Another cyclist dies in London

[The Dangerous Elk]

Ares said:

Mutual education is the best route.

Good luck getting London cyclists doing that.....laughable target, just put that one in the fantasy box and add glitter.

As for testing, the Truck and Car drivers have proved on one day in their lives that they are not dangerous or stupid, on which day did the "problem" cyclist have prove the same?

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Thursday 23 November 12:16

[Ares]

Nanook said:

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?

So you're telling me that a company can force HGV drivers to learn to ride a bike, or refuse to offer them employment?

I know a coach driver with only one leg, after he lost the other in a bad accident in a coach. I'd love to be in the room when his boss tells him he must learn to ride a bike.

You're twisting words, I've not said forcing them to learn to ride a bike (how many adults can't?).....but a business owning trucks can specific any form of training it wants to before offering employment, or allowing drivers to drive certain routes.

As for your one-legged coach driving friend, that becomes disability discrimination, totally different ball game.


although.....

[schmunk]

Killboy said:

What was this piece of tech cyclists needed to purchase?

[Ares]

TroubledSoul said:

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:

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.

Comparable, not identical. If you can't see the train of though, I can't help you.... And you call me stupid.


But if I won't let you drive my car into London until you have ridden a bike through London, it would be unlawful for you to do so.

The legal stipulation would come not from driving a truck, but from driving a particular company's truck. (and I do know Employment Law, it is part of my business)


But you are making such a pedantic, condescending mountain out of a molehill. It was a suggestion, on the back of the suggestion that cyclists (as some do) sit in an HGV/LGV to see what it is like.

[Ares]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Ares said:

Mutual education is the best route.

Good luck getting London cyclists doing that.....laughable target, just put that one in the fantasy box and add glitter.

Laughable indeed.

[TroubledSoul]

Ares, it's not a legal requirement to drive a truck as far as the law goes. That makes the two incomparable. We're talking about the basic laws of the UK here, not individual haulage companies' own rules.

Listen, you're the type who has an answer for everything and will twist things to suit. I can't be bothered to continue going back and forth with you. It's painful.

[Ares]

TroubledSoul said:

Ares, it's not a legal requirement to drive a truck as far as the law goes. That makes the two incomparable. We're talking about the basic laws of the UK here, not individual haulage companies' own rules.

Listen, you're the type who has an answer for everything and will twist things to suit. I can't be bothered to continue going back and forth with you. It's painful.

I've never said it a legal requirement to drive a truck?

You're the one twisting, as well as being argumentative, pedantic, rude and condescending. It is indeed pitiful.


But back to the real point before you took it down a comedic avenue.....So do you think it would be good or bad to get truck drivers to see what it's like to cycle through London and cyclists to see what it's like from the cab of a truck?

[TroubledSoul]

Ares said:

I've never said it a legal requirement to drive a truck?

You're the one twisting, as well as being argumentative, pedantic, rude and condescending. It is indeed pitiful.


But back to the real point before you took it down a comedic avenue.....So do you think it would be good or bad to get truck drivers to see what it's like to cycle through London and cyclists to see what it's like from the cab of a truck?

I am not going to be drawn back into an argument, so will keep this brief; Yes, I do believe that there is probably some benefit to what you propose. For a willing, competent rider.

[Ares]

TroubledSoul said:

Ares said:

I've never said it a legal requirement to drive a truck?

You're the one twisting, as well as being argumentative, pedantic, rude and condescending. It is indeed pitiful.


But back to the real point before you took it down a comedic avenue.....So do you think it would be good or bad to get truck drivers to see what it's like to cycle through London and cyclists to see what it's like from the cab of a truck?

I am not going to be drawn back into an argument, so will keep this brief; Yes, I do believe that there is probably some benefit to what you propose. For a willing, competent rider.

So after all the pedantry, fault finding and disproportionality, you agree anyway.

[TroubledSoul]

Ares said:

TroubledSoul said:

Ares said:

I've never said it a legal requirement to drive a truck?

You're the one twisting, as well as being argumentative, pedantic, rude and condescending. It is indeed pitiful.


But back to the real point before you took it down a comedic avenue.....So do you think it would be good or bad to get truck drivers to see what it's like to cycle through London and cyclists to see what it's like from the cab of a truck?

I am not going to be drawn back into an argument, so will keep this brief; Yes, I do believe that there is probably some benefit to what you propose. For a willing, competent rider.

So after all the pedantry, fault finding and disproportionality, you agree anyway.

Not with everything you said, no. I have made that quite clear. I think you know the bits I disagree with. I just admitted that it probably would benefit people to see things from the other perspective. I don't think it should be a requirement. I don't think people should be made to cycle in the city against their will.

I do think cyclists should take more responsibility for their own safety and just refrain from doing stupid things.

[Ares]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

OK, force is a strong word, but still correct. A business has the legal right to ensure it's drivers complete what it sees as being vital training before they offer contracts of employment.

I worked for a business that insisted (forced) all employees were qualified first aiders. Clients of mine have other stipulations, one forces employees to give 1% of their salary to charity as a condition of offering employment, another forces employees to do a day's voluntary work at a local disabled school once a quarter.

When it comes to offering employment, as long as the stipulations are reasonable, and not illegal or discriminatory, the prospective employer can insist on just about anything.

[anonymous-user]

Ares said:

I worked for a business that insisted (forced) all employees were qualified first aiders. Clients of mine have other stipulations, one forces employees to give 1% of their salary to charity as a condition of offering employment, another forces employees to do a day's voluntary work at a local disabled school once a quarter.

Aside from anything else, that just takes the piss. It's admirable, of course, but should not be forced on an employee as a condition of employment.

[Ares]

TroubledSoul said:

Ares said:

TroubledSoul said:

Ares said:

I've never said it a legal requirement to drive a truck?

You're the one twisting, as well as being argumentative, pedantic, rude and condescending. It is indeed pitiful.


But back to the real point before you took it down a comedic avenue.....So do you think it would be good or bad to get truck drivers to see what it's like to cycle through London and cyclists to see what it's like from the cab of a truck?

I am not going to be drawn back into an argument, so will keep this brief; Yes, I do believe that there is probably some benefit to what you propose. For a willing, competent rider.

So after all the pedantry, fault finding and disproportionality, you agree anyway.

Not with everything you said, no. I have made that quite clear. I think you know the bits I disagree with. I just admitted that it probably would benefit people to see things from the other perspective. I don't think it should be a requirement. I don't think people should be made to cycle in the city against their will.

I do think cyclists should take more responsibility for their own safety and just refrain from doing stupid things.

But my entire point was that, along with cyclists seeing what it's like from a truck cab, truckers would benefit from seeing what it's like to ride a bike through London.

I never said you should MAKE anyone cycle against their will? Merely that it would be beneficial.


And you are right, cyclists should take total responsibility for their own safety. But what you deem as stupid, other would deem as taking that responsibility.

Example, groups of riders that ride two abreast filling a carriageway - doing so to protect themselves and giving themselves that safety zone. I never do it, but those that do, do so as part of taking responsibility for their own safety.

[Ares]

OpulentBob said:

Ares said:

I worked for a business that insisted (forced) all employees were qualified first aiders. Clients of mine have other stipulations, one forces employees to give 1% of their salary to charity as a condition of offering employment, another forces employees to do a day's voluntary work at a local disabled school once a quarter.

Aside from anything else, that just takes the piss. It's admirable, of course, but should not be forced on an employee as a condition of employment.

In both instances, it is part of their CSR policy. If you want a contract of employment with that business, you have to agree to it's terms.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Ares said:

Example, groups of riders that ride two abreast filling a carriageway - doing so to protect themselves and giving themselves that safety zone. I never do it, but those that do, do so as part of taking responsibility for their own safety.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-cyclists-riding-side-side-12286327



Poor example: that can be either taking a safe road postion or it can be equally taking the piss and/or be dangerous.

Rule 66

You should
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians.

[TroubledSoul]

I can't be arsed going back through the thread to dig out a quote now, but I'm pretty sure you did say people should be made to cycle through London. You then went off on a tangent about people not wanting to cycle being the same as letting people drive without taking a test, which I found baffling to be honest.

I think we've both said as much as we need to on this point so I'll leave it at that and await the next point for us to argue over

[heebeegeetee]

TroubledSoul said:

I can't be arsed going back through the thread to dig out a quote now, but I'm pretty sure you did say people should be made to cycle through London. You then went off on a tangent about people not wanting to cycle being the same as letting people drive without taking a test, which I found baffling to be honest.

No, he didn't say any such thing at all.

[Ares]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Ares said:

Example, groups of riders that ride two abreast filling a carriageway - doing so to protect themselves and giving themselves that safety zone. I never do it, but those that do, do so as part of taking responsibility for their own safety.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-cyclists-riding-side-side-12286327



Poor example: that can be either taking a safe road postion or it can be equally taking the piss and/or be dangerous.

Rule 66

You should
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians.

No - it's a perfect example.

Two abreast isn't more than two abreast.

See here for more:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chri...

[TroubledSoul]

heebeegeetee said:

TroubledSoul said:

I can't be arsed going back through the thread to dig out a quote now, but I'm pretty sure you did say people should be made to cycle through London. You then went off on a tangent about people not wanting to cycle being the same as letting people drive without taking a test, which I found baffling to be honest.

No, he didn't say any such thing at all.

Er.... Yes he did.

Just for you HeeBee....:

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?

Because if they are driving a 10/20/30/44tonne truck through roads that were not designed for them, it would be a highly beneficially measure. And apparently is happens already accordingly to Digby.


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?

[The Dangerous Elk]

Ares said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

Ares said:

Example, groups of riders that ride two abreast filling a carriageway - doing so to protect themselves and giving themselves that safety zone. I never do it, but those that do, do so as part of taking responsibility for their own safety.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/law-cyclists-riding-side-side-12286327



Poor example: that can be either taking a safe road postion or it can be equally taking the piss and/or be dangerous.

Rule 66

You should
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians.

No - it's a perfect example.

Two abreast isn't more than two abreast.

See here for more:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chri...