Another cyclist dies in London

[Mr2Mike]

heebeegeetee said:

If you care to go back to posts on this thread dated 27th January 2015, you'll find links to show that with adult cyclists, drivers are solely to blame 60-75% of the time. In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50, although it's often proven that the cyclist was in the driver's sight for a period of time. I recall the German student who definitely cycled up the inside, the driver had passed her 200m before the lights and it took her 23 seconds for her to catch up with him.

So straight away you could halve the number of cyclists killed on left turn accidents by ensuring said cyclists have a functional brain prior to being allowed on the road. That seems like a massive potential win, you should be all over this.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr2Mike said:

So straight away you could halve the number of cyclists killed on left turn accidents by ensuring said cyclists have a functional brain prior to being allowed on the road. That seems like a massive potential win, you should be all over this.

cb1965 said:

You're wasting your time, the pro cycling chaps on this board and in general don't like the truth

Then I'll repeat for the umpteenth time, because you guys have such an issue with "the truth".

The truth is that these women are not lacking a functional brain, because they all (without exception I think) are educated and professional people. The truth is that every other type of vehicle user seems to be able to avoid them, except the drivers of construction lorries. The truth is that in 60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

The truth is that we frequently read about trucks turning left and flattening women. The truth is that we rarely/if ever read about rljing cyclists killing anybody. The truth is that there are bad people on foot, cycle and in vehicles. The truth is that the rest of us are really not placed in any great danger by bad people on foot or cycle. The truth is that the greatest danger to all of us on the roads is from people in vehicles, a statistic borne out all over the globe.

Red light jumping. The truth is, based on my 40 years experience, is that drivers will disregard amber and red stop lights whilst the junction is still busy and congested, often containing vehicles trying to turn right across the path of the stop light jumper, over whom they have priority. Everybody else who disregards lights, including pedestrians, tends to do so after the traffic has gone. This is a generalisation, but again I'll repeat, I simply do not read of rljing cyclists being killed very often at all (indeed right now can't recall reading of a single one), unlike the number of cyclists I read about every single year who are killed by left turning construction vehicles.

The truth is that one of the reasons that one particular type of lorry features so frequently, is because it is optimised to be used off road, and so the next truth is that these vehicles spend a fraction of their time off road.

The truth is that residents of other European capital and large cities seem to manage far better with sharing the roads with cyclists. The truth is that cyclists, can be a pita, but that brings us back to the very often repeated quote "The truth is that there are bad people on foot, cycle and in vehicles."

The truth is that there is no such thing as road tax. The truth is that cyclists, pedestrians and drivers all break the rules. Speaking as a driver, I think we break the most rules, most of the time.

So guys, by all means, give me again your versions of "the truth", but it seems to me that it is yourselves who rally, really struggle with the truth.

And I'll just leave with this video of a motorcycle being crushed by an hgv, the driver of which simply cannot see. This motorcyclist should not be described as being in a blind spot (yet he is), indeed at the start of events he was nowhere near any hgv.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/1...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 24th October 12:27

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

I'll also say that I don't think that people like Digby and ceebeebie are best disposed to be drivers, but that's just my opinion.

Oh dear! As some jumped up little **** with an over inflated opinion of his own self worth who are you to judge?

[Angrybiker]

heebeegeetee said:

Then I'll repeat for the umpteenth time, because you guys have such an issue with "the truth".

The truth is that these women are not lacking a functional brain, because they all (without exception I think) are educated and professional people. The truth is that every other type of vehicle user seems to be able to avoid them, except the drivers of construction lorries. The truth is that in 60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

The truth is that we frequently read about trucks turning left and flattening women. The truth is that we rarely/if ever read about rljing cyclists killing anybody. The truth is that there are bad people on foot, cycle and in vehicles. The truth is that the rest of us are really not placed in any great danger by bad people on foot or cycle. The truth is that the greatest danger to all of us on the roads is from people in vehicles, a statistic borne out all over the globe.

Red light jumping. The truth is, based on my 40 years experience, is that drivers will disregard amber and red stop lights whilst the junction is still busy and congested, often containing vehicles trying to turn right across the path of the stop light jumper, over whom they have priority. Everybody else who disregards lights, including pedestrians, tends to do so after the traffic has gone. This is a generalisation, but again I'll repeat, I simply do not read of rljing cyclists being killed very often at all (indeed right now can't recall reading of a single one), unlike the number of cyclists I read about every single year who are killed by left turning construction vehicles.

The truth is that one of the reasons that one particular type of lorry features so frequently, is because it is optimised to be used off road, and so the next truth is that these vehicles spend a fraction of their time off road.

The truth is that residents of other European capital and large cities seem to manage far better with sharing the roads with cyclists. The truth is that cyclists, can be a pita, but that brings us back to the very often repeated quote "The truth is that there are bad people on foot, cycle and in vehicles."

The truth is that there is no such thing as road tax. The truth is that cyclists, pedestrians and drivers all break the rules. Speaking as a driver, I think we break the most rules, most of the time.

So guys, by all means, give me again your versions of "the truth", but it seems to me that it is yourselves who rally, really struggle with the truth.

I'll also say that I don't think that people like Digby and ceebeebie are best disposed to be drivers, but that's just my opinion.

And I'll just leave with this video of a motorcycle being crushed by an hgv, the driver of which simply cannot see. This motorcyclist should not be described as being in a blind spot (yet he is), indeed at the start of events he was nowhere near any hgv.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/1...

Here's a fact: Most lorries in London now have big stickers on the back saying Cyclists beware and don't pass on the left and stay clear. I know this to be a fact because I see it every day.
Here's another fact: About half the lorries I see every day in London have cameras fitted to the back to record what goes on at precisely the areas where those warning signs indicate. I know this to be a fact because I see it every day.

Let's think, what could possibly motivate haulage companies to spend all this money and effort? And why would they single out cyclists, with pictures of bicycles in the warning signs, rather than a warning to all traffic in general?

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

The truth is that in 60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

The truth is that we frequently read about trucks turning left and flattening women.

heebeegeetee also said:

In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50

So what is the actual "truth" then?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

So what is the actual "truth" then?

60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

Apparently the most common cause of vehicle-cyclist accident is vehicle runs into back of cyclist. It's the most common form of vehicle/vehicle accident too, I believe.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 24th October 12:44

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So what is the actual "truth" then?

60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

Apparently the most common cause of vehicle-cyclist accident is vehicle runs into back of cyclist. It's the most common form of vehicle/vehicle accident too, I believe.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 24th October 12:44

What about this truth then?

heebeegeetee said:

The truth is that we frequently read about trucks turning left and flattening women.

heebeegeetee also said:

In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50

[Digby]

cb1965 said:

Oh dear! As some jumped up little **** with an over inflated opinion of his own self worth who are you to judge?

Christ, I wish he would make his mind up. I am not a driver, I am a driver, I'm not a driver, but if I am a driver I shouldn't be a driver.

As for all the other " I don't drive in London but I know more than all those who do" rubbish, a cyclist on here has just given us an example of his wife riding up the inside of an HGV. Here's the truth; that isn't a one off. As riders in a certain clip in London said themselves "We all do it"

Heebee is arguing not only against many here, but an entire industry and numerous authorities who base their ideas on more than a view from a boat and repetitive "cars are bad" type stats.

They want tougher rules for cyclists. Why is that? Another truth; people are fed up with trying not to crush them or be hit by them. We hear only of those who get hit, not the thousands fortunately avoided.

As I said, the desperation on show gets better and better with every post.

[Digby]

I'll try again with my pollution question to see if we get an answer...

Does it have anything to do with this topic?

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

1. As for all the other " I don't drive in London but I know more than all those who do" rubbish, a cyclist on here has just given us an example of his wife riding up the inside of an HGV. Here's the truth; that isn't a one off. As riders in a certain clip in London said themselves "We all do it"

2. Heebee is arguing not only against many here, but an entire industry and numerous authorities who base their ideas on more than a view from a boat and repetitive "cars are bad" type stats.

3. They want tougher rules for cyclists. Why is that? Another truth; people are fed up with trying not to crush them or be hit by them. We hear only of those who get hit, not the thousands fortunately avoided.

4. As I said, the desperation on show gets better and better with every post.

1. And again, a city of 8 million people and t you think the thoughts of just one are relevant.

2. I recount fact and evidence. If it wasn't the fact, or wasn't backed with evidence, I wouldn't say it.

3. Tough st, they ain't gonna get 'em. They're just gonna have to learn to drive better instead.

4. It's neither difficult nor desperate to quote facts and evidence.

Digby said:

I'll try again with my pollution question to see if we get an answer...

Does it have anything to do with this topic?

Ironic question, on a day when another tranche of congestion charge hits another st load of car users in London.

Yes, I believe it's relevant, because air quality issues are going to see it ever more onerous to use cars in London, and ever more cyclists are likely to take to the roads, like it or not.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So what is the actual "truth" then?

60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

Apparently the most common cause of vehicle-cyclist accident is vehicle runs into back of cyclist. It's the most common form of vehicle/vehicle accident too, I believe.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 24th October 12:44

What about this truth then?

heebeegeetee said:

The truth is that we frequently read about trucks turning left and flattening women.

heebeegeetee also said:

In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50

Can't help anymore, can't see what part you'r struggling with.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So what is the actual "truth" then?

60-75% of incidents involving adult cyclists, the driver is found solely to blame.

Apparently the most common cause of vehicle-cyclist accident is vehicle runs into back of cyclist. It's the most common form of vehicle/vehicle accident too, I believe.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 24th October 12:44

What about this truth then?

heebeegeetee said:

The truth is that we frequently read about trucks turning left and flattening women.

heebeegeetee also said:

In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50

Can't help anymore, can't see what part you'r struggling with.

You seem to be struggling to remember what you have said.
You say that we frequently read about women getting flattened by left turning HGVs, many of the recent accidents with HGVs and cyclists in London have happened at junctions, when turning left. And as you say, accidents in and around junctions are close to 50/50 at fault.

With all the warning signs, beep sounds, flashing lights, audible warnings and reporting in news about previous accidents, you would think that the fault would be 100% the driver, as cyclists now must be aware of the dangers of a left turning HGV and the blind spots. This isn't the case though.

A few posts or pages back a guy was telling us about his wife who placed herself on the inside of a HGV, in the blind spot, seemingly totally oblivious to the danger.

What can be done about this, if we overlook your suggestions of tearing the city down or scrapping the HGVs?

[Digby]

Finlandia said:

You seem to be struggling to remember what you have said.

heebeegeetee said:

Ironic question, on a day when another tranche of congestion charge hits another st load of car users in London.

Yes, I believe it's relevant, because air quality issues are going to see it ever more onerous to use cars in London, and ever more cyclists are likely to take to the roads, like it or not.

Just to be clear (seeing as we have to keep doing this to understand how your mind works)....

heebeegeetee said:

Well, as I say, the predominant issue, and I'd argue the only issue, is of hgvs turning left over cyclists, yet the Digbys want to talk about red lights (Digby note - I didn't start it) and the rest of it, whilst excusing motorists who also jump red lights (Digby note - I have never said this), but which from the start of the thread had never shown to be particularly relevant to the title of the thread.

But pollution is ok to talk about. Facts and figures from other countries are ok. Accidents in the home are ok. Watching people from boats in other countries is ok. Posting dozens and dozens of unrelated videos is ok. Exercise and health benefits are ok. Your wife getting car park dings is ok to talk about. (add several dozen more examples here..) Cars jumping red lights is also ok, as is drink driving, insurance, motorbike chat..just nothing about bikes, ok?

heebeegeetee said:

I used to drive hgvs in and around London a few times per month but that was a long time ago, starting pre-M25 (Digby note - Jesus! lol)

Used to have friends in London but that was also a long time ago.

Haven't driven in central London for many years now....

So no experience as London is now?

But hold on...

heebeegeetee said:

As I thought, you're speaking from absolutely zero experience, making strong pronouncements on an important topic based on no more that one picture on the internet.

Absolutely pathetic. Ridiculous.

heebeegeetee said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs are, which can be argued over until the cows come home, the primary aim of everybody is surely to stay alive. If I found myself beside a tipper truck who I think might be turning left, I'd simply get off my bike and walk away. I wouldn't let the lorry run over me, I would make sure that that couldn't happen.
Doesn't every cyclist in London not know this? I know it's not fair, but you only have one life!

But wait a minute! I was shot down in flames when I said you never need to be run over by an HGV. I said pretty much exactly the same as you.

On your HGV driving from decades ago when there were hardly any bikes compared to today..

heebeegeetee said:

Every single day countless people would place their lives into my hands and I feel they have no right to do so.

Oh, a bit like myself, then and one of the reasons I am involved in this topic. I fully agree with you, but am not allowed to agree with you, by you!

heebeegeetee said:

I'm really surprised that cyclists still don't seem to be aware of the dangers they can find themselves in, after all this time and these utterly tragic deaths.

Oh look, something else from your early ramblings I have also mentioned. Now something else I am not allowed to talk about even though you were..

ZX10R NIN said:

As the owner of a Bodyshop I've seen quite a few cars that don't have dents.

heebeegeetee said:

I can not believe that you are the owner of a car body shop...

Oh, you don't own a body shop, I'm not a driver...see the pattern?

Finlandia said:

Remember the words of the Swedish cycle police, and the studies showing a huge cost for cycling injuries

heebeegeetee said:

I'm not interested in Sweden's figures.

Not interested unless they are good, of course, because by christ, you have listed ALL the ones which exist that you do like.

heebeegeetee said:

Virtually nothing that is being said against cyclists bears even a moments scrutiny.

Just the cars. Got it. (apart from the riders you mentioned earlier who do not know the dangers etc)

heebeegeetee said:

No, I'm sorry, I think the insurance issue is yet another massive red herring, and its mass numptyism going on, similar to "Because Road Tax" and "Because Cycle Lane".

It is recognised that cyclists are only going to do a small amount of damage to a vehicle so it's deemed not worthy of going through the bureaucratic process of enforcing insurance cover.

Looks like many cycling groups think you are wrong...

yonex said:

Both the CTC and BC membership covers you for third party. Affiliated clubs are also covered.

I got bored at this point as there are (depnding on your forum options) another 80 odd pages to go through for some more gems from the mind of Heebee.

Stay tuned for part two when I have more time.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

You seem to be struggling to remember what you have said.
You say that we frequently read about women getting flattened by left turning HGVs, many of the recent accidents with HGVs and cyclists in London have happened at junctions, when turning left. And as you say, accidents in and around junctions are close to 50/50 at fault.

With all the warning signs, beep sounds, flashing lights, audible warnings and reporting in news about previous accidents, you would think that the fault would be 100% the driver, as cyclists now must be aware of the dangers of a left turning HGV and the blind spots. This isn't the case though.

A few posts or pages back a guy was telling us about his wife who placed herself on the inside of a HGV, in the blind spot, seemingly totally oblivious to the danger.

What can be done about this, if we overlook your suggestions of tearing the city down or scrapping the HGVs?

Well that sounds like a completely different question altogether.

I'm posting on my phone so can't supply links (and I'm only repeating what's been said or linked to many times by me and others. I believe all the links you need are in this thread.)

In many of these fatalities the driver didn't indicate. One fatality, Chinese girl iirc the nearside audible warning wasn't working. Another fatality the female cyclist was in a cycle lane with the hgv in the adjacent lane when it turned left across the cycle lane without indicating.

In all of these cases iirc no drivers were found guilty or no meaningful sentence was given.

I don't share your view of the haulage industry as you describe.

On these threads someone had posted a long list of these fatalities with the findings of the court cases, and it made uncomfortable reading for the haulage industry even though the sentences were derisory, but frustratingly I can't find where this list wasn't posted. It was posted a number of times and I believe you and Digby saw it as well as me.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that video I posted. Is that degree of visibility acceptable? What else could the motorcyclist be reasonably expected to do to have prevented having his motorcycle ran over?

[Digby]

Digby said:

.....a cyclist on here has just given us an example of his wife riding up the inside of an HGV. Here's the truth; that isn't a one off. As riders in a certain clip in London said themselves "We all do it"

heebeegeetee said:

1. And again, a city of 8 million people and t you think the thoughts of just one are relevant.

"WE ALL DO IT". Does your mind automatically blank this stuff out, now? That was said by riders, about riders as they hit a fking massive lorry for being in the wrong lane. And he was right, they all do it there. You wouldn't, like myself of course, because above, you said you would rather get off than be killed or hold back, or stick to the HC... (get out of that one)


Anyway, are you that silly re: the above "8 million people" comment, or is this just a game? If it's just a game, it's a sick one you are playing.

One person on a forum, at one specific moment has explained perfectly what you will see time and time and time again in London. It's obvious to me, to most others here and to all those in any way involved with the list below...

Courses exist for drivers and riders because of it.
Adverts were based upon it.
Roads have been changed because of it.
Barriers removed due to it.
Technology invented to try and avoid it.
Signs put on the backs of large vehicles to tell riders not to do it etc.

And above, you even talk about it!!

Give me a single reason why all of the above is rubbish and you are correct. Just one.

No waffle or round the world tours. No videos of rally cars crashing in the mountains. No stats etc, just ONE single reason.

Go...

[Digby]

Oh, one more quick classic as it goes well with you apparently having an "idea" of what everyone in the country thinks (didn't like my questions regarding that either, I see)

heebeegeetee said:

And let's put this cycle lane business to bed: everybody knows that UK cycle lanes are a near total waste of time and money. *Everybody* knows this.

There you have it, folks. That bloke from miles away who never drives or rides in London and who rarely gets to see the thousands of cyclists using the cycle lanes, knows that everybody thinks they are a waste of time and money. Not just London, either, but all of them in the UK!!



EDIT: You then went on to call 4x4 drivers "thick knuckle dragging tts"

Edited by Digby on Tuesday 24th October 18:22

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

You seem to be struggling to remember what you have said.
You say that we frequently read about women getting flattened by left turning HGVs, many of the recent accidents with HGVs and cyclists in London have happened at junctions, when turning left. And as you say, accidents in and around junctions are close to 50/50 at fault.

With all the warning signs, beep sounds, flashing lights, audible warnings and reporting in news about previous accidents, you would think that the fault would be 100% the driver, as cyclists now must be aware of the dangers of a left turning HGV and the blind spots. This isn't the case though.

A few posts or pages back a guy was telling us about his wife who placed herself on the inside of a HGV, in the blind spot, seemingly totally oblivious to the danger.

What can be done about this, if we overlook your suggestions of tearing the city down or scrapping the HGVs?

Well that sounds like a completely different question altogether.

I'm posting on my phone so can't supply links (and I'm only repeating what's been said or linked to many times by me and others. I believe all the links you need are in this thread.)

In many of these fatalities the driver didn't indicate. One fatality, Chinese girl iirc the nearside audible warning wasn't working. Another fatality the female cyclist was in a cycle lane with the hgv in the adjacent lane when it turned left across the cycle lane without indicating.

In all of these cases iirc no drivers were found guilty or no meaningful sentence was given.

I don't share your view of the haulage industry as you describe.

On these threads someone had posted a long list of these fatalities with the findings of the court cases, and it made uncomfortable reading for the haulage industry even though the sentences were derisory, but frustratingly I can't find where this list wasn't posted. It was posted a number of times and I believe you and Digby saw it as well as me.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that video I posted. Is that degree of visibility acceptable? What else could the motorcyclist be reasonably expected to do to have prevented having his motorcycle ran over?

I quoted your own words, no different questions at all.

It's really, really simple, watch out for big machinery, because they need huge space to manoeuvre, surely that can't be too difficult to understand, even without a sign or a voice telling you so?

The video about the biker getting his bike crushed, he must have been in the blind spot created by the huge mirrors, the mirrors needed to save others from getting in the blind spots. That is catch 22 right there.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

1. I quoted your own words, no different questions at all.

2. It's really, really simple, watch out for big machinery, because they need huge space to manoeuvre, surely that can't be too difficult to understand, even without a sign or a voice telling you so?

3. The video about the biker getting his bike crushed, he must have been in the blind spot created by the huge mirrors, the mirrors needed to save others from getting in the blind spots. That is catch 22 right there.

1. I think you're tangling yourself up with your desire to beat a guy on the internet, but no doubt you'll disagree.

2. I totally agree, 100%, absolutely. Now, when I drove hgvs for some 30 years, I wish you could have said that to the *countless* car drivers who placed themselves in my blindspots and the blindpspots of my colleagues.

Fact is, whether you like it or not or whether you ever accept it or not - people do. They always did, they always will. Not everybody did or does, but far too many do. As I repeatedly say, you can barely do a motorway journey in the uk now without coming across the aftermath of a motorist who decided to sit in the blindpsot of an lhd truck, and a great many/most trucks on the m'ways are lhd.

So now where do we go?

3. Exactly, the more mirrors, the more blindspot mirrors, the less the driver can see out of his cab. So again, now where do we go? That biker wasn't anywhere near a truck to begin with, but found himself in an hgv blindspot despite his machine being directly in front of the truck and going under a front wheel.

I say that just is not acceptable. I notice you haven't answered whether you think it's acceptable or not, nor what else the biker could have done. I think drivers should be able to see out of the vehicles they drive, and I think that's just common sense, but no doubt people will continue to argue that it's ok for vehicles to be used that the driver really struggles to see out of.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

1. I quoted your own words, no different questions at all.

2. It's really, really simple, watch out for big machinery, because they need huge space to manoeuvre, surely that can't be too difficult to understand, even without a sign or a voice telling you so?

3. The video about the biker getting his bike crushed, he must have been in the blind spot created by the huge mirrors, the mirrors needed to save others from getting in the blind spots. That is catch 22 right there.

1. I think you're tangling yourself up with your desire to beat a guy on the internet, but no doubt you'll disagree.

2. I totally agree, 100%, absolutely. Now, when I drove hgvs for some 30 years, I wish you could have said that to the *countless* car drivers who placed themselves in my blindspots and the blindpspots of my colleagues.

Fact is, whether you like it or not or whether you ever accept it or not - people do. They always did, they always will. Not everybody did or does, but far too many do. As I repeatedly say, you can barely do a motorway journey in the uk now without coming across the aftermath of a motorist who decided to sit in the blindpsot of an lhd truck, and a great many/most trucks on the m'ways are lhd.

So now where do we go?

3. Exactly, the more mirrors, the more blindspot mirrors, the less the driver can see out of his cab. So again, now where do we go? That biker wasn't anywhere near a truck to begin with, but found himself in an hgv blindspot despite his machine being directly in front of the truck and going under a front wheel.

I say that just is not acceptable. I notice you haven't answered whether you think it's acceptable or not, nor what else the biker could have done. I think drivers should be able to see out of the vehicles they drive, and I think that's just common sense, but no doubt people will continue to argue that it's ok for vehicles to be used that the driver really struggles to see out of.

1. Likewise.

2. Fully agree, and they are idiots too. The difference though, is that when a driver acts silly around a HGV, the chances are it ends in a dent or a visit to the hospital. Do the same on a bike and the risk is it ends in a visit to the hospital or a rest in the graveyard.

3. If people didn't act like idiots around HGVs, there would be no need for dozens of mirrors creating more blind spots. I think it's unacceptable that people act like idiots on the roads, no matter how many wheels you command over.


Now that we are getting somewhere in the discussion, what do you think we should do to stop people, especially on bicycles, acting silly around big vehicles? Tearing down cities and banning heavy equipment is not a viable option.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

2. I totally agree, 100%, absolutely. Now, when I drove hgvs for some 30 years, I wish you could have said that to the *countless* car drivers who placed themselves in my blindspots and the blindpspots of my colleagues.

Did you hit all of them? If not and you knew they placed themselves there, that's not really a blind spot incident, is it? Knowing someone or something is in a position you can't see is part of every day life. It's when you don't know that the problems begin.

Or do you mean countless times you had to swing the steering wheel the opposite way because you discovered someone sat beside you as you switched lanes?