Cycling UK Forum

bigphil wrote:I understand the both the cyclist and the bin lorry driver stopped at the lights. The bin lorry turned left and in doing so killed the cyclist.

£300 and a few points for careless driving, sadly, often seems to be the going rate.

Ziggy wrote:You're a cyclist proficiency trainer?

Yes certainly some car drivers have had licences for years. But seriously, how many people would pass their test say ten years after first passing. A relative few I would wager.

But they have road sense, or is it only newly qualified road users with road sense?

They know about the flow of traffic, which is the point you made. Unlike, it has to be said, newly qualified drivers.

Are you shifting the goal posts a little now?

Who's generalising? I've stated a fact. I said if you care to read it again, that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can get on a bike and ride into traffic.

I didn't say that any cyclist has the modicum of intelligence when going into traffic. Simple really.

What has vunrability got to do with their sense?

Well quite frankly, I wouldn't be alive today if I didn't have the sense to look out for the stupidity and impatience of drivers/truckers. I could list lots of personal examples, but that's purely anecdotal. But there are plenty of truckers over the years who have just charged into my path and bullied me off the road. I nearly run a construction worker over because one truck driver couldn't be bothered to wait the 100 yards or so in the narrow single lane caused by road works. He sped up behind be sounding his horn and I had a chioce of death or avoiding action through the cones. The laugh of it is I was actually speeding, cycling over the limit. By the time myself and the road worker had recovered the trailing cars obscured the number plate.

I suppose that's the cyclists fault too huh?

Easy to be a hard man when you have a weapon weighing several tons I suppose. Would a cyclist behave in such a way? Only one soon to be dead. Behind the wheel there are fewer personal consequences and idiocy has less personal risk. That's why your list is upside down.

As for prosecutions, of course it's true. Just look at the news once in a while, you'll see that if theres an accident involving a truck, then the finger is always pointed at the lorry driver first and if it is indeed his fault, he goes down. The same way when a child is knocked down, the driver always gets the blame until the facts come out. There was a family of six killed recently, just read up on that.

He's been charged. Lets see how much of the book hits him.

Recently there was the "prosecution" of a truck driver who was watching DVD's while driving. An act of pure stupidity that could have easily killed. He's still walking the streets. Not much of a book hit him. Read up on that.

And the case I mention further back in this thread, how did the truck driver get away with "she was in my blind spot" as a defence when the pictures clearly show him overtaking her and putting her there. She wasn't undertaking him.

The motorist (I know, not a trucker) who killed 4 cyclists in North Wales was driving a car with 3 defective tyres (shouldn't have been on the road at all) at speeds to fas for the icy conditions, or he wouldn't have lost control of his vehicle. And he got a wopping £300 fine. Don't mess with the judiciary man, they're a tough bunch of people.

There is little personal risk in killing a cyclist. Yeah, you might go down for a two or three years. Hardly a lifetime. Unlike the risk to a cyclist.

And if the cyclist is an idiot, it's their risk. When a truckers is an idiot, it's the cyclists/pedestrians/motorists/bikers risk.

So forgive me if I don;t worry too much about the "threat" of the cyclist in comparrsion to the real threat to innocent lives posed by truckers, and well all drivers of motorised vehicles (of which I'm one, I used to be a biker and I have driven a car for 21 years). That'd be like worrying about a boil on your backside after contracting the Ebola virus.

Gazza

With all the near misses you've had, ever though of taking up a new career in kamakazi airmanship?

I mean if that happened as much to less experienced riders, there would be deaths on the road by HGV's every day. Infact unlike car drivers, it's in comparison a rare occurance.

The guy watching DVD's may have walked away, but I'll tell you I bet he'll have an extremely hard time getting a job in the transport and logistics industry.

Yeah only two or three years. Tell me, how many years would you go down if you made a mistake at work?

If a cyclist is an idiot it's their risk. Are you serious, I mean really? I think everyone on the road would be better off if you gave up riding on the road altogether if you honestly believe that, because you're an idiot if you do.

What would happen if Mr big bad trucker had to swerve to avoid poor little innocent cyclist (because after all he's only a danger to himself) and wiped out a double decker bus? You really need to think out your argument before commiting it to the forum, it really is substandard.

Sure a 48t vehicle going at 52MPH is a threat, it's a lot of metal going at a high speed. But at the end of the day when you have no food in your cupboard, no beer at the local pub, no PC to post utter pointless arguments on the net with or even no electricty to run that PC, you'd be the first to complain

The simple fact of the matter is that we all need lorry drivers in their big bad lorries to deliver the goods we have. It may be an evil, but hell you can be sure it's a necessary evil.

I'll also point out that a truck driver is a hell of a lot more qualified to be on the road than the average cyclist.

Infact you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a truck driver, therefore you have no argument.

Ziggy wrote:With all the near misses you've had, ever though of taking up a new career in kamakazi airmanship?

I mean if that happened as much to less experienced riders, there would be deaths on the road by HGV's every day. Infact unlike car drivers, it's in comparison a rare occurance.

The guy watching DVD's may have walked away, but I'll tell you I bet he'll have an extremely hard time getting a job in the transport and logistics industry.

Poor devil.

Is that meant to be a deterrent, you'll have to get another job in another industry?

Yeah only two or three years. Tell me, how many years would you go down if you made a mistake at work?

Quite likely, none, but then if I write some dodgy code I'm not likely to kill anyone.

And I haven't been talking about mistakes, I've been taking about criminal negligence or wanton endangerment, if you read the examples I've quoted. It's hardly a mistake to deliberately drive at a cyclist, overtake one and forget they're there, or watch DVD'swhile driving.

Was that his defence, I watched DVD's by mistake, it was an accident?

If a cyclist is an idiot it's their risk. Are you serious, I mean really? I think everyone on the road would be better off if you gave up riding on the road altogether if you honestly believe that, because you're an idiot if you do.

Hmm, explain

What would happen if Mr big bad trucker had to swerve to avoid poor little innocent cyclist (because after all he's only a danger to himself) and wiped out a double decker bus? You really need to think out your argument before commiting it to the forum, it really is substandard.

This happens how often. Nice theory, lets see an example from real life.

Sure a 48t vehicle going at 52MPH is a threat, it's a lot of metal going at a high speed. But at the end of the day when you have no food in your cupboard, no beer at the local pub, no PC to post utter pointless arguments on the net with or even no electricty to run that PC, you'd be the first to complain

Now you're getting a bit hysterical. I haven't said ban trucks. I've asked for a serious deterrent to idiot driving.

It's not a lot to ask for drivers of all sorts to take their responsibilities seriously.

The simple fact of the matter is that we all need lorry drivers in their big bad lorries to deliver the goods we have. It may be an evil, but hell you can be sure it's a necessary evil.

As above, never said we don't need trucks. Stop making up the argument you wish I'd made.

I'll also point out that a truck driver is a hell of a lot more qualified to be on the road than the average cyclist.

And rightly so. A cyclist doesn't have the potential to kill as much a trucker does.

Infact you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a truck driver, therefore you have no argument.

You have to be fat and smell >;o)

So you have to be able to drive a truck to understand you shouldn't drive them at other road users or watch DVD's whilest driving them.

I've never taken heroin either, but I still no it's a bad idea. Get a grip of yourself mate.

Gazza

2Tubs wrote:

I'll also point out that a truck driver is a hell of a lot more qualified to be on the road than the average cyclist.

And rightly so. A cyclist doesn't have the potential to kill as much a trucker does.



Gazza

I would have to disagree with that statement, any road user has the same potential, you swerve out in front of a vehicle with your bike and they take evasive action that could end in as much mayhem and destruction as if you weren't involved, the big difference is you would not be accountable for your actions, and also even if fault was found to be yours there would be no insurance to claim against



With regard to trucks being dangerous to bikes, I would think that is stating the obvious, but thinking about the figures involved, I wonder how many trucks pass bikes without any danger against the percentage of those who cause danger? and I wonder how many bikes under take vehicles without causing danger to themselves compared to those who do as a percentage?
I am a bike riding truck driver, I am I have never intentionally put any other road user in danger, and would condemn anyone who did but I have seen lots of bad driving all over Europe as well as the UK, some by trucks, (tailgating, aggressive driving, cutting up other road users etc) lots by cars( same as trucks) motor cycles and quite a lot by push bike riders (the most vulnerable among us) mainly weaving in and out of slow moving traffic, colour blindness, pavement riding and undertaking.

In any congested City by far the most dangerous road user is the push bike, closely followed by the Motor cycle, I would guess the main reason for this is because all the cars and trucks are not moving much where as the small bikes are, i have lost count of the number of pedestrians I have seen get hit by push bikes (perhaps we should start a thread on that subject)

I agree that trucks can be a danger to bikes and some drivers (not just truck drivers) have a bad attitude to bikes on the road, it doesn't give them the right to cut you up or force you into the ditches.

If you want to single out trucks for your tv program you are doing yourselves a disservice because the only way to stop the problem between trucks and bikes would be to remove one set of vehicles off the road, and I think we all know which one that would be...

As an aside, I find it far safer to ride my bike in the UK than most of Europe excluding Germany Denmark and Holland where they are more bike aware, but then they keep the bikes off the roads for the most part with official bike lanes etc
The overall standard of all drivers in the UK is higher than most of the world IMHO

JaT wrote:In any congested City by far the most dangerous road user is the push bike, closely followed by the Motor cycle, I would guess the main reason for this is because all the cars and trucks are not moving much where as the small bikes are, i have lost count of the number of pedestrians I have seen get hit by push bikes (perhaps we should start a thread on that subject)

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

If it were true accident statistics would back it up and they don't. Even in the most congested cities the majority of people are killed and injured by cars.

Over the last five years 2 people have been killed whilst on pavements by cycles, in contrast whilst ON pavements 600 have been killed by motor vehicles.

JaT

Very clever argument, but absolutely riddled with flaws.
One is even quite comic.

"In the congested city the most dangerous road user is the push bike"

Wow does 100Kg going at 20mph really scare the hell out of truckies?
If so why dont they wait until they can overtake at a safe distance?

As we have said most truck drivers do drive responsibly in most situations.
How long would you stay behind a cyclist at 20mph before making a risky (not so risky to you) overtake?
Is the answer all day , they have every right to be there?
In reality it is less than 1 in a 100 that will wait until you reach a place to pull off the road out here.

There is no singleing out of trucks, car drivers get plenty of criticism.
However when a car cuts you up, you can hit, touch or lean on his wing, door or body. Also they tend to go past pretty quickly.
With a truck you have exposed tyres the size of the cyclist coming in churning to pulp anything that gets in their way.

"The most dangerous road user is the push bike"

"I wonder how many trucks pass bikes without any danger against the percentage who cause danger?"

What percentage is acceptable to you
95%
99%
99.9%
99.99%

Even at 99.99% you are talking a lot of deaths. (Cyclists not truck drivers, no need to panic)

I would like to aim at 100% and if this program can get to the dangerous .01% either directly or indirectly then it will be a good thing.

2Tubs wrote:
Poor devil.

Is that meant to be a deterrent, you'll have to get another job in another industry?

A deterrent on other drivers yes, because taking someones livelyhood away is believe it or not quite devastating
Also the law worked, he's no longer driving a truck. One less danger to other road users.

Quite likely, none, but then if I write some dodgy code I'm not likely to kill anyone.

Yes it is indeed easy to judge others when you're working in a nice safe enviroment.

And I haven't been talking about mistakes, I've been taking about criminal negligence or wanton endangerment, if you read the examples I've quoted. It's hardly a mistake to deliberately drive at a cyclist, overtake one and forget they're there, or watch DVD'swhile driving.

Was that his defence, I watched DVD's by mistake, it was an accident?

I've never given him a defence, I think dangerous driving is abhorrent only to be condemned.

Hmm, explain
This happens how often. Nice theory, lets see an example from real life.

Are you saying that cyclists don't have the potiental to cause accidents for other road users?

Now you're getting a bit hysterical. I haven't said ban trucks. I've asked for a serious deterrent to idiot driving.
It's not a lot to ask for drivers of all sorts to take their responsibilities seriously.

I totally agree. But a driver has the onus on him a lot more, the potiental to kill so easily is always in your mind when driving something so large. Much more so than in a car.

As above, never said we don't need trucks. Stop making up the argument you wish I'd made.

I never said you made that argument, I suggested that there was no alternative to having trucks on the road.

And rightly so. A cyclist doesn't have the potential to kill as much a trucker does.

Not the actual cycle no, but a cyclist has the potential to cause an accident which costs lives as much as any road user. My reason to think that cyclists should be governed more.

You have to be fat and smell >;o)

It's always nice to see someone resort to using insults because they know they've lost the argument.

So you have to be able to drive a truck to understand you shouldn't drive them at other road users or watch DVD's whilest driving them.

Like I said earlier, I refuse to defend bad road use whoever it is by.

I've never taken heroin either, but I still no it's a bad idea. Get a grip of yourself mate.
Gazza

So you're saying driving a truck is a bad idea. Well remember that when you're eating your breakfast tommorow, delivered by truck.

Is that when I make my porridge with Tesco milk trucked over from Poland. Or local Cheese that has been trucked to Cheshunt before coming back to Carmarthen Tesco.
Modern freighting practice is more about profit than the necesary transport of goods. Also transporting food is not a licence to kill, well at least it shouldnt be

Remember

They are delivering. The magic spell.

No one even suggested that it was a licence to kill. The vast majority of truckers do their job diligently with great skill and have never killed.
Can you say the same with cyclists, who aren't trained or licenced? Minus the killed part of course.

The killed part is the important part. Well to us it is.

You're saying that as if a lorry driver tries to kill a cyclist. I can assure you that it would be quite devastating to any driver to kill anyone. I've only ever heard one case where a lorry driver killing someone and taunting the lads father. Until that is the father blew off his head with a shotgun.

No I do not say that as if the truck driver wanted to kill the cyclist.
If they wanted to kill anyone they could easily drive right over them.

On the other hand you say that as if a driver can risk a cyclists life so long as they do not intend to kill them.

Here we have a different opinion of what it means to be on the road.
To you it is about qualifications, skill and experience, well those are only a requirement for you because of the enormous danger your vehicle presents to others.
Now we all know that the majority of truck drivers are very competent and dilligent about their driving.
I will type that again.
The majority of truck drivers are dilligent , competent and careful about their driving.
most of the time.