Another cyclist dies in London

[Ares]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Ares said:

stuff:

More twaddle added to the thread without any effort to contribute to it in any positive or constructive way, good job.

The irony there is genuinely staggering.


(almost as staggering as your total inability to back up your own accusations).

Casper the Troll. It gets better.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

heebeegeetee said:

3. I've changed my mind to a great degree, based on better evidence...

1. Based on the fact you no longer have to deal with any of it.

heebeegeetee said:

As I thought, you're speaking from absolutely zero experience, making strong pronouncements on an important topic based on no more that one picture on the internet.

Absolutely pathetic. Ridiculous.

2. Pretty much what you are now doing.

1. I have dealt with it. I drove trucks long enough to go from small mirrors on spindly arms (Atkinson Borderer was my first truck powered by a Gardiner 180, and no power steering) and went through the process of cab pillars getting ever thicker, mirrors and arms getting ever bigger, and of course mirrors getting ever more numerous. They are now so numerous that it really can be a struggle to monitor them all quickly enough, and they are large enough to now cause considerable blind spots themselves.

The video of the truck running over the motor cycle in front of it really pissed me off, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1aSvoIpVss

I know exactly what has happened there, I know that the truck driver is looking but he simply can not see.

It is just completely unacceptable, and I now feel much less confident that if I was a cyclist in London (or that motor cyclist in the video) I would avoid getting run over.

And that's leaving aside the fact that I have specialist knowledge of the hgv blind spot issue, due to the fact that I drove them for so many years. What about the 99.9999999999% of people who don't have that knowledge?

So I've changed my mind to a very great degree. But I reckon there's little to no chance of you opening your eyes and seeing the bigger picture.

2. What experience do I need, to prove you wrong about say, your statement that "problems have massively increased"?. All I need to do is read stuff like quoted "a 10% decrease on the previous five-year average and is a quarter of pedestrian and a third of motorcycle fatality numbers for the same period."

[The Dangerous Elk]

Ares said:

The irony there is genuinely staggering.


(almost as staggering as your total inability to back up your own accusations).

Casper the Troll. It gets better.

Again, ZERO contrabution to the thread I see.

Again, if you have an accusation (as this is all I can think you refer) please state it as I would love to hear it.

Try to contribute to the thread, maybe address the last issue that has been raised? The ability of the Police to address the law breaking at RTL by the various types of road user.

[Ares]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Ares said:

The irony there is genuinely staggering.


(almost as staggering as your total inability to back up your own accusations).

Casper the Troll. It gets better.

Again, ZERO contrabution to the thread I see.

Again, if you have an accusation (as this is all I can think you refer) please state it as I would love to hear it.

Try to contribute to the thread, maybe address the last issue that has been raised? The ability of the Police to address the law breaking at RTL by the various types of road user.

This from the person who's last contribution was deleting what was written, and replacing it with the word 'stuff'???

You are either comically ironic, or depriving a village of an idiot somewhere.


But for the hard of thinking, I'll repeat the question for you. Once again..... Please show me where I lay the blame on cyclists? or say "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" etc.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

1. I have dealt with it.

No you haven't. Iirc, you didn't want to believe you could now be surrounded by riders at a set of lights. That's how long ago you were involved. That never happened to you. All the technology and truck design changes in the world won't help you against someone on a bike who doesn't care or is unaware (some how!) of the dangers.

As I mentioned before, on day one of our audible warnings being installed, a rider stopped directly beside me to try and figure out where the warning was coming from. Since then, it makes no difference at all to those who ignored an indicator in the first place. The only way to stop such riders regarding truck design would be for a physical barrier to shoot out once the indicator is turned on.

Putting all that aside for a moment, what's your take on what should be done about the dozens of examples of idiocy I saw from riders the other day, all within 20 minutes, all within a fraction of a single street?

Leave them to it because cars are bad?

Try and answer without feeling the need to tell me how many people die from car related accidents each year and base you answer on the fact that in my position - one which involves many heart in mouth moments - there is a very real chance that one day, I will squash one of these types of riders. is that fair on me? Also perhaps think of these types of riders and the hatred which is directed towards them purely because any clash between them and a vehicle could also result in someone killing a human being during their day. That quite probably breeds hatred due to their stupidity.

[heebeegeetee]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Do you think it is a problem worth throwing resources at?

Yes. Ask this pedestrian (me) when in central London. Crossing the road is a lottery. (a lot of them Boris Bikes)

Ok, and I totally sympathise with that position, but given that 5,000 Londoners are injured, and some killed, by vehicular hit and runs each year, on top of the hit and runs that don't cause death or injury, and on top of the hit and runs that are not reported (and who knows what that figure might be), don't you think there are more important issues to be dealt with first?

This is why I asked you about if you thought there was a parity between "serious issues" caused by cyclists as opposed to those caused by motorists and those caused by cyclists. As it stands now, when a cyclist hits a pedestrian it makes the national newspapers, but most of the 5000 injured by cars don't.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

This is why I asked you about if you thought there was a parity between "serious issues" caused by cyclists as opposed to those caused by motorists and those caused by cyclists. As it stands now, when a cyclist hits a pedestrian it makes the national newspapers, but most of the 5000 injured by cars don't.

None of the riders killed in this thread needed to die. You said it yourself. There's no way you would put yourself in such a position with an HGV. How do we stop them doing it?

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

1. No you haven't. Iirc, you didn't want to believe you could now be surrounded by riders at a set of lights.

2. Putting all that aside for a moment, what's your take on what should be done about the dozens of examples of idiocy I saw from riders the other day, all within 20 minutes, all within a fraction of a single street?

Leave them to it because cars are bad?

3. Try and answer without feeling the need to tell me how many people die from car related accidents each year and base you answer on the fact that in my position - one which involves many heart in mouth moments - there is a very real chance that one day, I will squash one of these types of riders.

3. is that fair on me?

1. In fact, back when I used to believe you were a lorry driver, I used to post (on this thread) that I have every sympathy with you, because I imagine that every time you stop at a set of lights you must be surrounded by bicycles, so I don't know why you're now saying "you didn't want to believe you could now be surrounded by riders at a set of lights. "

2. My take is: be grateful they're on bikes, because here in Birmingham they're all in cars.

3. I do have another answer, but you've forbidden me from giving it.

4. I have repeatedly said that not segregating cyclists form busy, heavy traffic is just insanity, but you've consistently argued against me on this, so unfortunately you're getting what you wish for.

Your next question will undoubtedly be to ask me how that can be achieved, but whatever I say you'll just argue. So just get on with it pal, it's your choice at the end of the day.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

None of the riders killed in this thread needed to die. You said it yourself. There's no way you would put yourself in such a position with an HGV. How do we stop them doing it?

There aren't many of them. In a city of 8 million people they rarely number more than 20. You'll never get that figure to zero, but seriously, we're not far from that.

Everybody does the same though, car drivers, pedestrians, (who suffer higher casualty rates - how come you never want to talk about them?) and motor cyclists are on another level altogether (ditto).

Like I say, I've changed my mind to a great degree. Like since I heard of the woman riding in the cycle lane, hgv comes up in the next lane, turns left over her without indicating.

Or since seeing the motor cyclist in the video, who isn't even in the same road to begin with.

[heebeegeetee]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Try to contribute to the thread, maybe address the last issue that has been raised? The ability of the Police to address the law breaking at RTL by the various types of road user.

Well IIRC, when the boys in blue decided to turn up at a set of lights to do everybody who runs a red, they ended up doing considerably more motorists than cyclists, and it had nothing to do with cameras.

Extrapolating figures from the few traffic lights that do have cameras, it is believed that 9 million drivers run red lights annually. Pedetrians cross red lights en masse all the time, including me.

However there persists this ridiculous belief that only cyclists pass red lights - and this is totally off topic anyway because there's precious little evidence that it contriubutes to the deaths of cyclists to any degree.

[Ares]

Digby said:

heebeegeetee said:

This is why I asked you about if you thought there was a parity between "serious issues" caused by cyclists as opposed to those caused by motorists and those caused by cyclists. As it stands now, when a cyclist hits a pedestrian it makes the national newspapers, but most of the 5000 injured by cars don't.

None of the riders killed in this thread needed to die. You said it yourself. There's no way you would put yourself in such a position with an HGV. How do we stop them doing it?

Those that force their way down the side of an HGV, dare I say, ask for trouble.

But those that sit in the protected box at the front on the rest of the traffic, and then get hit by an HGV. What is it you suggest doing to stop it?

Some (a minuscule minority) cyclists/people on bikes ride dangerously, but for the vast majority that don't, what would you suggest?

[The Dangerous Elk]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Killboy said:

LocoCoco said:

I don't know. Do you concede that a number plate could be of help when policing in person?

Sure.

Do you think it is a problem worth throwing resources at?

Yes. Ask this pedestrian (me) when in central London. Crossing the road is a lottery. (a lot of them Boris Bikes)

Ares said:

stuff:

More twaddle added to the thread without any effort to contribute to it in any positive or constructive way, good job.

Was my last contribution.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

4. I have repeatedly said that not segregating cyclists form busy, heavy traffic is just insanity, but you've consistently argued against me on this, so unfortunately you're getting what you wish for.

Show me one example?

I have said how do we achieve this in London without knocking it down? You even agreed, eventually, that this probably can't happen in London.

Do you even remember what you have typed?

You said perhaps the suburbs, then!

Edited by Digby on Monday 20th November 19:41

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

Everybody does the same though, car drivers, pedestrians, (who suffer higher casualty rates - how come you never want to talk about them?) and motor cyclists are on another level altogether (ditto).

Because hardly ever do I have a single problem with pedestrians and almost never with motorcycles. Vans tend to be increasingly driven by idiots, but then they won't end up underneath me. You are not experienced enough to have an accurate opinion on this.

[Digby]

Ares said:

Those that force their way down the side of an HGV, dare I say, ask for trouble.

But those that sit in the protected box at the front on the rest of the traffic, and then get hit by an HGV. What is it you suggest doing to stop it?

Some (a minuscule minority) cyclists/people on bikes ride dangerously, but for the vast majority that don't, what would you suggest?

I would look behind / beside and move if no eye contact were possible. It's so simple. It happens to me regularly. This is kids stuff.

[The Dangerous Elk]

heebeegeetee said:

Well IIRC, when the boys in blue decided to turn up at a set of lights to do everybody who runs a red, they ended up doing considerably more motorists than cyclists, and it had nothing to do with cameras.

Extrapolating figures from the few traffic lights that do have cameras, it is believed that 9 million drivers run red lights annually. Pedetrians cross red lights en masse all the time, including me.

However there persists this ridiculous belief that only cyclists pass red lights - and this is totally off topic anyway because there's precious little evidence that it contriubutes to the deaths of cyclists to any degree.

This is a subject you seem to have (a light skip through the thread) repeated endlessly, other than to try to avaiod answering direct question is there a reason for so many repeats of the same well known point ?

From what I can gather the "reporting" of such transgressions is slewed by targeting methods not being able in many cases to catch the cyclist. (ID)

It is very true that there is less danger of death/injury to 3rd parties if a cyclist does it, this cannot be disputed.

There are zero figures or even estimates for cyclists transgressions at RTL. Due to this it really is not possible to either compare the levels between cyclists and other road users jumping red traffic lights (as an example) or as you do state categorically that motorists do so more than cyclists, those statistics do not exist.

[Digby]

Changing the subject, did anyone else see this?

https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10155611036991...

Unreal.

[Ares]

Digby said:

Ares said:

Those that force their way down the side of an HGV, dare I say, ask for trouble.

But those that sit in the protected box at the front on the rest of the traffic, and then get hit by an HGV. What is it you suggest doing to stop it?

Some (a minuscule minority) cyclists/people on bikes ride dangerously, but for the vast majority that don't, what would you suggest?

I would look behind / beside and move if no eye contact were possible. It's so simple. It happens to me regularly. This is kids stuff.

So every cyclist should just stop when there is a wagon, bus, van behind them unless they could be certain of eye contact?

It might be kids stuff in your eyes...but if you have to be joking? Can you imagine how slow any progress would be on a bike getting across central London? You would never move.

[Digby]

Ares said:

Can you imagine how slow any progress would be on a bike getting across central London?

Trying to avoid this in any way possible contributes to some of the worst riding you will see.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Ares said:

Trolling Casper the Evasive?

Make your accusation or shut up /

(reported for off-topic and attempted destructive wind-up)

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Monday 20th November 20:41