Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Greg66 said:
This is what I don't understand. Assume you've got a vehicle with all these sensors and cameras, you start a turn and an impatient cyclist hammers up the inside of you. You hear a warning. How does the cyclist end up under the rear axle?
The impatient cyclist can’t stop in time and slams in to the vehicle that has stopped.Fun Bus said:
Greg66 said:
This is what I don't understand. Assume you've got a vehicle with all these sensors and cameras, you start a turn and an impatient cyclist hammers up the inside of you. You hear a warning. How does the cyclist end up under the rear axle?
The impatient cyclist can’t stop in time and slams in to the vehicle that has stopped.“Under the rear axle”.
Ares said:
I know you like the phrase 'kids stuff' when slagging off people you don't like, but if you've ever watched a kid on a bike, they don't shoulder check. Meanwhile, I've never seen a cyclist not look around constantly when cycling.
Slagging off...Don't like...
Please don't go down the desperate route of slapping labels on people and putting your words in to their mouths with zero basis. It happens a lot here, almost always from those who do not like to see anything negative relating to cycling.
Kids don't shoulder check? We were taught to aged five. We were not allowed to ride to school on nice, quiet, suburban streets unless we passed a test. As with motorbike riding, the message was very clear.
I do like the phrase, just as you like your little icon. I see riders riding in a manner I would never have done as a child. To me, what they are or are not doing is what I was taught to do or not to do as a kid.
Ares said:
Digby said:
Ares said:
Superbly childish answer. And totally missing the point.
Well, why are you here? What do you care about in the grand scheme of things?
As for the second part, did it include a cycle proficiency test?
Edited by Digby on Wednesday 22 November 21:40
Ares said:
Firstly, there is only so much you can enforce cyclists to do - anyone from the age of 2 can get a bike and ride it. Difficult to enforce anything for the 2m or so people that ride a bike.
I think this explains a great deal about many riders attitudes and the progress they make.Greg66 said:
Fun Bus said:
Greg66 said:
This is what I don't understand. Assume you've got a vehicle with all these sensors and cameras, you start a turn and an impatient cyclist hammers up the inside of you. You hear a warning. How does the cyclist end up under the rear axle?
The impatient cyclist can’t stop in time and slams in to the vehicle that has stopped.“Under the rear axle”.
The issue with many proximity systems is that they are designed to pick up people who are inches away from your vehicle, but also, a foot or so away. This means they go off...a lot. Barriers, road cones, the odd tree...you name it. It works well when stopped with it remaining silent and then being activated, because you know something has changed. However, you can't keep track of all sensors and all cameras and all mirrors all of the time.
There has to come a point where you need someone not to be a loon.
Digby said:
Greg66 said:
Fun Bus said:
Greg66 said:
This is what I don't understand. Assume you've got a vehicle with all these sensors and cameras, you start a turn and an impatient cyclist hammers up the inside of you. You hear a warning. How does the cyclist end up under the rear axle?
The impatient cyclist can’t stop in time and slams in to the vehicle that has stopped.“Under the rear axle”.
The issue with many proximity systems is that they are designed to pick up people who are inches away from your vehicle, but also, a foot or so away. This means they go off...a lot. Barriers, road cones, the odd tree...you name it. It works well when stopped with it remaining silent and then being activated, because you know something has changed. However, you can't keep track of all sensors and all cameras and all mirrors all of the time.
There has to come a point where you need someone not to be a loon.
cb1965 said:
Greg66 said:
Digby said:
Greg66 said:
Fun Bus said:
Greg66 said:
This is what I don't understand. Assume you've got a vehicle with all these sensors and cameras, you start a turn and an impatient cyclist hammers up the inside of you. You hear a warning. How does the cyclist end up under the rear axle?
The impatient cyclist can’t stop in time and slams in to the vehicle that has stopped.“Under the rear axle”.
The issue with many proximity systems is that they are designed to pick up people who are inches away from your vehicle, but also, a foot or so away. This means they go off...a lot. Barriers, road cones, the odd tree...you name it. It works well when stopped with it remaining silent and then being activated, because you know something has changed. However, you can't keep track of all sensors and all cameras and all mirrors all of the time.
There has to come a point where you need someone not to be a loon.
Some yers ago now my wife Put a nice set of deep gouges into the bonnet of our car by ignoring the parking sensors and getting too close to a skip parked in our road. Her explanation was that there’s always some extra space after you get a solid tone so she kept moving forwards. She said that she didn’t mean to damage the car though; that was an accident.
I wasn’t very impressed by that explanation (though it wasn’t as bad as when she did the bumper and said she couldn’t hear the sensors over the radio because she’d turned it up for her favourite song). I’d struggle to apportion much blame to the skip, TBH.
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
Digby said:
I think everyone would be staggered to see just how rare it is to see a cyclist move their head and shoulder check etc. Kids stuff again.
Meanwhile, over on a separate PH thread it's staggering to see how many trained and licensed driving enthusiasts don't check their blind spots before changing lanes...Greg66 said:
This isn’t intended to be provocative, but are you really saying “either the sensors get ignored or they don’t get reacted to in sufficient time”?
Both are possible.If indicators, audible warnings, warning stickers and truck movements were ignored, it could simply be a case of being too late to react. It would only take a very small amount of forward and turning motion to create a tragedy. I'm talking a foot or so depending on circumstances.
Also, proximity sensors tend to be placed in specific locations, so there is a the chance a rider may not have reached the sensor, or, may have set it off and moved forwards of it (depending on positioning obviously).
There are many variables. You can find yourself with riders in front, at the rear, to the right but still turning left. Some may not bother stopping at the same red before you move off so now they have to be tracked. A few sensor beeps may be expected and accounted for, some may not...
As I say, there are many variables, including the fact the driver may be a total t
t.Still to this day, the best 'anti-kill anyone' measure I have seen is mirrors on poles on corners, but they are few and far between. Stopping at certain junctions with those in front of your cab is better than any proximity sensor and camera system imho. It is instant, unchanging, and offers unassailable proof that nothing is there.
They effectively replace having to look at five or six mirrors on a vehicles left hand side. They also give you more time to check all other extremities and potential hazards, plus any imminent road positioning etc.
Edited by Digby on Wednesday 22 November 23:36
cb1965 said:
I don't have one, but I don't need one to know what the issues are. It's part of my job! Never mind if you know better though as there's always someone on the Internet who does and this time it's you! Welcome to your 15 minutes 
I don’t recall saying I do know better?I sarcastically asked if you drove an LGV and knew about the sensors and features they’re littered with now. If your knowledge comes from a different area, then clearly you do have basis for what you’re saying.
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
Digby said:
I think everyone would be staggered to see just how rare it is to see a cyclist move their head and shoulder check etc. Kids stuff again.
Meanwhile, over on a separate PH thread it's staggering to see how many trained and licensed driving enthusiasts don't check their blind spots before changing lanes...cb1965 said:
As I pointed out earlier in the thread I do innovation consultancy amongst other things and recently went to a company who had a brilliant idea of how to help cyclists in this exact scenario with something far better than these proximity systems. The issue was that cyclists would need to purchase a small low cost piece of equipment as part of this.... the cycling groups 'laughed at them' when they presented it to them and took the attitude that it was solely up to the vehicle operators to sort the issue out hence the company binned the idea. Therein lies the crux of the issue here!
I can see why you're so bitter now."the cycling groups" are not representative of the cycling population - they're probably as hostile and binary thinking as you though.
Digby said:
Both are possible.
If indicators, audible warnings, warning stickers and truck movements were ignored, it could simply be a case of being too late to react. It would only take a very small amount of forward and turning motion to create a tragedy. I'm talking a foot or so depending on circumstances.
Also, proximity sensors tend to be placed in specific locations, so there is a the chance a rider may not have reached the sensor, or, may have set it off and moved forwards of it (depending on positioning obviously).
There are many variables. You can find yourself with riders in front, at the rear, to the right but still turning left. Some may not bother stopping at the same red before you move off so now they have to be tracked. A few sensor beeps may be expected and accounted for, some may not...
As I say, there are many variables, including the fact the driver may be a total tt.
Still to this day, the best 'anti-kill anyone' measure I have seen is mirrors on poles on corners, but they are few and far between. Stopping at certain junctions with those in front of your cab is better than any proximity sensor and camera system imho. It is instant, unchanging, and offers unassailable proof that nothing is there.
They effectively replace having to look at five or six mirrors on a vehicles left hand side. They also give you more time to check all other extremities and potential hazards, plus any imminent road positioning etc.
I think it was the German student girl who was killed, the driver ignored the trixie mirror on the pole and ran over the girl instead. If indicators, audible warnings, warning stickers and truck movements were ignored, it could simply be a case of being too late to react. It would only take a very small amount of forward and turning motion to create a tragedy. I'm talking a foot or so depending on circumstances.
Also, proximity sensors tend to be placed in specific locations, so there is a the chance a rider may not have reached the sensor, or, may have set it off and moved forwards of it (depending on positioning obviously).
There are many variables. You can find yourself with riders in front, at the rear, to the right but still turning left. Some may not bother stopping at the same red before you move off so now they have to be tracked. A few sensor beeps may be expected and accounted for, some may not...
As I say, there are many variables, including the fact the driver may be a total t
t.Still to this day, the best 'anti-kill anyone' measure I have seen is mirrors on poles on corners, but they are few and far between. Stopping at certain junctions with those in front of your cab is better than any proximity sensor and camera system imho. It is instant, unchanging, and offers unassailable proof that nothing is there.
They effectively replace having to look at five or six mirrors on a vehicles left hand side. They also give you more time to check all other extremities and potential hazards, plus any imminent road positioning etc.
Edited by Digby on Wednesday 22 November 23:36
Reading your post really does highlight the stupidity of using such vehicles though. Why not use a vehicle that the driver can see out of in the first place?
I saw three yesterday, large three axle refuse wagons. When a cyclist pulls alongside they're at head height with the driver.
I know usual cry will go up "ah but a tipper might need to go in some mud" but they'll spend 99% of the time on the road.
The Dangerous Elk said:
99% of time on the road going between job sites and 1% doing its job on site, which it now cannot do because it is stuck. Great plan.
So there we are. The trucks do indeed have to be dangerous so that they're optimised for 1% of the time. People die so that they don't get stuck.I was the owner driver of concrete mixers for some 25 years and have some knowledge of this topic.
Tippers can't elevate their bodies unless they're on firm, level ground (saw more than one of those fall over in my time, it's quite a sight) so the amount of time they're in rough ground may be even less 1%. My view after 25 years in the job is there was too much poor housekeeping on site, leading to vehicles going into risky situations on site.
In my last years of working in quarries almost all agregate was loaded from conveyers whilst the truck was on hard standing.
Muck shifting aside, I can't imagine there's much opportunity for going off road in London.
cb1965 said:
Bitte? Nope, I just despise people that refuse to take responsibility for themselves and expect the rest of the world to revolve around them... cycling groups fall squarely into that category! So **** them!
As I explained, cycling group DO NOT represent cyclists as an entire population any more than BRAKE! represents motorists as an entire population.Would you find it acceptable for me to judge you as a motorist based on the BRAKE! views ? Exactly.
At least we (eventually) got to the bottom of your "thought" process. It explains a few things. You've let your professional frustrations cloud your judgement.
heebeegeetee said:
So there we are. The trucks do indeed have to be dangerous so that they're optimised for 1% of the time. People die so that they don't get stuck.
I was the owner driver of concrete mixers for some 25 years and have some knowledge of this topic.
Tippers can't elevate their bodies unless they're on firm, level ground (saw more than one of those fall over in my time, it's quite a sight) so the amount of time they're in rough ground may be even less 1%. My view after 25 years in the job is there was too much poor housekeeping on site, leading to vehicles going into risky situations on site.
In my last years of working in quarries almost all agregate was loaded from conveyers whilst the truck was on hard standing.
Muck shifting aside, I can't imagine there's much opportunity for going off road in London.
Twisted words and added conclusions, I am learning you do this quite often.I was the owner driver of concrete mixers for some 25 years and have some knowledge of this topic.
Tippers can't elevate their bodies unless they're on firm, level ground (saw more than one of those fall over in my time, it's quite a sight) so the amount of time they're in rough ground may be even less 1%. My view after 25 years in the job is there was too much poor housekeeping on site, leading to vehicles going into risky situations on site.
In my last years of working in quarries almost all agregate was loaded from conveyers whilst the truck was on hard standing.
Muck shifting aside, I can't imagine there's much opportunity for going off road in London.
Everything has design limits but that does not make them inherently dangerous. What makes them dangerous is improper use by the driver and improper positioning by cyclists. I accept that there will always be errors by both because humans are not infallible however greater improvements in safety could be realised if cyclists were trained not to be stupid and sanctioned if aggressive/ignore road rules.
Both should have the training to be on the road, only one of the groups does.
Ares said:
Good. And who has no choice? Drivers for a particular company?
I have 3 relatives that drive HGVs into the City (one usually 7.5 tonne, the others Cat C+E). Only one has tried riding the bike through the City and scoffed when I suggested they should (I did it with them when I was down doing Ride London this year). The other 2 just refused point blank as too dangerous. Do most delivery companies make drivers cycle through town? Good if they do.
But why should people ride if they don't want to? Don't you think it's pretty dangerous to take someone who doesn't cycle and then drop them in the middle of London with a bike?I have 3 relatives that drive HGVs into the City (one usually 7.5 tonne, the others Cat C+E). Only one has tried riding the bike through the City and scoffed when I suggested they should (I did it with them when I was down doing Ride London this year). The other 2 just refused point blank as too dangerous. Do most delivery companies make drivers cycle through town? Good if they do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff