Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
What an utterly baffling statement. Are you saying if you behave badly on the road you are immediately absolved if you become a victim?
Also, in this case the lorry driver will be a victim too. He will be traumatised, will likely have been suspended from his job pending enquiries, may lose pay and so on, and may or may not be able to return to (possibly) the only job he knows.
So we have two victims yet according to you neither bear any (or "some") blame.
Your second statement is complete nonsense, is rather disgusting and has nothing to do with the subject.
I can see one victim, not two. Unless your view is that the driver of the lorry had no responsibility for the direction in which it travelled?Also, in this case the lorry driver will be a victim too. He will be traumatised, will likely have been suspended from his job pending enquiries, may lose pay and so on, and may or may not be able to return to (possibly) the only job he knows.
So we have two victims yet according to you neither bear any (or "some") blame.
Your second statement is complete nonsense, is rather disgusting and has nothing to do with the subject.
heebeegeetee said:
But he might not be able to see you. Have you not seen that you tube clip of bikes hidden in blind spot?
If his lorry was fitted with all the required mirrors he would be able to see the cyclist - if he was looking in them.If his lorry wasn't fitted with them then he had made the decision to drive it, knowing he couldn't see where he was going, at rush hour.
Cyclists do generate a certain amount of road rage for many reasons, I think the bus driver in this clip (probably posted many times before) went way overboard with his reaction though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWeHNjKTpog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWeHNjKTpog
Dammit said:
I can see one victim, not two. Unless your view is that the driver of the lorry had no responsibility for the direction in which it travelled?
We that's your prejudice. You've made your mind up without any facts at all. You really are posting complete rubbish and I think you should pack it in. You either have no under sting of the issues at all or you are just completely blindly prejudiced. skyrover said:
Diderot said:
Hope she makes a full recovery. But they will just have to learn to not filter down the inside - not exactly a difficult concept to grasp. The number of cyclists I saw last week doing just that in central London beggars belief given all the publicity. Mental.
MInd you, IMO these contraptions need to be banned from the road:
I mean what are otherwise responsible parents thinking when bunging their precious little Johnny in the back of one of these and riding on a busy road? Do they imagine the stupid flag sticking up will save them from being crushed to death? Lunacy.
Started a thread on these a while back... utterly irresponsible to be lugging your kid around a busy main road on one of these. Head high with bumpers, diesel exhausts and half-blind truck drivers.MInd you, IMO these contraptions need to be banned from the road:
I mean what are otherwise responsible parents thinking when bunging their precious little Johnny in the back of one of these and riding on a busy road? Do they imagine the stupid flag sticking up will save them from being crushed to death? Lunacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu1AQ93CeU
Dammit said:
heebeegeetee said:
You are talking absolute rubbish and clearly have no understanding of the problem.
You also seem to be saying that if someone drives or rides badly, the moment he or she becomes a victim of their bad behaviour they are immediately absolved simply because they're a victim (1).
Of course victims are often to blame, or have often contributed to their own demise. Every time I drive I see people doing things that I wouldn't, so if they come a cropper then of course they have some blame (2).
(1) No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to inject some sort of balance into the typical Pistonheads "it's their own fault, if they want to ride on the roads then they should expect to be killed or seriously injured" playground style pile-on.You also seem to be saying that if someone drives or rides badly, the moment he or she becomes a victim of their bad behaviour they are immediately absolved simply because they're a victim (1).
Of course victims are often to blame, or have often contributed to their own demise. Every time I drive I see people doing things that I wouldn't, so if they come a cropper then of course they have some blame (2).
(2) This is the sort of blanket statement, powered by nothing but anecdote that contributes to the general view that cyclists are the author of their own misfortune. Your statement could also be framed as "I often see people riding and driving blamelessly, so if they come a cropper then of course they have none of the blame.
People sometimes ride or drive badly. In one of those cases, other people die, in the other they don't.
Therefore it follows that the party who can cause death or serious injury has the most responsibility.
You can be on a cycle or huge 4WD but if you see a large truck coming at you, you take evasive action.
You don't put your head down and say 'I am in the right' (and in fact you may, or may not be)
You can swear at them after, but you will be alive.
heebeegeetee said:
We that's your prejudice. You've made your mind up without any facts at all. You really are posting complete rubbish and I think you should pack it in. You either have no under sting of the issues at all or you are just completely blindly prejudiced.
You can think what you want, I'm trying to defend the cyclist who has been severely injured from you (and most others) trying to blame her for her own misfortune.Yes, the lorry driver probably didn't mean to do it - and yes, he may be upset. He still did it, though.
NicD said:
Like I said, stupid is, as stupid does, and suffers.
You can be on a cycle or huge 4WD but if you see a large truck coming at you, you take evasive action.
You don't put your head down and say 'I am in the right' (and in fact you may, or may not be)
You can swear at them after, but you will be alive.
And we should blindly accept that and never try to change it, take the 1 death/month average of HGV vs. Cyclist as the acceptable standard of life in London?You can be on a cycle or huge 4WD but if you see a large truck coming at you, you take evasive action.
You don't put your head down and say 'I am in the right' (and in fact you may, or may not be)
You can swear at them after, but you will be alive.
Dammit said:
You are missing the point - should, or should not, the vehicle which is about to cause the accident, cause the accident?
Everybody has a duty to avoid a reasonably foreseeable collisions, not just assert a right they believe they have. Even if the actions of another would cause a collision, you should take action to avoid that outcome where it's reasonable & foreseeable to. We all have a duty to look out for ourselves & others. If you fail in that you're part of the problem too & contributory factor in the outcome. Hugo a Gogo said:
vonhosen said:
Dammit said:
Vonhosen -that's absolute rubbish, also - what about Eilidh Cairns, run down by a lorry driver who refused to wear the glasses he needed to correct his vision?
Was it her fault that the lorry driver wouldn't wear his glasses? No, not at all.
It's absolutely baffling why people insist that the victims bear some blame for being the victim.
We're back to 1950's attitudes here, and it's frankly disgusting: "That black/gay/foreign guy should have known never to have gone in there, it's his own fault he got such a beating" etc etc.
Firstly I said without talking about individual cases & secondly I used the word invariably. What I said therefore doesn't cover all cases, it covers the core of cases.Was it her fault that the lorry driver wouldn't wear his glasses? No, not at all.
It's absolutely baffling why people insist that the victims bear some blame for being the victim.
We're back to 1950's attitudes here, and it's frankly disgusting: "That black/gay/foreign guy should have known never to have gone in there, it's his own fault he got such a beating" etc etc.
Day in day out cyclists can be seen putting themselves into positions they shouldn't & day in day out drivers get lazy in the checks or aren't proactive in their checks.
It isn't that in 100% of cases there is blame on both parties, but in the vast majority of cases it will exist. That won't necessarily be 50/50 either, but there is enough of a mistake by both parties that just one doing the right thing could have covered for the other.
If both parties are sufficiently aware & proactive with their & other's safety, then the vast majority of these incidents could be avoided. Not all could be eliminated, but the vast majority could.
Change 'invariably' for 'usually'. The message which can be deduced from the thrust of the entire post remains the same though.
If you want to protect cyclists you need to start treating cycling as a road safety issue rather than a political one, educate forcibly if necessary cyclists to recognise danger and understand they have a duty to avoid conflict as responsible road users even if they think they have a right of way.
If you walk down a railway line ignoring the trains you'll be sectioned for your own good.
If you exercise your right to swim through a busy shipping lane/port believing you have right of way over container ships you'll be called a idiot.
But cyclists routinely and in great numbers show less respect for road vehicles than I do in my van and resultant injuries are inevitable, but because cycling's current politcialy right-on we look for fault everywhere but the one ignoring the dangers.
If you walk down a railway line ignoring the trains you'll be sectioned for your own good.
If you exercise your right to swim through a busy shipping lane/port believing you have right of way over container ships you'll be called a idiot.
But cyclists routinely and in great numbers show less respect for road vehicles than I do in my van and resultant injuries are inevitable, but because cycling's current politcialy right-on we look for fault everywhere but the one ignoring the dangers.
Dammit said:
If his lorry was fitted with all the required mirrors he would be able to see the cyclist - if he was looking in them.
How do you know that for a fact?You have.made your mind up on this case and can only have prejudice to call on to do that.
The driver should be able to move forwards whilst looking where he is going and constantly look bak whilst moving forwards.
Mirrors only reflect, you cannot see through them. Thus mirrors themselves create blind spots.
Have a read of some of the articles published by Charlie Lloyd of the LCC - a former lorry driver who now works for the LCC with a particular brief to get all HGV's operating in London up to the latest standards - which he says remove the blindspot issue, if the mirrors are present, setup correctly, and (crucially) used correctly.
I'll see if I can dig out some of his comments on this.
I'll see if I can dig out some of his comments on this.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff