Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Digby said:
Ares said:
Where has anyone said a large vehicle with multiple mirrors, side protection, cameras, audible warnings, warning stickers and trained operatives is not fit for purpose?
And the bicycles has been fit for purpose for decades before the first ICE was even thought of . Bikes are perfectly fit for their purpose. They were also more in mind when the streets we drive on around London were designed/created (along with horses). For driving through narrow London streets, the HGV is far far from ideal, it is just a best of a bad solution to getting goods in said narrow streets.
It's ok, because in the link I provided earlier where that certain cycling group were all "Us, us, us" and "want, want, want" one of their brilliant ideas was to remove large vehicles from the roads and put the goods on smaller vehicles. Brilliant!And the bicycles has been fit for purpose for decades before the first ICE was even thought of . Bikes are perfectly fit for their purpose. They were also more in mind when the streets we drive on around London were designed/created (along with horses). For driving through narrow London streets, the HGV is far far from ideal, it is just a best of a bad solution to getting goods in said narrow streets.
Also don't forget that when riders decades ago were complaining of having to use the first cycle lanes, they also wanted roads built to accommodate faster moving vehicles. They got their wish....and then complained about it.
And what riders/what cycle lanes/what fast roads?...and what complaints? I'm genuinely interested.
Digby said:
It's quite clear that our Government want pollution figures to drop - they created most of the problems. The upshot is that cyclists get an incredibly easy time of it.
.
The govt created all of the problems, a long time ago, by deciding that the car shall be king and everyone else shall get short shrift. That’s lead to crushing congestion, to the point where nothing moves, huge pollution said to be killing tens of thousands annually, and we’re the most obese country in Europe..
And we’ve got lorries on the road that the drivers can’t see out of.
It’s all going to change. No doubt our change will be the slowest, most protracted and most expensive, but it will change. Dinosaurs will complain for years to come, but the time will come when people look back and think “wtf did we do it like that? It was st for everybody”.
Digby said:
Ares said:
Where? Show me a few of them?
And the rest of my comments on fit/purpose?
Are you a bit late to the party? I assume you have not read this thread? They are there. He may even admit it if you ask (or he may blame the pub again)And the rest of my comments on fit/purpose?
Given they are here, is he wrong?
Digby said:
Ares said:
Education! Key to resolving most poor road behaviour on all sides.
Cyclists were put in the cab of an HGV (with class 6 mirrors) to demonstrate how little can be seen. All of them were staggered, and educated.
But they don't have to. And how many times has this happened?Cyclists were put in the cab of an HGV (with class 6 mirrors) to demonstrate how little can be seen. All of them were staggered, and educated.
Greg66 said:
One purpose of such a vehicle might be to assist the driver avoid collisions where possible.
If it is the case that despite all these measures, a driver of such a vehicle can initiate a left turn without being aware of the presence of a cyclist between their vehicle and the corner, and then continue to make the turn despite the cyclist being there, then being forced over, then being crushed under the rear wheels, then you do have to ask whether the vehicle is fit for purpose.
The cyclist can be blamed for getting him or (oddly, more frequently) herself in the kill zone in the first place. But once there, and once the vehicle has started to turn I don't see the justification for basically shrugging one's shoulders and saying that from that point on what will be will be.
If you had a parking sensor type beep beep beep in the cab coming from the nearside door, wouldn't that alert you to the need to consider whether to stop the vehicle? Would such a thing be a hardship to fit?
Not really Mr current affairs, are you? Many vehicles have had all you list for a long time.If it is the case that despite all these measures, a driver of such a vehicle can initiate a left turn without being aware of the presence of a cyclist between their vehicle and the corner, and then continue to make the turn despite the cyclist being there, then being forced over, then being crushed under the rear wheels, then you do have to ask whether the vehicle is fit for purpose.
The cyclist can be blamed for getting him or (oddly, more frequently) herself in the kill zone in the first place. But once there, and once the vehicle has started to turn I don't see the justification for basically shrugging one's shoulders and saying that from that point on what will be will be.
If you had a parking sensor type beep beep beep in the cab coming from the nearside door, wouldn't that alert you to the need to consider whether to stop the vehicle? Would such a thing be a hardship to fit?
It makes no difference when you can be in a turn and someone on a bike, on a mission, does not want to wait, or jumps a red, or pops out from behind a bus etc. It's also not only about turns, it's about maneuvering a large vehicle in general. Unless you make them completely out of glass with completely transparent goods, you can't see cyclists all of the time. There has to come a point where all of the technology and training also needs to rely on someone on a bike not being a total dick. That never seems to go down well, here.
The same could be said for pedestrians on crossings. They look, they see it's clear, they start to cross and Mr Tour-De-France dives round a waiting bus and sends them scattering. What should they do? Get sensors and mirrors?
Ares said:
Not often enough...but the same would be true of getting HGV drivers to cycle through London. How many times has THAT happened?
Well I know probably fifty or so who have done it so far. The majority of companies who deliver in London will also end up having to do it, or will have done it. The point is, they have no choice.Greg66 said:
Riding up the left side of a truck isn't unlawful.
It becomes dangerous because of what the truck does.
The purpose of making HGV drivers ride bikes in urban environments would be to help them drive in those environments, not to help them ride bikes in them.
Of course. I know this.It becomes dangerous because of what the truck does.
The purpose of making HGV drivers ride bikes in urban environments would be to help them drive in those environments, not to help them ride bikes in them.
Now how about helping cyclists who DO want to ride in these environments?
Digby said:
Ares said:
Not often enough...but the same would be true of getting HGV drivers to cycle through London. How many times has THAT happened?
Well I know probably fifty or so who have done it so far. The majority of companies who deliver in London will also end up having to do it, or will have done it. The point is, they have no choice.As I have said before, the list of things being done for cyclists is always increasing, yet the things required for those who wish to cycle still remains at zero.
Digby said:
Greg66 said:
One purpose of such a vehicle might be to assist the driver avoid collisions where possible.
If it is the case that despite all these measures, a driver of such a vehicle can initiate a left turn without being aware of the presence of a cyclist between their vehicle and the corner, and then continue to make the turn despite the cyclist being there, then being forced over, then being crushed under the rear wheels, then you do have to ask whether the vehicle is fit for purpose.
The cyclist can be blamed for getting him or (oddly, more frequently) herself in the kill zone in the first place. But once there, and once the vehicle has started to turn I don't see the justification for basically shrugging one's shoulders and saying that from that point on what will be will be.
If you had a parking sensor type beep beep beep in the cab coming from the nearside door, wouldn't that alert you to the need to consider whether to stop the vehicle? Would such a thing be a hardship to fit?
Not really Mr current affairs, are you? Many vehicles have had all you list for a long time.If it is the case that despite all these measures, a driver of such a vehicle can initiate a left turn without being aware of the presence of a cyclist between their vehicle and the corner, and then continue to make the turn despite the cyclist being there, then being forced over, then being crushed under the rear wheels, then you do have to ask whether the vehicle is fit for purpose.
The cyclist can be blamed for getting him or (oddly, more frequently) herself in the kill zone in the first place. But once there, and once the vehicle has started to turn I don't see the justification for basically shrugging one's shoulders and saying that from that point on what will be will be.
If you had a parking sensor type beep beep beep in the cab coming from the nearside door, wouldn't that alert you to the need to consider whether to stop the vehicle? Would such a thing be a hardship to fit?
It makes no difference when you can be in a turn and someone on a bike, on a mission, does not want to wait, or jumps a red, or pops out from behind a bus etc. It's also not only about turns, it's about maneuvering a large vehicle in general. Unless you make them completely out of glass with completely transparent goods, you can't see cyclists all of the time. There has to come a point where all of the technology and training also needs to rely on someone on a bike not being a total dick. That never seems to go down well, here.
Because for now all I am talking about is the classic tipper truck turns left and crushes a cyclist under the rear axle type incident, which seems to be the prevalent form of fatal accident in London.
Ares said:
.
Cyclists were put in the cab of an HGV (with class 6 mirrors) to demonstrate how little can be seen. All of them were staggered, and educated.
I think everyone would be staggered at how little can be seen from cabs. Certainly car drivers don't get the chance. I think it simply wouldn't occur to most people how bad things have been allowed to get.Cyclists were put in the cab of an HGV (with class 6 mirrors) to demonstrate how little can be seen. All of them were staggered, and educated.
Digby said:
It makes no difference when you can be in a turn and someone on a bike, on a mission, does not want to wait, or jumps a red, or pops out from behind a bus etc.
In fact most London cyclist fatalities involves none of this. Most times it's simply a person cycling in a straight line.This picture is rather typical, the scenario is rather typical in that the driver doesn't indicate until a moment before he sets off, half his safety gear isn't working, Miss Tao was at the lights first and he pulled alongside, driver doesn't get prosecuted, cyclist is blamed because apparently she set off in the wrong gear which slowed her down a bit, and so on.
You can clearly see the lack of visibility form the cab though.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-cycl...
Digby said:
Ares said:
Not often enough...but the same would be true of getting HGV drivers to cycle through London. How many times has THAT happened?
Well I know probably fifty or so who have done it so far. The majority of companies who deliver in London will also end up having to do it, or will have done it. The point is, they have no choice.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.
Digby said:
Ares said:
I had a look, I couldn't see them. Couldn't see any. Hence why I asked.
You scanned all these pages and comments in the last few minutes?!Digby said:
Digby said:
Ares said:
Not often enough...but the same would be true of getting HGV drivers to cycle through London. How many times has THAT happened?
Well I know probably fifty or so who have done it so far. The majority of companies who deliver in London will also end up having to do it, or will have done it. The point is, they have no choice.As I have said before, the list of things being done for cyclists is always increasing, yet the things required for those who wish to cycle still remains at zero.
However, the PR around deaths and physical safety measures being employed will aid that education.
Same with pedestrians, especially those walking with a phone 6 inches from their faces.
heebeegeetee said:
I think everyone would be staggered at how little can be seen from cabs. Certainly car drivers don't get the chance. I think it simply wouldn't occur to most people how bad things have been allowed to get.
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.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...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...Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
I think everyone would be staggered at how little can be seen from cabs. Certainly car drivers don't get the chance. I think it simply wouldn't occur to most people how bad things have been allowed to get.
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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff