Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
nickfrog said:
Why would I do that ? I don't use PH as an outlet for my anger and frustration. Again, don't judge me by your own standards.
How can anyone get angry and frustrated by some text on a screen?I have been accused of all sorts and called various names on PH. I assume as an attempt to rile me. It never works. This entire thread is comedy central to me.
I do think it's a shame certain people can no longer talk about bad / dangerous riding without feeling the need to talk about numerous other bad things in the world, but it makes me laugh due to the desperation on show.
Because I'm happy...sing along...
TroubledSoul said:
Ares said:
But that isn't what I said. You're just bending it to fit your rhetoric.
In what way? You questioned whether someone thought the driver was in the wrong at all as a means of diverting the poster's attention from discussing what the cyclists were doing to the driver instead. At least that's how it came across.
I just asked if the poster thought the driver was in the wrong as well. No diversion. Only the loaded mind would read it thus.
FiF said:
Killboy said:
Drivers stopping in bike boxes should get 6 points on their license. Use CCTV to enforce.
The legal position on this has been covered before.If you have already crossed the first stop line when the lights change, but can stop before crossing the advance stop line, ie in the bike box, then it's an offence to carry on over the advance stop line. It's not an offence therefore to stop in the bike box. At busy junctions and in very slow moving traffic it's a common issue. Sorry to burst your bubble, it would need a significant change in the law.
Ares said:
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
5. It's not a big one.
Not to you, no. How many cyclists have been killed this year on London roads? It's probably a tiny amount compared to how many ride, no? So who cares about bad driving? Who cares about being cut up? Who cares about uninsured drivers? who cares if the odd driver stops in a cycle lane or the cycle box at a set of lights? Who cares about segregation?
They are all in a minority.
Perhaps that's the answer. Nobody should care about anything because none of it matters to most in the grand scheme of things.
Digby said:
Ares said:
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
5. It's not a big one.
Not to you, no. How many cyclists have been killed this year on London roads? It's probably a tiny amount compared to how many ride, no? So who cares about bad driving? Who cares about being cut up? Who cares about uninsured drivers? who cares if the odd driver stops in a cycle lane or the cycle box at a set of lights? Who cares about segregation?
They are all in a minority.
Perhaps that's the answer. Nobody should care about anything because none of it matters to most in the grand scheme of things.
Ares said:
Those ones people ride almost laying down are perfectly sensible too I suppose?
And to think the poor old Sinclair C5 got a slating..
Digby said:
Well then, there's really no need to go on about HGV and cycle deaths, is there? Why bother changing truck designs? Why bother altering roads and building lanes? Why bother with anything at all?
How many cyclists have been killed this year on London roads? It's probably a tiny amount compared to how many ride, no? So who cares about bad driving? Who cares about being cut up? Who cares about uninsured drivers? who cares if the odd driver stops in a cycle lane or the cycle box at a set of lights? Who cares about segregation?
They are all in a minority.
Perhaps that's the answer. Nobody should care about anything because none of it matters to most in the grand scheme of things.
No the big problems, the genuine problems, such as congestion, pollution, obesity, the pandemic of preventable illness connected to physical inactivity, etc, are greatly addressed by cycling.How many cyclists have been killed this year on London roads? It's probably a tiny amount compared to how many ride, no? So who cares about bad driving? Who cares about being cut up? Who cares about uninsured drivers? who cares if the odd driver stops in a cycle lane or the cycle box at a set of lights? Who cares about segregation?
They are all in a minority.
Perhaps that's the answer. Nobody should care about anything because none of it matters to most in the grand scheme of things.
So that's why roads and hgv design is going to be changed.
Digby said:
Ares said:
Those ones people ride almost laying down are perfectly sensible too I suppose?
And to think the poor old Sinclair C5 got a slating..
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.heebeegeetee said:
So that's why roads and hgv design is going to be changed.
It's going to be changed because idiots on bikes can't keep away from them. You said so yourself and said you were surprised cyclists still ride this way.So am I. That's why I am here. That's why I think the focus should also be on lawless and dangerous riding rather than simply making HGV drivers ride bikes when they are unlikely to ever use them in such environments.
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.
Perhaps drivers should start sitting in the middle of the road as a protest every time they narrowly avoid hitting one.
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?
Heebee has, probably a dozen or more times.Is he wrong do you think?
(He will dig out a certain clip of a truck hitting a motorbike to justify it, even though it's not really a problem in the grand scheme of things)
Digby said:
What? I keep reading that large vehicles with multiple mirrors, side protection, cameras, audible warnings, warning stickers and trained operatives are not fit for purpose, yet tiny little bikes on roads required to deliver goods are perfect?
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?
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?
Heebee has, probably a dozen or more times.Is he wrong do you think?
(He will dig out a certain clip of a truck hitting a motorbike to justify it, even though it's not really a problem in the grand scheme of things)
And the rest of my comments on fit/purpose?
Digby said:
That's why I think the focus should also be on lawless and dangerous riding rather than simply making HGV drivers ride bikes when they are unlikely to ever use them in such environments.
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.
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.
Greg66 said:
Digby said:
That's why I think the focus should also be on lawless and dangerous riding rather than simply making HGV drivers ride bikes when they are unlikely to ever use them in such environments.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff