approach, and try to keep moving, up the inside of traffic, rather than stop in the queue. So they get to the front of the queue just after the lights change and as the traffic at the front of the queue starts moving off. Then they don't even notice the lorry at the front intends to turn left. They've past his rear indicators without processing that info somehow. I saw a truck recently and it had indicators right up the side of his load area right to the front, a great idea.


The other factor I think is a planning issue. There are massively more trucks on the roads of London since they started Cross Rail. I'd love to know the stats for accidents involving Cross Rail employed trucks - who I guess are probably employed on a 'per load' basis. Perhaps that has had a bearing on the numbers killed? Perhaps the authorities need to rethink putting so many big trucks on the streets of London to achieve these big infrastructure works....

Well you either don't do the big infrastructure jobs or you allow trucks in.

How else would you shift soil, rubble or materials?

Being a very much rural bumpkin who has just spent a week in London, yes there are a fair few lorries about... But orders of magnitude more cars?

What tt takes a car to Central London?