Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[thelawnet]

Diderot said:

Uh, cos that is not a pic of the offending fkwit with Johnny in the back on a main road in a busy city.

And in what way do imagine that is remotely safe for the child?

I'm just wondering what possesses you to go on a thread about the dangers of cyclists being run over by a left-turning HGV in London, something that is proven by horrible news stories every few months, and rant on about how dangerous bike trailers for kids are, something which is proven by, er, absolutely nothing.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Diderot said:

Uh, cos that is not a pic of the offending fkwit with Johnny in the back on a main road in a busy city.

And in what way do imagine that is remotely safe for the child?

I used one for all three of my kids when they were smaller, they all survived

it's no more dangerous than a pram

(I never rode it down Fleet St though)

[dacouch]

I was stuck in the resultant traffic jam on Friday, it took me 40 minutes to get around the Smithfield one way system.

Respect to City of London Police as they were actually directing traffic (As police used to do) which kept my wait down to 40 minutes. If it was the MET they would not have bothered and just let the traffic grid lock and I would have been there hours.

[London GT3]

I have no idea of the circumstances of this incident and I hope the lady makes a full recovery.

I drive my car into central London everyday (and have done for 38 years), I ride a motorbike and I also ride a bike (but not in London). In my experience, London cyclists are the most lawless and unregulated group of people who use London's roads. The ones that abide by the law are the exceptions. Until those in authority stand up to them and insist on licensing and insurance for riders plus registration for their bikes (i.e. make them accountable for their actions with a threat that they could have the privilege of cycling in London removed if they disobey) then they will continue to run amok, causing mayhem on the roads and resentment from pedestrians, car drivers and other vehicle drivers.

Top hates are: Ignoring red lights, ignoring zebra crossings and light controlled crossings, not allowing indicating cars to turn left across bus lanes (from which cars are banned), riding up the inside of cars turning left, riding the wrong way up one way streets, cutting corners by going over footpaths.

If cyclists were law abiding then they would be involved in far less accidents.

[Meteor Madness]

Seems crazy to me to be going for a bike ride in a busy city, while people are using the roads for work.

[saaby93]

Meteor Madness said:

Seems crazy to me to be going for a bike ride in a busy city, while people are using the roads for work.

using the roads for work on a bike
How many cities in the world are the same.
Cycling is good for you, so is walking
driving must be good too?

[Dammit]

London GT3 said:

I have no idea of the circumstances of this incident and I hope the lady makes a full recovery.

I drive my car into central London everyday (and have done for 38 years), I ride a motorbike and I also ride a bike (but not in London). In my experience, London cyclists are the most lawless and unregulated group of people who use London's roads. The ones that abide by the law are the exceptions. Until those in authority stand up to them and insist on licensing and insurance for riders plus registration for their bikes (i.e. make them accountable for their actions with a threat that they could have the privilege of cycling in London removed if they disobey) then they will continue to run amok, causing mayhem on the roads and resentment from pedestrians, car drivers and other vehicle drivers.

Top hates are: Ignoring red lights, ignoring zebra crossings and light controlled crossings, not allowing indicating cars to turn left across bus lanes (from which cars are banned), riding up the inside of cars turning left, riding the wrong way up one way streets, cutting corners by going over footpaths.

If cyclists were law abiding then they would be involved in far less accidents.

That's total, utter horsest. Victim blaming, knee-jerk, UKIP-level-reasoning.

You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

[thelawnet]

Meteor Madness said:

Seems crazy to me to be going for a bike ride in a busy city, while people are using the roads for work.

You what mate?

Cyclists in central London are usually: (a) cycling to work (biggest category) (b) delivering stuff (cycle couriers) (c) going shopping/to the pub/lunch/dinner (d) or tourists going somewhere.

Did you imagine that people just got on bikes to annoy motorists and to strengthen their leg muscles?

[Diderot]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Diderot said:

Uh, cos that is not a pic of the offending fkwit with Johnny in the back on a main road in a busy city.

And in what way do imagine that is remotely safe for the child?

I used one for all three of my kids when they were smaller, they all survived

it's no more dangerous than a pram

(I never rode it down Fleet St though)

ROFL, how can it be no more dangerous than a pram? Do you normally push a pram down the middle of a busy main road in a city? Do you usually have to negotiate cars, lorries and buses on the pavements in your neck of the woods? I know you lot tend to get overly defensive on these type of threads, but losing all sense of perspective is just ridiculous.

[thelawnet]

Diderot said:

ROFL, how can it be no more dangerous than a pram? Do you normally push a pram down the middle of a busy main road in a city? Do you usually have to negotiate cars, lorries and buses on the pavements in your neck of the woods? I know you lot tend to get overly defensive on these type of threads, but losing all sense of perspective is just ridiculous.

There are thousands of pushchair-related accidents ever year. In America 13,000 children are treated in hospital for pushchair-related injuries each year.

And plenty of pedestrians get killed while walking on the pavement. Or indeed crossing the road with a pram.

[Diderot]

thelawnet said:

Diderot said:

ROFL, how can it be no more dangerous than a pram? Do you normally push a pram down the middle of a busy main road in a city? Do you usually have to negotiate cars, lorries and buses on the pavements in your neck of the woods? I know you lot tend to get overly defensive on these type of threads, but losing all sense of perspective is just ridiculous.

There are thousands of pushchair-related accidents ever year. In America 13,000 children are treated in hospital for pushchair-related injuries each year.

And plenty of pedestrians get killed while walking on the pavement. Or indeed crossing the road with a pram.

But of course these trailer contraptions are perfectly safe ...

[Hugo a Gogo]

Diderot said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

Diderot said:

Uh, cos that is not a pic of the offending fkwit with Johnny in the back on a main road in a busy city.

And in what way do imagine that is remotely safe for the child?

I used one for all three of my kids when they were smaller, they all survived

it's no more dangerous than a pram

(I never rode it down Fleet St though)

ROFL, how can it be no more dangerous than a pram? Do you normally push a pram down the middle of a busy main road in a city? Do you usually have to negotiate cars, lorries and buses on the pavements in your neck of the woods? I know you lot tend to get overly defensive on these type of threads, but losing all sense of perspective is just ridiculous.

having trouble working it out?

how you use it may be dangerous, the thing itself isn't dangerous

(did you really roll on the floor, laughing?)

edit: and wtf is 'you lot'? anyone who's ever ridden a bike?

Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Sunday 19th October 07:55

[Diderot]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Diderot said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

Diderot said:

Uh, cos that is not a pic of the offending fkwit with Johnny in the back on a main road in a busy city.

And in what way do imagine that is remotely safe for the child?

I used one for all three of my kids when they were smaller, they all survived

it's no more dangerous than a pram

(I never rode it down Fleet St though)

ROFL, how can it be no more dangerous than a pram? Do you normally push a pram down the middle of a busy main road in a city? Do you usually have to negotiate cars, lorries and buses on the pavements in your neck of the woods? I know you lot tend to get overly defensive on these type of threads, but losing all sense of perspective is just ridiculous.

having trouble working it out?

how you use it may be dangerous, the thing itself isn't dangerous

(did you really roll on the floor, laughing?)

edit: and wtf is 'you lot'? anyone who's ever ridden a bike?

Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Sunday 19th October 07:55

How, and in what situations, is one of these deathtraps meant to be used then? Because clearly they're not ever intended to be used as designed on the road, in traffic, with a child in.

[Hugo a Gogo]

towed behind a bicycle, somewhere where it is safe to cycle

obviously

[grumbledoak]

Those ^^^ things are great at Center Parcs. Anyone using them on Fleet St wants slapping.

[saaby93]

Diderot said:

How, and in what situations, is one of these deathtraps meant to be used then? Because clearly they're not ever intended to be used as designed on the road, in traffic, with a child in.

I think youve missed a basic understanding of safety
You might think parachure jumping safe or unsafe. The statistics tell us one way or the other.
Over the years there have been improvements to try to make parachute jumping safer. Trouble is, being human, if something looks safe we tend to take more risks with it. Despite improvements stats stay the same.

You'll need to look at the state for those buggies behind bikes to decide whether or not they're being used safely. When did you last hear of one being involved in an accident?

Back to the OP

[Herman Toothrot]

Most of the problem is that cycle lanes and how highways planners encourage people to cycle is simply wrong.

10 years ago cycling on pavements resulted in a £50 fine - now 'cycle lanes' swerve up and down between the road and pavement. People therefore now believe that's how you should cycle up and down pavements and across junctions. The very fact that the cycle lane has been created makes people think that cycle lane is their space so everything else should stay out.

People here are whinging about cyclists 'pushing to the front', why do you think that happens? It's because they are told to, a great big box will be at the front that they are supposed to get into.

Problem has been created by planners creating half arsed cycling lanes that are not really anything but some spilled paint on the roads and pavements encouraging cyclists to dodge between them all.

There should either be nothing or real true segregated cycle lanes where it is impossible for other vehicles to enter.

[Dammit]

There's a huge debate about seg/no-seg cycle lanes, and I take points from both camps - a lot depends on the demographic you are looking to enable I think.

That aside, and has been pointed out in the posts discussing, of all things, a bicycle trailer - there is a very basic misunderstanding held by the majority here.

If a tipper lorry left-hooks a cyclist at a junction it's not the bicycle that is dangerous - it's the lorry.

And all of you trotting out the short skirt and high heels defence for the lorry driver should take a long, hard look at yourself and then make a sizeable contribution to a cycling charity.

[myvision]

Laurel Green said:

John D. said:

That's not a tipper lorry full of spoil. It's a large skip, typically used for metal or anything but soil/muck/spoil.

Never mind Cross Rail, there's plenty of other large construction projects which materials brought in and waste taken out via such lorries.

Yes, yes I know that but the OP was asking what was going on; I assumed he was asking why all the deaths/accidents involving heavy lorries and cyclists. In most instances it is vehicles connected with Cross Rail and that is what my post was implying.

Crossrail are trying their best.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/road-safet...

[vonhosen]

Without talking about an individual case (there will always be exceptions to the rule), there is invariably fault on the side of both parties. It only takes one party to do what they 'should' have been doing & that generally covers for the mistake of the other. When they both make a mistake at the same time there'e likely to be a nasty outcome.