Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry
Discussion
hairyben said:
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.
Damn those pesky victims!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:
Damn those pesky victims!
It would help if you knew who the victims were. If someone behaves stupidly a d kills themselves, you have to hope they don't drag anyone else into their mess.In this case we know there are two people involved but we don't know the circumstances, yet you have ready concluded that there is only one victim and who it is.
heebeegeetee said:
It would help if you knew who the victims were. If someone behaves stupidly a d kills themselves, you have to hope they don't drag anyone else into their mess.
In this case we know there are two people involved but we don't know the circumstances, yet you have ready concluded that there is only one victim and who it is.
Occams razor, innit - over 70% of accidents that involve a bicycle and a motorised vehicle are the fault of the latter.In this case we know there are two people involved but we don't know the circumstances, yet you have ready concluded that there is only one victim and who it is.
Dammit said:
Occams razor, innit - over 70% of accidents that involve a bicycle and a motorised vehicle are the fault of the latter.
And thus based on that you've concluded there is no chance this cyclist is one of the 30%. It's a strange mind that wants to come to a decision without any facts.
You could do with spending some time in an hgv. I think you'll be go smacked at what you see.
heebeegeetee said:
And thus based on that you've concluded there is no chance this cyclist is one of the 30%.
It's a strange mind that wants to come to a decision without any facts.
You could do with spending some time in an hgv. I think you'll be go smacked at what you see.
As I said before (and you ignored) I'm trying to provide a bit of balance to the 99% of people on here (seemingly including you) who are keen to blame the woman who got run over.It's a strange mind that wants to come to a decision without any facts.
You could do with spending some time in an hgv. I think you'll be go smacked at what you see.
Was it her fault? Was it the lorry drivers fault? We don't know.
But based on the historical record, where it was overwhelmingly the lorry drivers fault we can make some assumptions.
Which -I totally agree- may be wrong.
However, if it's the lorry drivers fault 9 times out of 10 in all the other cases, then that suggests it may well be in this one, does it not?
Dammit said:
As I said before (and you ignored) I'm trying to provide a bit of balance to the 99% of people on here (seemingly including you) who are keen to blame the woman who got run over.
Was it her fault? Was it the lorry drivers fault? We don't know.
But based on the historical record, where it was overwhelmingly the lorry drivers fault we can make some assumptions.
Which -I totally agree- may be wrong.
However, if it's the lorry drivers fault 9 times out of 10 in all the other cases, then that suggests it may well be in this one, does it not?
lol noWas it her fault? Was it the lorry drivers fault? We don't know.
But based on the historical record, where it was overwhelmingly the lorry drivers fault we can make some assumptions.
Which -I totally agree- may be wrong.
However, if it's the lorry drivers fault 9 times out of 10 in all the other cases, then that suggests it may well be in this one, does it not?
I think what you've let yourself believe isn't quite as it seems
Dammit said:
As I said before (and you ignored) I'm trying to provide a bit of balance to the 99% of people on here (seemingly including you) who are keen to blame the woman who got run over.
No they haven't, nobody has done that including me.What people have said is that they're amazed at how many cyclists they see squeezing up the insides of vehicles turning left. That's a fact, and they'll all be watching it again tomorrow.
It's not just cyclists that do it though, everybody does it. Car drivers do it all the time, car drivers squeeze themselves into any gap around an hgv that they can. I can recall a car that squeezed into the gap in front of me once and I couldn't see the back half of her car as she was so close. There is no bounds to the idiocy that people will do around hgvs - it's like being a bird of prey mobbed by smaller birds.
The law is a clumsy tool when it comes to determining fault. Take the issue with lhd hgvs on m'ways and the frequent accidents with them. The law says it always the fault of the hgv driver and I accept that, but I also know that the poor vision from those cabs is a real issue and thus I drive accordingly, and I *never* *ever* drive in the blind spot of hgvs - yet I see other people doing it all the time.
If you're prejudiced then all this will suit your case and you can no doubt feel smug with yourself. I am not prejudiced and I take the view that it almost always takes two to tangle. I just make sure I'm not the one tangling with those who drive badly.
I agree with you, largely, not about the me being prejudiced part of course, but yes- to be run over you need to be where you can BE run over, that is undeniable.
But that's a totally separate thing from SHOULD you be run over.
It's not (as would seem to be being suggested here) contradictory to ride safely, not go up the inside of HGV's etc, and still campaign for the danger of said HGV turning left over cyclists to be reduced or eliminated.
And I disagree that the rider has to bear the culpability for the driver running them down, when the driver had the choice whether to so do, even if they trot out the standard SMIDSY - that's no defence, they should have looked.
But that's a totally separate thing from SHOULD you be run over.
It's not (as would seem to be being suggested here) contradictory to ride safely, not go up the inside of HGV's etc, and still campaign for the danger of said HGV turning left over cyclists to be reduced or eliminated.
And I disagree that the rider has to bear the culpability for the driver running them down, when the driver had the choice whether to so do, even if they trot out the standard SMIDSY - that's no defence, they should have looked.
Dammit said:
I agree with you, largely, not about the me being prejudiced part of course, but yes- to be run over you need to be where you can BE run over, that is undeniable.
But that's a totally separate thing from SHOULD you be run over.
It's not (as would seem to be being suggested here) contradictory to ride safely, not go up the inside of HGV's etc, and still campaign for the danger of said HGV turning left over cyclists to be reduced or eliminated.
And I disagree that the rider has to bear the culpability for the driver running them down, when the driver had the choice whether to so do, even if they trot out the standard SMIDSY - that's no defence, they should have looked.
Again, if you think its a case of drivers not looking or saying smidsy, you are completely wrong and you completely fail to understand the issue. With these vehicles you can look very much and still not be able to see.But that's a totally separate thing from SHOULD you be run over.
It's not (as would seem to be being suggested here) contradictory to ride safely, not go up the inside of HGV's etc, and still campaign for the danger of said HGV turning left over cyclists to be reduced or eliminated.
And I disagree that the rider has to bear the culpability for the driver running them down, when the driver had the choice whether to so do, even if they trot out the standard SMIDSY - that's no defence, they should have looked.
The vid I referred to gives an indication http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8
Now, the video is a bit old and it's been set-up to a degree to exaggerate the issue imo, but the point is that you can look in your mirrors, and you look again and *still* a complete car can be hidden in the blind spot (never mind a cyclist).
This is apart from the issue that drivers should be free to get on with their job without having to constantly check their mirrors and be exhaustingly vigilant for every single f
kwit trying to kill themselves.We don't know that this has happened - and indeed i don't like bloody tipper drivers myself either (so doubly make sure I'm not the one who they tangle with).
With regard to who had the choice to run who over - the driver may or may not be able to see the cyclist, but the cyclist can definitely see the hgv every time. I definitely think the cyclist exercises the greater choice just about every single time.
And as I said, Charlie Lloyd, licenced HGV driver and LCC member has stated that IF equipped with all the modern mirrors then the lorry driver doesn't have the blindspots you are talking about.
Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
Dammit said:
And as I said, Charlie Lloyd, licenced HGV driver and LCC member has stated that IF equipped with all the modern mirrors then the lorry driver doesn't have the blindspots you are talking about.
Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
Maybe i'm not very good at googling but i'm not finding this anywhere.Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
Blind spots are something that has plagued hgv manufacturers for decades. Are you saying that they've all got it wrong and Charlie lloyd has it right?
A mirror can not be seen through, so how can something that blocks your vision not be a blind spot in itself?
I haven't driven an hgv for some years, but i'll be surprised if modern mirrors differ much from what has been available over the past years.
Dammit said:
Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
I think it's unreasonable to ask people to look forward and backwards at the same time because it is impossible to do so.I think it is reasonable to ask people a) not to move close to large vehicles unless they have made eye contact with the driver, or b) not to move into a danger area around an hgv unless you know that the driver is looking at you whilst you do it.
heebeegeetee said:
Dammit said:
And as I said, Charlie Lloyd, licenced HGV driver and LCC member has stated that IF equipped with all the modern mirrors then the lorry driver doesn't have the blindspots you are talking about.
Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
Maybe i'm not very good at googling but i'm not finding this anywhere.Also, I think it's a fairly reasonable requirement to ask people to check that the direction in which they are moving is not occupied by something, or someone, else.
Blind spots are something that has plagued hgv manufacturers for decades. Are you saying that they've all got it wrong and Charlie lloyd has it right?
A mirror can not be seen through, so how can something that blocks your vision not be a blind spot in itself?
I haven't driven an hgv for some years, but i'll be surprised if modern mirrors differ much from what has been available over the past years.
IMO the cyclists are to blame from start to finish here, pure stupidity thinking that its quite alright to just "nip" up the inside expecting the driver which has anything from 30 to 50ft in length to watch over should be at fault.
All the mirrors/CCTV in the world is not goin to help when the drivers only got one pair of eyes to look at each different point of view.
Hell if that was the case the traffic lights would change before he had time to check them all before setting off.
Dammit said:
I'm trying to find it now, the post was on a forum and it's got the worlds worst search function.
His point was, basically, that blind spots are (now) a myth - there are "hard to see" spots, but that just speaks to effort, not possible/impossible.
Well, I'm going to suggest that Charlie LLooyd might be a lone voice, but you stick to him and ignore the thousands of drivers who say blind spots very mucg are an issue, because that will suit your prejudice.His point was, basically, that blind spots are (now) a myth - there are "hard to see" spots, but that just speaks to effort, not possible/impossible.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff