Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
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.
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
No I didn't.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
What I said was, it would be beneficial:
Ares said:
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.
(It was in the same post you picked up on the driving test, and got all condescending asking me if I was a troll or stupid. Ironically. Remember now?)heebeegeetee said:
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.
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.
It also highlights the stupidity of many riders and those who defend them. As you said, you would never put yourself in such a position and I agree. But many do.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.
I'm sure if they produced floating bicycles for the masses and one was hit by an ocean liner or oil tanker, you would be here suggesting they are not fit for purpose.
Are bikes fit for purpose in the city? Why don't all of them have a large flag on a pole the back for example? They often use that on those cycles you lay in to ride, so why not everyone?
TroubledSoul said:
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. 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?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?
The Dangerous Elk said:
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-12286327Poor 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.
Two abreast isn't more than two abreast.
See here for more:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chri...
Ares 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.
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
No I didn't.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
What I said was, it would be beneficial:
Ares said:
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.
(It was in the same post you picked up on the driving test, and got all condescending asking me if I was a troll or stupid. Ironically. Remember now?)If I say to you "why should people be made to ride through London if they don't want to" and you respond with "Because if they are driving a 10/20/30/44 tonne truck through roads that were not designed for them, it would be a highly beneficial measure." that is very very different to replying with "I am not saying people should be made to ride through London, but if they did it would be very beneficial."
You are stating in black and white that they SHOULD be made to ride through London and that a CONSEQUENCE of that is that it would be beneficial.
Ironic indeed.
If that isn't what you actually meant, then word it better instead of trying to pull me up and accuse me of being wrong.
Ares said:
Mandat said:
Ares said:
It's not about getting it wrong, it's about not seeing the point being weakly made.
As soon as it was pointed, I said the cyclists actions were not the smartest.
And not, being where they should be, in the protected cyclist box, unlike the wagon who shouldn't have been in the protected box. Doesn't diminish the fact that it wasn't the smartest move by the riders. They were in the wrong, despite being 'right'.
Do you think the wagon driver was in the wrong at all?
Without scoring points over who should have been where, the overall point that is apparently being missed, is that the video clearly show the kind of circumstances that can lead to cyclists being killed under the wheels of left turning hgvs.As soon as it was pointed, I said the cyclists actions were not the smartest.
And not, being where they should be, in the protected cyclist box, unlike the wagon who shouldn't have been in the protected box. Doesn't diminish the fact that it wasn't the smartest move by the riders. They were in the wrong, despite being 'right'.
Do you think the wagon driver was in the wrong at all?
Whislt the hgv driver in this instance was aware of the cyclists down his side (and probably in the blind spots) the next driver may not be so dilligent.
The cyclists who blithely put themselves unnecessarily in such blindspot are the next potential victims.
I'll give you a clue: Nothing at all and lots.
Onus you say? Don't make me laugh.
TroubledSoul said:
You obviously don't understand how the English language works then if you can't read that response as an endorsement of making people ride through London.
If I say to you "why should people be made to ride through London if they don't want to" and you respond with "Because if they are driving a 10/20/30/44 tonne truck through roads that were not designed for them, it would be a highly beneficial measure." that is very very different to replying with "I am not saying people should be made to ride through London, but if they did it would be very beneficial."
You are stating in black and white that they SHOULD be made to ride through London and that a CONSEQUENCE of that is that it would be beneficial.
Ironic indeed.
If that isn't what you actually meant, then word it better instead of trying to pull me up and accuse me of being wrong.
You are coming across as every kind of stupid.If I say to you "why should people be made to ride through London if they don't want to" and you respond with "Because if they are driving a 10/20/30/44 tonne truck through roads that were not designed for them, it would be a highly beneficial measure." that is very very different to replying with "I am not saying people should be made to ride through London, but if they did it would be very beneficial."
You are stating in black and white that they SHOULD be made to ride through London and that a CONSEQUENCE of that is that it would be beneficial.
Ironic indeed.
If that isn't what you actually meant, then word it better instead of trying to pull me up and accuse me of being wrong.
You asked: But why should people ride if they don't want to?
I replied: 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.
No mention of making them, just that IF they drove a truck it would be beneficial.
You are wrong (and even quoted yourself wrong to strengthen your failed argument)
Digby said:
Ares said:
Mandat said:
Ares said:
It's not about getting it wrong, it's about not seeing the point being weakly made.
As soon as it was pointed, I said the cyclists actions were not the smartest.
And not, being where they should be, in the protected cyclist box, unlike the wagon who shouldn't have been in the protected box. Doesn't diminish the fact that it wasn't the smartest move by the riders. They were in the wrong, despite being 'right'.
Do you think the wagon driver was in the wrong at all?
Without scoring points over who should have been where, the overall point that is apparently being missed, is that the video clearly show the kind of circumstances that can lead to cyclists being killed under the wheels of left turning hgvs.As soon as it was pointed, I said the cyclists actions were not the smartest.
And not, being where they should be, in the protected cyclist box, unlike the wagon who shouldn't have been in the protected box. Doesn't diminish the fact that it wasn't the smartest move by the riders. They were in the wrong, despite being 'right'.
Do you think the wagon driver was in the wrong at all?
Whislt the hgv driver in this instance was aware of the cyclists down his side (and probably in the blind spots) the next driver may not be so dilligent.
The cyclists who blithely put themselves unnecessarily in such blindspot are the next potential victims.
I'll give you a clue: Nothing at all and lots.
Onus you say? Don't make me laugh.
Ares said:
You are coming across as every kind of stupid.
You asked: But why should people ride if they don't want to?
I replied: 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.
No mention of making them, just that IF they drove a truck it would be beneficial.
You are wrong (and even quoted yourself wrong to strengthen your failed argument)
I can't make it any clearer for you. You don't understand the English language I'm afraid. The use of the word "Because" in your response is everything that kills your argument. As far as being stubborn goes, you'd give Robert Mugabe a run for his money. You asked: But why should people ride if they don't want to?
I replied: 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.
No mention of making them, just that IF they drove a truck it would be beneficial.
You are wrong (and even quoted yourself wrong to strengthen your failed argument)
You carry on trying to browbeat people into thinking your way. Very typical militant cyclist behaviour. Enjoy your ride home.
Digby said:
1. It also highlights the stupidity of many riders and those who defend them. As you said, you would never put yourself in such a position and I agree. But many do.
2. I'm sure if they produced floating bicycles for the masses and one was hit by an ocean liner or oil tanker, you would be here suggesting they are not fit for purpose.
3. Are bikes fit for purpose in the city? Why don't all of them have a large flag on a pole the back for example? They often use that on those cycles you lay in to ride, so why not everyone?
1. But I have specialist knowledge of the heavy vehicle in question, I am aware of the difficulties of seeing out of them. You claim to have the same.. I've come to appreciate that it you haven't got that experience, it may never occur to you how little drivers can see. Your mind is still closed to this.2. I'm sure if they produced floating bicycles for the masses and one was hit by an ocean liner or oil tanker, you would be here suggesting they are not fit for purpose.
3. Are bikes fit for purpose in the city? Why don't all of them have a large flag on a pole the back for example? They often use that on those cycles you lay in to ride, so why not everyone?
2. Absolutely, if they used ocean liners or oil tankers in a city centre, I'd absolutely say they're not fit for that purpose.
3. Well they were there first, indeed by a long chalk compared to large hgvs with restricted vision. I'd say they're hugely suited for city use, given the sheer numbers you can fit into a restricted space, lack of pollution, massively less space to park and store, exercise, *massive* savings to the nhs, and so on.
"Imagine if a team of scientists devised a drug which massively reduced people’s chances of developing cancer or heart disease, cutting their overall likelihood of dying early by 40%. This would be front page news worldwide, a Nobel prize as good as in the post.
That drug is already here, albeit administered in a slightly different way: it’s called cycling to work. One of the more puzzling political questions is why it is so rarely prescribed on a population-wide level.
Most people recognise riding a bike makes you more healthy. But studies have shown the impact of even a relatively modest regular cycle can have near-miraculous health dividends.
There is a credible argument that encouraging bike use to Dutch or Danish levels could do more than perhaps any other single intervention to save the NHS from collapse. It could even greatly mitigate the crisis in adult social care.
This might sound far-fetched, but consider the evidence. At the heart of the issue is what public health experts routinely describe as a pandemic of preventable illness connected to physical inactivity.
Study after study has shown far too many Britons live almost entirely sedentary lives. Research last month showed 6 million middle-aged people in England don’t even take a single brisk walk longer than 10 minutes in an average month.
One estimate is that about 85,000 Britons die early each year because of this. A study in the Lancet put the global toll for inactive lifestyles at around 5.3 million people a year, about the same as from tobacco.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/...
All those benefits and it takes you to work as well.
Ares said:
Lists of laws are irrelevant. The onus should not solely be in the cyclists to improve the situation. You think that every one else should do absolutely nothing?
Trouble is that everyone else has done something or plenty, especially the transport industry, cyclists have so far done, what exactly? Every single suggestion for the cyclists to do something is met by that's "victim blaming" or "we are not the problem, everyone else is" or something else as stupid.Everyf
kingone using the roads must improve and change.TroubledSoul said:
You obviously don't understand how the English language works then if you can't read that response as an endorsement of making people ride through London.
If I say to you "why should people be made to ride through London if they don't want to" and you respond with "Because if they are driving a 10/20/30/44 tonne truck through roads that were not designed for them, it would be a highly beneficial measure." that is very very different to replying with "I am not saying people should be made to ride through London, but if they did it would be very beneficial."
You are stating in black and white that they SHOULD be made to ride through London and that a CONSEQUENCE of that is that it would be beneficial.
Ironic indeed.
If that isn't what you actually meant, then word it better instead of trying to pull me up and accuse me of being wrong.
You said "Now please, stop" quite a long time ago.If I say to you "why should people be made to ride through London if they don't want to" and you respond with "Because if they are driving a 10/20/30/44 tonne truck through roads that were not designed for them, it would be a highly beneficial measure." that is very very different to replying with "I am not saying people should be made to ride through London, but if they did it would be very beneficial."
You are stating in black and white that they SHOULD be made to ride through London and that a CONSEQUENCE of that is that it would be beneficial.
Ironic indeed.
If that isn't what you actually meant, then word it better instead of trying to pull me up and accuse me of being wrong.
TroubledSoul said:
Ares said:
You are coming across as every kind of stupid.
You asked: But why should people ride if they don't want to?
I replied: 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.
No mention of making them, just that IF they drove a truck it would be beneficial.
You are wrong (and even quoted yourself wrong to strengthen your failed argument)
I can't make it any clearer for you. You don't understand the English language I'm afraid. The use of the word "Because" in your response is everything that kills your argument. As far as being stubborn goes, you'd give Robert Mugabe a run for his money. You asked: But why should people ride if they don't want to?
I replied: 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.
No mention of making them, just that IF they drove a truck it would be beneficial.
You are wrong (and even quoted yourself wrong to strengthen your failed argument)
You carry on trying to browbeat people into thinking your way. Very typical militant cyclist behaviour. Enjoy your ride home.
You asked why should they ride. I said [b]because[b] it would be beneficial.
It really is that simple. No browbeating.
I've even sense checked this with my 8yr old. She gets it.
But don't let that from stopping from denigrating further by liken me, or a comment made to a 'typical militant cyclist'
What was your phrase? You are either a troll, or stupid?
Finlandia said:
Ares said:
Lists of laws are irrelevant. The onus should not solely be in the cyclists to improve the situation. You think that every one else should do absolutely nothing?
Trouble is that everyone else has done something or plenty, especially the transport industry, cyclists have so far done, what exactly? Every single suggestion for the cyclists to do something is met by that's "victim blaming" or "we are not the problem, everyone else is" or something else as stupid.Everyf
kingone using the roads must improve and change.And cyclists do plenty, most, the vast majority of cyclists ride very lawfully. Probably the most lawful group of people on the road. Not all are lawful, far from it, but the vast majority are.
But you final quote is exactly my point EVERYONE using the roads must improve and change. Not just cyclists.
Ares said:
Show me the word 'made'? or Force? Or anything where I say some must ride. Should does not equal must.
You asked why should they ride. I said [b]because[b] it would be beneficial.
It really is that simple. No browbeating.
I've even sense checked this with my 8yr old. She gets it.
But don't let that from stopping from denigrating further by liken me, or a comment made to a 'typical militant cyclist'
What was your phrase? You are either a troll, or stupid?
You asked why should they ride. I said [b]because[b] it would be beneficial.
It really is that simple. No browbeating.
I've even sense checked this with my 8yr old. She gets it.
But don't let that from stopping from denigrating further by liken me, or a comment made to a 'typical militant cyclist'
What was your phrase? You are either a troll, or stupid?
Ah I see; we've been conversing all afternoon about truck drivers being forced to ride through London, but in your attempts to win this argument you have taken the literal text of the question and turned it into an out of context question instead? I like it, you've got me on a technicality despite knowing full well what we were discussing.
Bravo!
I was in London last night, stayed over for work.
I went out for a run this morning, around an hour, between 6:30am and 7:30am.
I was amazed at the amount of cyclists who were jumping red lights. Not all of them, but i'd hazard a guess around 40%.
Some even had the cheek to argue with pedestrians when they were riding round them
Any reason why it is so bad? It doesn't seem to be like that in my home city.
I went out for a run this morning, around an hour, between 6:30am and 7:30am.
I was amazed at the amount of cyclists who were jumping red lights. Not all of them, but i'd hazard a guess around 40%.
Some even had the cheek to argue with pedestrians when they were riding round them
Any reason why it is so bad? It doesn't seem to be like that in my home city.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff