Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
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.
There are plenty of sites in greater London where proper off road capabilities are a must.
Besides these deaths are not a big issue in the grand scheme of things, wasn't that the conclusion here?
heebeegeetee said:
Muck shifting aside, I can't imagine there's much opportunity for going off road in London.
That's because with your mixer you were sat at the entrance to the site next to the concrete pump in your clean boots and shiny hi-viz having just hosed off your wagon. 
The muckaways actually have to go on site, that is their purpose. You can't remotely load one. Any sort of foundation works, utility works (which is very common indeed in London), highways works, drainage works, machine breakdown, all require trucks to potentially go on to the mud. When you were filling holes with concrete, where do you think all the spoil that created the hole went?
Yes I've worked on TfL sites.
Digby said:
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.Digby said:
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
And go and watch any 5 year ride a bike. They do not shoulder check.
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...To sit and blame cyclist for the ills of the roads, and insist that most cyclists ride like ****s is wrong. It is a tiny fraction of people on the road that cause issues for the majority, irrespective what mode of transport they are in at the time.
Ares said:
Digby said:
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.You don't speed past a speed camera, no matter how silly you think the limit is, because you know you will get caught. But if there is no speed camera, you are far more likely to break the limit.
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...Of the 8 cyclists killed, 6 resulted in prosecution for the driver.
Of the 63 pedestrians killed, 34 resulted in prosecution for the driver.
Source: TfL based on Met figures.
nickfrog said:
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.
As mentioned before, they are the BRAKE of the cycling world.
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!
Who refuses to take responsibility for themselves?And which cycling groups do you want to ****?
(....and is that a lycra thing
)Nanook said:
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!
Anyone else find it odd that we're on page 452 of the thread and cb has only just thought to mention this particularly relevant story?No? Just me?
Maybe he hasn't had time to think of what the small low cost price of equipment is, or the names of the cycling groups that that laughed?
TroubledSoul said:
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.
On your train of thought, why should someone have to take a driving test if they don't want to? Or be forced to do a motorway lesson after they've passed their test?
cb1965 said:
Nanook said:
cb1965 said:
Oh FFS here we go again.... I must be lying! It was mentioned about 250 pages ago, but even if it wasn't people like you need to stop accusing others of lying. I do find people generally judge everyone by their own standards... makes me wonder!
Did you ever post picture of the damage to your car from this cyclist?Here's the thing about standards. The rest of us appear to have them. You don't appear to understand the concept, hence your appalling attitude on the topic at hand, as well at your tone and language on this thread.
Remember the Chimp Paradox, that covers that specifically. You really should read it.
and by the way.... putting the word 'people' in 'inverted commas' (and telling someone you treat them with "the disdain they deserve" proves the point exactly. The issue is your attitude, not others towards you.
Ares said:
TroubledSoul said:
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.
On your train of thought, why should someone have to take a driving test if they don't want to? Or be forced to do a motorway lesson after they've passed their test?
Did you honestly just write that??
You've just killed your last shred of credibility my friend. Nobody has to take a driving test if they don't want to
They take a driving test only if they want to drive!What, on God's green earth, has any of that got to do with forcing people to cycle in London against their will?!
Oh man, you're absolutely tickled me with that. Cheers
TroubledSoul said:
Did you honestly just write that??
You've just killed your last shred of credibility my friend. Nobody has to take a driving test if they don't want to
They take a driving test only if they want to drive!What, on God's green earth, has any of that got to do with forcing people to cycle in London against their will?!
Oh man, you're absolutely tickled me with that. Cheers
" They do so only if they want to drive an HGV/LGV for certain businesses into London!See the similarity yet?
And if it is such a ludicrous suggestion, why are truck business already doing it (according to Digby)?
But do I take you ignoring the first part of my post a sign that you agree? Or were you too busy being condescending.
Ares said:
No-one has to ride a bike if they don't want to. " " They do so only if they want to drive an HGV/LGV for certain businesses into London!
See the similarity yet?
And if it is such a ludicrous suggestion, why are truck business already doing it (according to Digby)?
But do I take you ignoring the first part of my post a sign that you agree? Or were you too busy being condescending.
You're a card, Ares " They do so only if they want to drive an HGV/LGV for certain businesses into London!See the similarity yet?
And if it is such a ludicrous suggestion, why are truck business already doing it (according to Digby)?
But do I take you ignoring the first part of my post a sign that you agree? Or were you too busy being condescending.
You're comparing a voluntary activity with a legal requirement. See the issue yet?
If businesses want to offer a course to drivers then great. But they've no legal right to force anyone to do it and for an inexperienced rider it could be a dangerous scenario. If you want to drive a car then the test IS legal requirement. Major difference.
You're either trolling now or you're stupid. Which is it?
TroubledSoul said:
Ares said:
No-one has to ride a bike if they don't want to. " " They do so only if they want to drive an HGV/LGV for certain businesses into London!
See the similarity yet?
And if it is such a ludicrous suggestion, why are truck business already doing it (according to Digby)?
But do I take you ignoring the first part of my post a sign that you agree? Or were you too busy being condescending.
You're a card, Ares " They do so only if they want to drive an HGV/LGV for certain businesses into London!See the similarity yet?
And if it is such a ludicrous suggestion, why are truck business already doing it (according to Digby)?
But do I take you ignoring the first part of my post a sign that you agree? Or were you too busy being condescending.
You're comparing a voluntary activity with a legal requirement. See the issue yet?
If businesses want to offer a course to drivers then great. But they've no legal right to force anyone to do it and for an inexperienced rider it could be a dangerous scenario. If you want to drive a car then the test IS legal requirement. Major difference.
You're either trolling now or you're stupid. Which is it?
But - one is a voluntary stipulated action that you have to undertake in order to allow you do undertake a specific activity. The other is.....the same.
A business does have the legal right to force it's drivers to undertake any form of training it sees fit before offering employment, or the keys to an HGV/LGV (and are, accordingly to Digby). The driving test is only a legal requirement for someone wishing to drive.
Troll/Stupid?
Anyway, back to the original point? Your thoughts/comments if you can resist being condescending for a moment?
Ares said:
I didn't say they were identical, just following the same train of thought.
But - one is a voluntary stipulated action that you have to undertake in order to allow you do undertake a specific activity. The other is.....the same.
A business does have the legal right to force it's drivers to undertake any form of training it sees fit before offering employment, or the keys to an HGV/LGV (and are, accordingly to Digby). The driving test is only a legal requirement for someone wishing to drive.
Troll/Stupid?
Anyway, back to the original point? Your thoughts/comments if you can resist being condescending for a moment?
You're mental. Let me word it differently so you can't wriggle out of it:But - one is a voluntary stipulated action that you have to undertake in order to allow you do undertake a specific activity. The other is.....the same.
A business does have the legal right to force it's drivers to undertake any form of training it sees fit before offering employment, or the keys to an HGV/LGV (and are, accordingly to Digby). The driving test is only a legal requirement for someone wishing to drive.
Troll/Stupid?
Anyway, back to the original point? Your thoughts/comments if you can resist being condescending for a moment?
Riding a bike around London is not a legal requirement for being allowed to drive a truck.
A driving test IS a legal requirement to being able to drive a car.
Now, please please tell me at a granular level how those two things are comparable or how they even follow a similar train of thought?
Could a company decide that they specifically require you to ride a bike in London before you drive for them? Maybe. I'm not au fait with employment law. Do you have to do that before getting an HGV licence? No.
Now please, just stop.
Nanook said:
Ares said:
They already do, not enough, but it is done. And it was that that spurred the suggestion to do it the other way around (Truckers on bikes).
Mutual education is the best route.
Like I said, forcing a HGV driver to ride a bike isn't going to allow him to see around corners.Mutual education is the best route.
Are the HGV drivers hiding from cyclists and injuring themselves?
Or is it the other way around? When I'm using the roads on any form of transport, bike, car, van, lorry, even a quad bike, I try to look out for everyone else, but ultimately, my own personal safety is something I take responsibility for.
Nothing too difficult about that.
Not sure where 'seeing round corners' comes from, nor hiding HGV drivers?...., but for any road user to have first hand insight on what other roads users see/don't see and experience what they do is only going to be beneficial.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff