Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[Hugo a Gogo]

so what do you suggest, close your eyes and hope for the best?

[Digby]

You do like I do most days; you stop, start, move an inch, brake, move a foot, brake, flit your eyes from mirror to mirror constantly, move a foot, scan the mirrors again, look out of the window, scan again, scan again, move a few feet, scan again, look out of the window, look over your shoulder, move and brake, move and brake, move and scan, move and scan and scan and scan and scan and scan and move and scan and move.........then get called a wker.

[The Vambo]

v12Legs said:

Well not only are the vast majority of cyclists also holders of a driving licence,

So? I have several categories on my license but I would need motorcycle specific training to be a safe motorcyclist.

v12Legs said:

there's also the inconvenient fact that the driver is at sole fault in the majority of driver-cyclist collisions. At least 70% IIRC, with the cyclist at sole fault in c.15% and shared or unclear for the remainder.

Cite please.

[Mave]

Hackney said:

Define "safe".
And if your definition involves, "when there is a suitable gap between cyclists" then I'm afraid "safe" will never happen.

Well then you just have to carry on waiting! Consider the analogies I suggested, would you pull out from behind a 50mph lorry into the path of a 70mph overtaking car, or woukd you carry on waiting for a gap irrespective of how long you'd been baulked?

[TheInternet]

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

Documented in plenty of reports:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-22408573

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...

[Mave]

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

I think the document reference is TRL PPR 445

[The Vambo]

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

Cite please.

I think the document reference is TRL PPR 445

[wijit]

The Vambo said:

Look, this is a discussion forum not a court. We can speculate, we can digress and we can go off on a tangent.

This thread and all the posters in it have kept well inside what could be considered good taste, if it's not for you go away and start a forum where you get to set the agenda.

Except this is not true. Far too many times, particularly at the start of this thread, the words stupid cyclists and finger pointing at this one (and other cyclists) have been prevalent.

[Mr Gear]

Digby said:

You do like I do most days; you stop, start, move an inch, brake, move a foot, brake, flit your eyes from mirror to mirror constantly, move a foot, scan the mirrors again, look out of the window, scan again, scan again, move a few feet, scan again, look out of the window, look over your shoulder, move and brake, move and brake, move and scan, move and scan and scan and scan and scan and scan and move and scan and move.........then get called a wker.

And you wonder why some people think: "this is bullst, I'm going to cycle"?

[The Vambo]

wijit said:

The Vambo said:

Look, this is a discussion forum not a court. We can speculate, we can digress and we can go off on a tangent.

This thread and all the posters in it have kept well inside what could be considered good taste, if it's not for you go away and start a forum where you get to set the agenda.

Except this is not true. Far too many times, particularly at the start of this thread, the words stupid cyclists and finger pointing at this one

Really? I have only seen one that seemed to criticise this cyclist and they clarified 3 posts later that the criticism was general and not directed at the deceased.

I'm happy to be proven wrong....

[Mave]

The Vambo said:

wijit said:

The Vambo said:

Look, this is a discussion forum not a court. We can speculate, we can digress and we can go off on a tangent.

This thread and all the posters in it have kept well inside what could be considered good taste, if it's not for you go away and start a forum where you get to set the agenda.

Except this is not true. Far too many times, particularly at the start of this thread, the words stupid cyclists and finger pointing at this one

Really? I have only seen one that seemed to criticise this cyclist and they clarified 3 posts later that the criticism was general and not directed at the deceased.

I'm happy to be proven wrong....

Really? From the first page of the thread;

"I'm not blaming the cyclists but they do need to wake up and realise that, as the most vulnerable road user, they need to take additional precautions."

"Sadly what's going on is: some cyclists are really, really dumb."

"I'm not sure dumb is the right word, but many do seem to be completely unaware of their vulnerability. "

"Educate them? "

"NO NO NO NO NO Why Educate the cyclists, when if they are that dumb that they cannot realise them verses car/bus/lorry they wont win"

"I hope she has a full recovey and the compo she claims cheers her up for her clear stupidity"

Do you not think that these phrases represent critisism and fingers pointing at cyclists?

[jimbop1]

Mave said:

Really? From the first page of the thread;

"I'm not blaming the cyclists but they do need to wake up and realise that, as the most vulnerable road user, they need to take additional precautions."

"Sadly what's going on is: some cyclists are really, really dumb."

"I'm not sure dumb is the right word, but many do seem to be completely unaware of their vulnerability. "

"Educate them? "

"NO NO NO NO NO Why Educate the cyclists, when if they are that dumb that they cannot realise them verses car/bus/lorry they wont win"

"I hope she has a full recovey and the compo she claims cheers her up for her clear stupidity"

Do you not think that these phrases represent critisism and fingers pointing at cyclists?

Yes. And dare I say it.. Cyclists do need to get a grip of their riding and stop blaming vehicles for their dangerous riding, believing they do not have to abide by the rules of the road.

When cyclists accept this and drivers are more aware the roads will be a much safer place to ride.

[Mave]

jimbop1 said:

Mave said:

Really? From the first page of the thread;

"I'm not blaming the cyclists but they do need to wake up and realise that, as the most vulnerable road user, they need to take additional precautions."

"Sadly what's going on is: some cyclists are really, really dumb."

"I'm not sure dumb is the right word, but many do seem to be completely unaware of their vulnerability. "

"Educate them? "

"NO NO NO NO NO Why Educate the cyclists, when if they are that dumb that they cannot realise them verses car/bus/lorry they wont win"

"I hope she has a full recovey and the compo she claims cheers her up for her clear stupidity"

Do you not think that these phrases represent critisism and fingers pointing at cyclists?

Yes. And dare I say it.. Cyclists do need to get a grip of their riding and stop blaming vehicles for their dangerous riding, believing they do not have to abide by the rules of the road.

What evidence to do you have that this cyclist was not abiding by the rules of the road, and was riding dangerously?

[Oldandslow]

The evidence would be that which is smeared all over the wheels of the truck.

The "don't go up the inside of large vehicles at junctions" info campaign has been going for 25 years that I remember. If you aint got that message yet you are dumber than mud.

[jimbop1]

Mave said:

What evidence to do you have that this cyclist was not abiding by the rules of the road, and was riding dangerously?

Good god.. Please take the advise instead of arguing cyclist can do no wrong. It may save your life

[The Vambo]

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

wijit said:

The Vambo said:

Look, this is a discussion forum not a court. We can speculate, we can digress and we can go off on a tangent.

This thread and all the posters in it have kept well inside what could be considered good taste, if it's not for you go away and start a forum where you get to set the agenda.

Except this is not true. Far too many times, particularly at the start of this thread, the words stupid cyclists and finger pointing at this one

Really? I have only seen one that seemed to criticise this cyclist and they clarified 3 posts later that the criticism was general and not directed at the deceased.

I'm happy to be proven wrong....

Really? From the first page of the thread;

"I'm not blaming the cyclists but they do need to wake up and realise that, as the most vulnerable road user, they need to take additional precautions."

"Sadly what's going on is: some cyclists are really, really dumb."

"I'm not sure dumb is the right word, but many do seem to be completely unaware of their vulnerability. "

"Educate them? "

"NO NO NO NO NO Why Educate the cyclists, when if they are that dumb that they cannot realise them verses car/bus/lorry they wont win"

"I hope she has a full recovey and the compo she claims cheers her up for her clear stupidity"

Do you not think that these phrases represent critisism and fingers pointing at cyclists?

Try reading first and jumping on your high horse second.

We were specifically discussing whether posters had criticised the unfortunate cyclist in the OP and apportioned blame without having the facts.

In your hurry to be offended you have got the wrong end of the stick, you should now take that stick and smash yourself in the face with it for being stupid.

Loads of people have criticised cyclists in general and that is fair game, as are truck drivers, coal miners, ninjas and every other group/class/race.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Oldandslow said:

The evidence would be that which is smeared all over the wheels of the truck.

The "don't go up the inside of large vehicles at junctions" info campaign has been going for 25 years that I remember. If you aint got that message yet you are dumber than mud.

is it just possible that she was in front of the truck, he didn't see her and ran her over, ie she did nothing wrong?
is that not a possibility in your world?

[Mave]

The Vambo said:

Mave said:

The Vambo said:

wijit said:

The Vambo said:

Look, this is a discussion forum not a court. We can speculate, we can digress and we can go off on a tangent.

This thread and all the posters in it have kept well inside what could be considered good taste, if it's not for you go away and start a forum where you get to set the agenda.

Except this is not true. Far too many times, particularly at the start of this thread, the words stupid cyclists and finger pointing at this one

Really? I have only seen one that seemed to criticise this cyclist and they clarified 3 posts later that the criticism was general and not directed at the deceased.

I'm happy to be proven wrong....

Really? From the first page of the thread;

"I'm not blaming the cyclists but they do need to wake up and realise that, as the most vulnerable road user, they need to take additional precautions."

"Sadly what's going on is: some cyclists are really, really dumb."

"I'm not sure dumb is the right word, but many do seem to be completely unaware of their vulnerability. "

"Educate them? "

"NO NO NO NO NO Why Educate the cyclists, when if they are that dumb that they cannot realise them verses car/bus/lorry they wont win"

"I hope she has a full recovey and the compo she claims cheers her up for her clear stupidity"

Do you not think that these phrases represent critisism and fingers pointing at cyclists?

Try reading first and jumping on your high horse second.

We were specifically discussing whether posters had criticised the unfortunate cyclist in the OP and apportioned blame without having the facts.

In your hurry to be offended you have got the wrong end of the stick, you should now take that stick and smash yourself in the face with it for being stupid.

The sweet irony. You posted this straight after 2 posts where people still apparently cannot understand that just because there are stupid cyclists out there doing stupid things, that may not have been the case with ths poor girl. It may have been, but it may not.

[Vipers]

Does anyone know if the trucks rear left hand indicator was working, or even on I wonder.

Did he leave it too late to check the mirrors at which time the cyclists was in the blind spot.

Yes there are a lot of idiots on bikes out in the cities, as well as other road users, difference is cyclists come off worse when things colide.

[Mave]

jimbop1 said:

Mave said:

What evidence to do you have that this cyclist was not abiding by the rules of the road, and was riding dangerously?

Good god.. Please take the advise instead of arguing cyclist can do no wrong. It may save your life

I don't see how assuming somebody got killed performing a monaouevre I personally avoid doing will save my life. I'd rather consider all the possible ways it might have happened and try to mitigate those.