# HGVs and cyclists



## simongt (2 Sep 2015)

With the recent coverage of HGVs and cyclists in London, it's time to play devil's advocate. I believe myself to be reasonably qualified to observe on the situation as over the last forty years, I've driven cars, vans large and small, 7.5tonne, 18 tonne and 32 tonne HGVs, all in urban and rural situations. And I've been cycling urban and rural for the last twenty plus years - !
The problem is very much a two way thing; HGVs are large with restricted vision compared with a car or bike. If an HGV driver can see a cyclist, he / she can react accordingly. But if a cyclist rides / hovers in a blind spot, then there is potential for trouble. Mirrors are fine, but with five plus mirrors to have to scan, an HGV driver can't be watching them all all of the time. Many of the HGV drivers I talk to on a daily basis complain about the number of road users who think an HGV is as easy to control as a car. The main issue appears to be when an HGV needs to turn left, it will often have to swing over to the right in order to negotiate the turn. Even when the HGV has clearly signalled its intention to turn left in good time, cars and cyclists will often whizz up on the left between HGV and kerb, then wonder why they get trashed. It's happened to me as an HGV driver and I've seen it many times on the road. Many HGVs now have a sign on the back stating 'Cyclists, beware of passing on the inside' - it's there for a reason.
Sorry if this sounds HGV bias, but surely it's common sense to stay behind an HGV if it's there before you and if one comes up beside you at lights etc., let it get away first. Those few seconds delay will probably save your life. Following those two basic rules, in twenty years, the GLW and I have never had any issues with HGVs.


----------



## xxDarkRiderxx (2 Sep 2015)

Great post @simongt. Good to see it from a HGV perspective.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> if one comes up beside you at lights etc., let it get away first



How about the lorry driver doesn't squeeze alongside the cyclist but stays back and lets the cyclist get away first?

GC


----------



## blazed (2 Sep 2015)

Wouldn't be surprised if most cyclist Injuries with lorries are the cyclists own fault, putting themselves in dangerous positions. A lot of cyclists have a cult like attitude and cannot see past their bias.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if most cyclist Injuries with lorries are the cyclists own fault, putting themselves in dangerous positions.



I think @glenn forger may have the stats that show that isn't the case.

GC


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Sep 2015)

When I hear about the number of HGV drivers killed by errant cyclists equalling the reverse, I'll be prepared to give HGV drivers an equal hearing. Meanwhile, I'll accept this - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-left-turns-to-make-roads-safer-10480717.html


----------



## simongt (2 Sep 2015)

Notice that the article specifically talks of 'construction lorries'. They are a separate breed. Mostly paid by the load, it is in their financial interests to get as many loads a shift as possible, regardless of the impact on ANY other road user. Most HGV drivers regard them as a lower order and the sooner our dear Government gets it's common sense brain into gear and outlaws this type of payment system, the better.


----------



## Crandoggler (2 Sep 2015)

I do admit, I often empathise with drivers of all vehicles. Cyclists can be the biggest of dicks on the road.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (2 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> How about the lorry driver doesn't squeeze alongside the cyclist but stays back and lets the cyclist get away first?
> 
> GC



Because if the HGV hasn't shown enough consideration to not go alongside. Hanging back is the best option to avoid being squashed.


----------



## sight-pin (2 Sep 2015)

This was also on the news yesterday if no one seen it yet.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...pdown-aimed-at-preventing-cycle-a2924376.html


----------



## summerdays (2 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> With the recent coverage of HGVs and cyclists in London, it's time to play devil's advocate. I believe myself to be reasonably qualified to observe on the situation as over the last forty years, I've driven cars, vans large and small, 7.5tonne, 18 tonne and 32 tonne HGVs, all in urban and rural situations. And I've been cycling urban and rural for the last twenty plus years - !
> The problem is very much a two way thing; HGVs are large with restricted vision compared with a car or bike. If an HGV driver can see a cyclist, he / she can react accordingly. But if a cyclist rides / hovers in a blind spot, then there is potential for trouble. Mirrors are fine, but with five plus mirrors to have to scan, an HGV driver can't be watching them all all of the time. Many of the HGV drivers I talk to on a daily basis complain about the number of road users who think an HGV is as easy to control as a car. The main issue appears to be when an HGV needs to turn left, it will often have to swing over to the right in order to negotiate the turn. Even when the HGV has clearly signalled its intention to turn left in good time, cars and cyclists will often whizz up on the left between HGV and kerb, then wonder why they get trashed. It's happened to me as an HGV driver and I've seen it many times on the road. Many HGVs now have a sign on the back stating 'Cyclists, beware of passing on the inside' - it's there for a reason.
> Sorry if this sounds HGV bias, but surely it's common sense to stay behind an HGV if it's there before you and if one comes up beside you at lights etc., let it get away first. Those few seconds delay will probably save your life. Following those two basic rules, in twenty years, the GLW and I have never had any issues with HGVs.


Done all that and still ended up in the lorry blind spot as he changed lanes into a *bus lane* where I was cycling. If they can't see clearly what are they doing sharing the roads with others?


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (2 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> ... if one comes up beside you at lights etc., let it get away first. Those few seconds delay will probably save your life.



Unless the driver hasn't seen you, turns across your path and drags you under his wheels. It's happened many times, as @glenn forger has detailed on here before.


----------



## Markymark (2 Sep 2015)

A cyclists is stopped at the lights in a bike lane. Do you stop behind the cyclust leaving a car's space in front of you?

Have you ever seen anyone leave a space in front in them?

I never have.

Huge numbers of cyclusts are put in this position and yet it's always the cyclists sneaking up that's the issue.

FFS


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 Sep 2015)

@simongt you were doing really well until the bit about if a HGV pulls up beside you at the lights.

I'm sure as many HGV drivers are as aware of their lethal potential as are cyclists.

Knowing and understanding this, how could they, with any sense of responsibility, wilfully place themselves into a position where they could conceivably kill or maim?

Are bikes expected to have the same type of sign on our back that says 'HGV drivers, stay back'?

We cyclists do have a responsibility for our own safety and the vast majority are well aware of that and how to accomplish it but in such a scenario as you mentioned, that responsibility has been for nothing and we are suddenly through no fault of our own at the mercy of a semi blind vehicle who's driver has decided that their journey is the one that requires everyone else to cede right of way.

It is why us annoying cyclists ride and park in the middle of the f@#&ing road, to save ourselves from having a hazardous situation forced upon us.

Safety cuts both ways and that particular statement of yours concerns me greatly.


----------



## Markymark (2 Sep 2015)

It's like when I oractise firing my machine gun in the park and people keep walking in my firing line. I even have a sign up saying people keep back. Do they? They really should take more responsibility.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> Notice that the article specifically talks of 'construction lorries'. They are a separate breed. Mostly paid by the load, it is in their financial interests to get as many loads a shift as possible, regardless of the impact on ANY other road user. Most HGV drivers regard them as a lower order and the sooner our dear Government gets it's common sense brain into gear and outlaws this type of payment system, the better.


Agreed, and I'll support any initiative that outlaws this payment system. So, we're not talking about HGVs taken together, we're talking about non-construction trucks? Are we talking about cyclists collectively then? Because I'll cycle as smart as I can yet still be one driver's error away from death.


----------



## Markymark (2 Sep 2015)

[QUOTE 3885337, member: 9609"]It isn't really a two way thing at all, a fully loaded 8 wheel tipper weighing in at 32 tonne is 500x heavier than a cyclist, when a collision occurs the cyclist very often dies. Yes cyclists can make mistakes and their road skills may not be as good as a professional driver, but should minor errors ever result in their death ? a warning sign on the back of a lorry should not give any driver immunity of responsibility.
And as for blind spots - don't drive into them - if you can't see the space where you are going, then don't drive into it.[/QUOTE]
Oh but bless it sounds really hard driving and not killing people. Give them a break?


----------



## Dan B (2 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Oh but bless it sounds really hard driving and not killing people. Give them a break?


Especially when you have all the vehicle maintenance to do on top of the actual driving

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lorry-driver-who-fell-asleep-4145435


----------



## Lonestar (2 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Especially when you have all the vehicle maintenance to do on top of the actual driving
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lorry-driver-who-fell-asleep-4145435



Plus texting and I've seen a some do that apart from driving like total loons in London and too fast.Must admit I don't like lorries at all.Southwark Bridge Northbound is particulary hazardous where they don't indicate in the left hand turn lane where they have the option to go left or right from there.Then again quite a few don't indicate in that lane anyway because they don't seem to be bothered.So it can be guesswork in which direction they are going.OTOH I do like buses and have no problems with them.


----------



## Drago (3 Sep 2015)

I've been riding horses for 40 years and therefore must have expertise on the subject, despite never having been retrained or assessed, gained any advanced qualifications, and fallen off every 3rd ride.


----------



## Simpleton (3 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> With the recent coverage of HGVs and cyclists in London, it's time to play devil's advocate. I believe myself to be reasonably qualified to observe on the situation as over the last forty years, I've driven cars, vans large and small, 7.5tonne, 18 tonne and 32 tonne HGVs, all in urban and rural situations. And I've been cycling urban and rural for the last twenty plus years - !
> The problem is very much a two way thing; HGVs are large with restricted vision compared with a car or bike. If an HGV driver can see a cyclist, he / she can react accordingly. But if a cyclist rides / hovers in a blind spot, then there is potential for trouble. Mirrors are fine, but with five plus mirrors to have to scan, an HGV driver can't be watching them all all of the time. Many of the HGV drivers I talk to on a daily basis complain about the number of road users who think an HGV is as easy to control as a car. The main issue appears to be when an HGV needs to turn left, it will often have to swing over to the right in order to negotiate the turn. Even when the HGV has clearly signalled its intention to turn left in good time, cars and cyclists will often whizz up on the left between HGV and kerb, then wonder why they get trashed. It's happened to me as an HGV driver and I've seen it many times on the road. Many HGVs now have a sign on the back stating 'Cyclists, beware of passing on the inside' - it's there for a reason.
> Sorry if this sounds HGV bias, but surely it's common sense to stay behind an HGV if it's there before you and if one comes up beside you at lights etc., let it get away first. Those few seconds delay will probably save your life. Following those two basic rules, in twenty years, the GLW and I have never had any issues with HGVs.



It's not very much a two way thing as one road user bears the greater danger and thus has a greater responsibility than the other.

I don't think it all difficult to look at the nearside mirrors whilst waiting at the lights, after all these are the ones most pertinemt to 'blind spots'. Which incidentally don't exist on a truck with a class IV mirror and whose mirrors have been set up correctly.

I've yet to see a cyclist 'whizz up' the inside of a left turning hgv.

The keep clear signs are a political move by the Tfl who lack the balls to rigidly enforce road safety with respect to hgv's. My own anecdotal observations are of some drivers who seem to forgo all responsibility when it comes to other road users - and don't get me started on the 'it is dangerous to walk close to this vehicle' stickers - which I've seen slapped on the side of Bedford vans. Not quite sure what made them so dangerous today, was the vehicle this dangerous yesterday? Should it even be on the road? As I said a political move.

Your comments are frightening regarding letting the truck go if they are behind you. People have died from lorries overtaking them and then turning left. Suggest you rethink that one.

Please don't victim blame and would suggest a retraction given the points that I've raised. Or at least acknowledge that you are ignorant when it comes to how some of the cyclists have died in London and the barmy situation currently going on between various cycling groups (who think they know what they want for cyclists but don't), the Tfl who lack the guts to enforce road safety within London instead opting to play the political game, and the FHA who don't come down on operators enough who work in grouppage, give the driver 15hrs of work to do in a 12hr day and then wonder why incidents happen in an industry that has one of the very tightest of profit margins


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

Let's be fair though, hgv drivers take safety really seriously. They do everything they can.

For example when the police in London did safety checks on 135 hgvs in London this year they were all fine. Oops, my bad. 95 were taken off the road for being dabgerous.

So, why not go to a fudging hgv forum and tell the majority of drivers who fiddle tacho meters, play with mobiles, druve drunk, druve without licenses, druve unsafe vehicles to get their fudging act together and maybe then cine tell cyclists what they shoukd do.

Drivers in 20 tonne killing machines who admit their lorries are not fit fir purpose as they cannit see due to blind spots let alone the illegally dangerous one found by the police as unsafe are a disgrace.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

The longer cyclists and lorry drivers keep bickering at each other, the longer the killing will go on.

I've been a cyclist for over 50 years and a lorry driver for over 30 years. I have never met a lorry driver who wants to go out and intentionally kill or hurt people but I have met plenty of cyclists who think it is their god given right to ride on that little bit of road, regardless of the consequences.

There should be a course which allows cyclists to travel in a cab with a lorry driver so they can see what goes on in a cab and what the driver sees. Not that any cyclists would sign up for the course because its not their responsibility, its the drivers.

Well my life is my responsibility and I know what the driver sees. I can't stop trucks coming near me, but I can keep away from them. That's 50% of the battle won.


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I have never met a lorry driver who wants to go out and intentionally kill or hurt people


Then how come 95 out of 135 lorries were taken off the road for being dangerous? Are lorry drivers inept or do they not really care about safety?


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Then how come 95 out of 135 lorries were taken off the road for being dangerous? Are lorry drivers inept or do they not really care about safety?



I have personally, never met a lorry driver who's vehicle has been taken off the road for being dangerous. Maybe I have just driven for the right outfits.


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I have personally, never met a lorry driver who's vehicle has been taken off the road for being dangerous. Maybe I have just driven for the right outfits.


You are in Denmark? I think it's probably better there. Here, drivibg an hgv dangerously is endemic. It's a fudging disgrace. So forgive me when I tell people who say it's 50:50 to do one as it simply is not.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

All my HGV/LGV driving was done in the UK. I drove for Tescos and Sainsburys along with a host of other companies. A quick look through Youtube will show some great examples how cyclists can be total dicks when it comes to riding near lorries or heavy vehicles.

I'm not saying lorry drivers are not to blame but cyclists can do a lot more to keep themselves safe. If there is a 30 ton lorry in front of me, I'm keeping away from it. That's my attitude. But other cyclists have the attitude "Why should I".

Everyone has a responsibility to look out for each other on the road, but cyclists need to look out for themselves first.


----------



## Mugshot (3 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Let's be fair though, hgv drivers take safety really seriously. They do everything they can.
> 
> For example when the police in London did safety checks on 135 hgvs in London this year they were all fine. Oops, my bad. 95 were taken off the road for being dabgerous.
> 
> ...


I like this, both for the content and for what may well be a world record amount of spelling mistakes is one post


----------



## Mugshot (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> The longer cyclists and lorry drivers keep bickering at each other, the longer the killing will go on.
> 
> I've been a cyclist for over 50 years and a lorry driver for over 30 years. I have never met a lorry driver who wants to go out and intentionally kill or hurt people but I have met plenty of cyclists who think it is their god given right to ride on that little bit of road, regardless of the consequences.
> 
> ...


I'll happily jump in the cab with a driver, so long as they agree to come for a 20 mile commute with me, not many lorry drivers I know would sign up for that.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I'll happily jump in the cab with a driver, so long as they agree to come for a 20 mile commute with me, not many lorry drivers I know would sign up for that.



You seem to have the idea that lorry drivers cannot ride a bike. I don't know where you get that idea from but many of my ex colleagues used to ride their bikes to work. You had better go and sign up.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> If there is a 30 ton lorry in front of me, I'm keeping away from it.


Agree, and if there's a bloke pushing a bathtub full of vodka while smoking a fag in front of me I'm keeping away from _that_ too. But that doesn't mean I don't want them taken off the road if they're physically/mechanically incapable of sharing it safely.


----------



## Mugshot (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> You seem to have the idea that lorry drivers cannot ride a bike. I don't know where you get that idea from but many of my ex colleagues used to ride their bikes to work. You had better go and sign up.


I have the idea that most don't even if they can. I'm assuming that you're not suggesting that all cyclists are unable to drive a lorry or have never sat in a cab?


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Agree, and if there's a bloke pushing a bathtub full of vodka while smoking a fag in front of me I'm keeping away from _that_ too. But that doesn't mean I don't want them taken off the road if they're physically/mechanically incapable of sharing it safely.



Sorry, I'm keeping away from it because its big and heavy and it obstructs my vision. It possibly is safe to be on the roads but I don't intend to inspect its air lines and brake linings. I don't know the figures for cycle related accidents and defective HGVs do you?


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I have the idea that most don't even if they can. I'm assuming that you're not suggesting that all cyclists are unable to drive a lorry or have never sat in a cab?



I'm not suggesting that because I'm a cyclist who can drive lorries, I have known lots of lorry drivers who ride bikes, but I would suggest that the majority of cyclists have not had the chance to get in a cab. Why would they if they don't work in the trucking business.


----------



## Mugshot (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I'm not suggesting that because I'm a cyclist who can drive lorries but I would suggest that the majority of cyclists have not had the chance to get in a cab. Why would they if they don't work in the trucking business.


And I'm suggesting that the overwhelming majority of truck drivers have no idea what it's like to have an artic pull up along side when you're waiting at lights or to have one go past too close with the cab and then start to cut back in before the trailer is halfway past, they may be able to ride a bike but I'm willing to bet most of them haven't since they were a teenager. I have no objection to the suggestion that cyclists should be given the opportunity to see things from a drivers perspective but the drivers should see things from the cyclists perspective too.


----------



## summerdays (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> If there is a 30 ton lorry in front of me, I'm keeping away from it. That's my attitude. But other cyclists have the attitude "Why should I".


What if it's behind you?


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I'm not suggesting that because I'm a cyclist who can drive lorries, I have known lots of lorry drivers who ride bikes, but I would suggest that the majority of cyclists have not had the chance to get in a cab. Why would they if they don't work in the trucking business.


In London the police do regular 'changing places' events where they invite cyclists to sit in the cab of a lorry and look around. It's very telling that the blind spots cover basically all of the cycle lane up the nearside and the ASL.


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I like this, both for the content and for what may well be a world record amount of spelling mistakes is one post


Irritation and iPhones don't mix!


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> In London the police do regular 'changing places' events where they invite cyclists to sit in the cab of a lorry and look around. It's very telling that the blind spots cover basically all of the cycle lane up the nearside and the ASL.


Change places?? Do the drivers sit on a bike when a lorry tears passed closely without caring??


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Mugshot said:


> And I'm suggesting that the overwhelming majority of truck drivers have no idea what it's like to have an artic pull up along side when you're waiting at lights or to have one go past too close with the cab and then start to cut back in before the trailer is halfway past, they may be able to ride a bike but I'm willing to bet most of them haven't since they were a teenager. I have no objection to the suggestion that cyclists should be given the opportunity to see things from a drivers perspective but the drivers should see things from the cyclists perspective too.



But what you are suggesting is nonsense. Lorry drivers use the same roads as you to get to work. Do you think they all drive their lorries home and park them in front of their houses. You have no idea how many lorry drivers ride to work or use a bike on a regular basis. Places I worked at when I was driving were full of bikes. They rode to work on the same roads and the same traffic conditions as you. If you are basing a discussion on the fact that lorry drivers don't know what it's like to ride a bike on a road like you do, I would have a rethink, because a lot of them do.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Sorry, I'm keeping away from it because its big and heavy and it obstructs my vision.


Other things that are big and obstruct my vision: high-sided vans, fences, buildings, trains. Other things that are heavy: every vehicle on the road with an engine. [*] If they were my reasons for keeping away from things I'd never get to work. 

[*] other things that ain't heavy: my brother


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Change places?? Do the drivers sit on a bike when a lorry tears passed closely without caring??



It seems you also have the idea that lorry drivers do not ride bikes on the same roads as yourself. Or maybe they wear a vis vest that reads "Lorry driver, keep clear" and of course all the lorry drivers see it and keep clear.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> It seems you also have the idea that lorry drivers do not ride bikes on the same roads as yourself. Or maybe they wear a vis vest that reads "Lorry driver, keep clear" and of course all the lorry drivers see it and keep clear.



Dan, your being pedantic about the big, heavy vehicles. You know what we are talking about.


----------



## summerdays (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> It seems you also have the idea that lorry drivers do not ride bikes on the same roads as yourself. Or maybe they wear a vis vest that reads "Lorry driver, keep clear" and of course all the lorry drivers see it and keep clear.


Maybe if they did, they would allow greater space when passing us and think if they need to pass us just to turn left?


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> But what you are suggesting is nonsense. Lorry drivers use the same roads as you to get to work. Do you think they all drive their lorries home and park them in front of their houses. You have no idea how many lorry drivers ride to work or use a bike on a regular basis. Places I worked at when I was driving were full of bikes. They rode to work on the same roads and the same traffic conditions as you. If you are basing a discussion on the fact that lorry drivers don't know what it's like to ride a bike on a road like you do, I would have a rethink, because a lot of them do.


In fairness, taxi drivers have all had extensive experience of riding round London on small mopeds and it doesn't stop many of them from turning into complete daffodils when they get their shiny black mini-hearses, so I doubt that experience of cycling is actually sufficient in all cases to inculcate empathy towards cyclists.


----------



## Mugshot (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> But what you are suggesting is nonsense. Lorry drivers use the same roads as you to get to work. Do you think they all drive their lorries home and park them in front of their houses. You have no idea how many lorry drivers ride to work or use a bike on a regular basis. Places I worked at when I was driving were full of bikes. They rode to work on the same roads and the same traffic conditions as you. If you are basing a discussion on the fact that lorry drivers don't know what it's like to ride a bike on a road like you do, I would have a rethink, because a lot of them do.


So you're suggesting that lots and lots of lorry drivers ride bikes? I'm beginning to see some flaws in your argument here.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> Maybe if they did, they would allow greater space when passing us and think if they need to pass us just to turn left?



But some do. Is there some myth in here that lorry drivers don't ride bikes or do people just refuse to accept that?


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> It seems you also have the idea that lorry drivers do not ride bikes on the same roads as yourself. Or maybe they wear a vis vest that reads "Lorry driver, keep clear" and of course all the lorry drivers see it and keep clear.


Of course some do. SOme also drive safely and courteously. However when over 70% are taken off the road in a police crackdown, it is clear that the % of who is the small minority. This needs to be addressed. And given the danger they pose, with urgency and rigor.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Dan, your being pedantic about the big, heavy vehicles. You know what we are talking about.


We're talking about vehicles that account for 5% of all traffic in London yet are involved in half of all cyclist deaths, and whose operators find it necessary to paste warning stickers all over them saying "do not approach this vehicle". To maintain that they're perfectly safe provided that you don't go near them is pretty much equivalent to saying that hungry killer whales are perfectly safe provided that you don't get in the water.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Mugshot said:


> So you're suggesting that lots and lots of lorry drivers ride bikes? I'm beginning to see some flaws in your argument here.



I used to work for sainsburys at their distribution depot at Haydock. Lots of the drivers came to work by bike. The bike sheds were packed. This was a regular thing at a lot of the depots, the same for tescos. I've known quite a few long distance drivers, including myself, take their bikes on trips with them. That is just my experience. You may have more experience than me about lorry drivers and bikes. But my hunch is that you have no idea and are just guessing. How can you possibly know how many truck drivers ride bikes.

I'm not all for truck drivers but I am against total drivel if its being used to put a case across.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> We're talking about vehicles that account for 5% of all traffic in London yet are involved in half of all cyclist deaths, and whose operators find it necessary to paste warning stickers all over them saying "do not approach this vehicle". To maintain that they're perfectly safe provided that you don't go near them is pretty much equivalent to saying that hungry killer whales are perfectly safe provided that you don't get in the water.



I've never seen stats about fatalities in London but would be interested to see what percentage is attributed to the lorry drivers themselves. 

But surely hungry killer whales are safe if you don't get in the water with them.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Sep 2015)

My 2p worth. I would rather be alive and lose a couple of seconds by not filtering up the left alongside an HGV, than be under his wheels and dead. I count myself as one of the riskier riders on the road in traffic, I will filter and probably do it too quickly, but I won't try and pass any vehicle on the left at a set of lights or a give way. This is the same as if I were driving, I would use my brakes if an oncoming vehicle was overtaking another and I thought they were not going to make it in time. It is just simple self preservation.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> My 2p worth. I would rather be alive and lose a couple of seconds by not filtering up the left alongside an HGV, than be under his wheels and dead. I count myself as one of the riskier riders on the road in traffic, I will filter and probably do it too quickly, but I won't try and pass any vehicle on the left at a set of lights or a give way. This is the same as if I were driving, I would use my brakes if an oncoming vehicle was overtaking another and I thought they were not going to make it in time. It is just simple self preservation.



And that is my point exactly. Look after yourselves and don't depend on other people to do it for you.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> But surely hungry killer whales are safe if you don't get in the water with them.


And bare mains electrical wires poking out of your house walls are safe ... if you don't touch them.


----------



## summerdays (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> But some do. Is there some myth in here that lorry drivers don't ride bikes or do people just refuse to accept that?


Of course some lorry drivers ride bikes just as some drivers, but I suspect less than half are regular cyclists. For me it's not about whether they are cyclists or not, its about the fact that they drive vehicles with enormous blind spots, and that certain sectors are paid by the load. Of course there are good lorry drivers but surely they would like cabs that were designed to see better around them.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> And bare mains electrical wires poking out of your house walls are safe ... if you don't touch them.



They are indeed......if you stay away from them :0)


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> Of course some lorry drivers ride bikes just as some drivers, but I suspect less than half are regular cyclists. For me it's not about whether they are cyclists or not, its about the fact that they drive vehicles with enormous blind spots, and that certain sectors are paid by the load. Of course there are good lorry drivers but surely they would like cabs that were designed to see better around them.



Those cabs and add ons are already developed and are being put in place by some companies. It is up to the government to have the guts to force all trucks to have them.


----------



## Lonestar (3 Sep 2015)

I've been in the cab of one recently.I took the effort when riding home from work and plod had one set up at Stratford a few months back.Even did an interview but I dread to think what that was like.This was all after a days work so I couldn't have been in that much of a hurry to get home without looking around a lorry and seeing the blind spots of which I could appreciate anyway.


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> And that is my point exactly. Look after yourselves and don't depend on other people to do it for you.


I never undertake lorries. I find myself on their left often due to their drivibg. I minimise by holding primary. Many cyclists are less assertve. Do not assume being on the left is the cyclust' fault. I'd bet my wife's car it is mainly because of the lorry.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Places I worked at when I was driving were full of bikes. They rode to work on the same roads and the same traffic conditions as you. If you are basing a discussion on the fact that lorry drivers don't know what it's like to ride a bike on a road like you do, I would have a rethink, because a lot of them do.



That may well be true but there are enough of them out there who don't to make it a lottery whether you encounter a safe one. Leaving aside an individual's ability to drive one of them with consideration for others, they are simply dangerous by design. Like you, I keep my distance from them where possible but sometimes I'm not given the choice and that's when I find it unreasonable to be part of a lottery that is so heavily stacked against me.

GC


----------



## Markymark (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I've never seen stats about fatalities in London but would be interested to see what percentage is attributed to the lorry drivers themselves.


Difficulty with that is the courts often don't cinvict. Sun was in my eyes, killed cyclist. Not guilty. No blame for the driver. I blame the driver though the stats won't show it. 
Lorry killed pedestrian on zebra crossing as didnt check the mirror when pulling away which was too dirty to see in anyway. Not guilty. I blame the driver.


----------



## Lonestar (3 Sep 2015)

You can only keep away from lorries to a certain extent.I encountered a foreign left hand steering lorry a few days back after coming out of Lombard Street through Fenchurch Street direction.Massive thing with a trailer the same size.All the way up the Mile End road but it was so fast it lost me.Also a mistake I made with a lorry a few years back was overtaking on the right when the steering wheel was on the left,so I always look out for this little factor now.Plus the registration plates may be a little hint also.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Sep 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Because if the HGV hasn't shown enough consideration to not go alongside. Hanging back is the best option to avoid being squashed.




It was a suggestion rather than a question.

GC


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

There is no doubt that the design of them are awful. But big steps are being taken to improve that. There are cameras, motion detectors, bells, buzzers, warning voice recordings, side barriers.

But the EEC need to make these things compulsory on all lorries.


----------



## Lonestar (3 Sep 2015)

TBH I don't expect lorries to look out for me so how I treat dealing with lorries as my responsibility.Buses can be a bit temperamental sometimes but are easier to deal with.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Sep 2015)

At least we don't have these farking monsters to deal with. This is the one that hit and killed 22-year-old Danish cyclist Rebekka Meyer in September, 2014 as she waited to turn right on a Brisbane street. It has a 7 metre blind spot in front. Seven metres!








I really pity Australian cyclists.

GC


----------



## Origamist (3 Sep 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> My 2p worth. I would rather be alive and lose a couple of seconds by not filtering up the left alongside an HGV, than be under his wheels and dead. I count myself as one of the riskier riders on the road in traffic, I will filter and probably do it too quickly, but I won't try and pass any vehicle on the left at a set of lights or a give way. This is the same as if I were driving, I would use my brakes if an oncoming vehicle was overtaking another and I thought they were not going to make it in time. It is just simple self preservation.



It's worth remembering though, that the* majority *of cyclists who are killed by HGVs were *not *of the lefthook/undertaking type. It is the most common type of fatality involving cyclists/HGVs (London in particular), but if you read many cycling fora there is the perception that this is how the vast majority of cyclists are killed - rather than the grim reality that a significant number of cyclists are run over when going straight ahead. There is rather less you can do to avoid this collision type.


----------



## jayonabike (3 Sep 2015)

Mugshot said:


> So you're suggesting that lots and lots of lorry drivers ride bikes? I'm beginning to see some flaws in your argument here.


I do, so does my mate, and another mate, and another. We all ride bikes to work and also for leisure. I have 2 other mates that cycle to work but don't cycle for leisure, just use it for a means to get to work. The bike shed at work is always full. So yes plenty of lorry drivers are cyclists.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> At least we don't have these farking monsters to deal with. This is the one that hit and killed 22-year-old Danish cyclist Rebekka Meyer in September, 2014 as she waited to turn right on a Brisbane street. It has a 7 metre blind spot in front. Seven metres!
> 
> 
> View attachment 102454
> ...



It's an interesting case you picked up on. A cyclist and a massive, massive truck. But it is not as clear cut as you would imagine. Witnesses said her foot slipped off the pedals and she fell in front of the truck. I do not know the final outcome of the inquest. But that is why we shouldn't second guess inquests, as quite often happens on here.

But a 7 foot blind spot is ridiculous.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> It's an interesting case you picked up on. A cyclist and a massive, massive truck. But it is not as clear cut as you would imagine. Witnesses said her foot slipped off the pedals and she fell in front of the truck. I do not know the final outcome of the inquest. But that is why we shouldn't second guess inquests, as quite often happens on here.
> 
> But a 7 foot blind spot is ridiculous.


_Some_ witnesses said her foot slipped off the pedal. Be that as it may, is it a reason to drive over her?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> It's an interesting case you picked up on. A cyclist and a massive, massive truck. But it is not as clear cut as you would imagine. Witnesses said her foot slipped off the pedals and she fell in front of the truck. I do not know the final outcome of the inquest. But that is why we shouldn't second guess inquests, as quite often happens on here.
> 
> But a 7 foot blind spot is ridiculous.



I know, I read the articles. It was the ridiculously dangerous design I wanted to highlight, not the who did what in the crash. I don't want this thread to get side-tracked onto examining a foreign RTC.

GC


----------



## Mugshot (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I used to work for sainsburys at their distribution depot at Haydock. Lots of the drivers came to work by bike. The bike sheds were packed. This was a regular thing at a lot of the depots, the same for tescos. I've known quite a few long distance drivers, including myself, take their bikes on trips with them. That is just my experience. You may have more experience than me about lorry drivers and bikes. But my hunch is that you have no idea and are just guessing. How can you possibly know how many truck drivers ride bikes.
> 
> I'm not all for truck drivers but I am against total drivel if its being used to put a case across.


I have not suggested that no lorry drivers ride bikes, however, as far as I am concerned there is a disparity here when cyclists are invited to sit in the cab of a lorry to see how dangerous it is if we aren't also asking HGV drivers to sit on a bicycle while a nice big truck steams past them. It is quite possible that the HGV drivers that ride regularly are courteous, careful road users, it is also quite possible that many that don't ride bikes are careful and courteous too, but that does nothing to change the fact that lorries are, as you have said yourself, dangerous by design. Now we can bump our gums about legislation not being enforced or introduced but until such time as it is rather than only having a scheme which tells cyclists to stay away from lorries perhaps we should have one which shows things from our perspective. The education by demonstration needs to work both ways.


----------



## Lonestar (3 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> At least we don't have these farking monsters to deal with. This is the one that hit and killed 22-year-old Danish cyclist Rebekka Meyer in September, 2014 as she waited to turn right on a Brisbane street. It has a 7 metre blind spot in front. Seven metres!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree,make our lorries look like toys.






I remember these little beauties when I cycled in Thailand and some right loonies driving them..


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> There is no doubt that the design of them are awful. But big steps are being taken to improve that. There are cameras, motion detectors, bells, buzzers, warning voice recordings, side barriers.
> 
> But the EEC need to make these things compulsory on all lorries.


Perhaps they could also make it illegal to use your phone while driving one? https://www.flickr.com/photos/didbygraham/15467058120/sizes/k/


----------



## gbb (3 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if most cyclist Injuries with lorries are the cyclists own fault, putting themselves in dangerous positions. A lot of cyclists have a cult like attitude and cannot see past their bias.


 


Crandoggler said:


> I do admit, I often empathise with drivers of all vehicles. Cyclists can be the biggest of dicks on the road.


 
Recounted this some time ago but its worth repeating for this subject...
My son who's never driven and rarely cycled on the road proper got himself a scooter last year. Within a couple weeks he came home and told me he'd nearly got squashed by a lorry....'where' i asked...at some TLs he said....the lorry came right across him turning left.
I asked my son...was the lorry stopped, did you scoot down beside him ?....yes was the innocent answer.
I told him of the dangers....lorry can't see you, it looks like there's plenty space etc etc.
His reaction ?.......'i just never realised' 
As said, he's never driven, he just wasnt aware of the dangers, didn't even occur to him....perhaps in his case the CBT should have included a bit on this in his test (perhaps they do and he missed it)

Dicks on the road..yes, but some are innocently oblivious to the dangers until they see it themselves and hopefully get away with it. Some poor souls pay the price first time round perhaps.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Sep 2015)

She fell in front of a moving truck. It was an accident. What do you mean "


Dan B said:


> Perhaps they could also make it illegal to use your phone while driving one? https://www.flickr.com/photos/didbygraham/15467058120/sizes/k/



I cannot see what the driver is doing.

But I also see cyclists using phones and even riding without hands. Shouldn't we concentrate putting our own house in order first?

Its really hard to call the kettle black under any circumstances.

Or both

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/58...g-no-hands-bike-riding-through-central-London


----------



## snorri (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Shouldn't we concentrate putting our own house in order first?




How would you propose we start?


----------



## Profpointy (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> She fell in front of a moving truck. It was an accident. What do you mean "
> 
> 
> I cannot see what the driver is doing.
> ...



umm so "we put our own house in order" before we address safety in driving. Number killed by cyclists - zero, number killed by motor vehicles - thousands. But let's fix the zero killed problem first eh!


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Sep 2015)

Lonestar said:


> I agree,make our lorries look like toys.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that all you have got?


----------



## glenn forger (3 Sep 2015)

A cyclist using a phone may cause a bruise. The total number of injuries caused by a cyclist using a phone stands at a big fat zero so it's hard to say how dangerous it would be cos it's never been recorded. So, do we concentrate on the vehicles that are doing the actual killing or the safest vehicle least likely to hurt anyone, Mmmm, it's a toughie.


----------



## Simpleton (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> And that is my point exactly. *Look after yourselves and don't depend on other people to do it for you*.



This is a given, no cyclist looks to come into conflict with other road users. And whilst I don't depend on other people to look out for me, I do expect large vehicles to be driven in a manner befitting of a professional driver. Which means the vehicle being road worthy and mirrors set up correctly, the driver paying attention when out on the road and not blaming the cyclist when a near miss occurs.

I recall watching one of the Lewis's (Sonsofthewinds) videos where he came across a collision which had just occurred, the nearside rear axle of a left turning class II vehicle had gone over a cyclists front wheel. The front wheel as you could imagine was folded in half, and the cyclist was lucky to have no injuries other then a mangled bike. Now I'm sure you are aware (through your extensive HGV experience) that there are no 'blind spots' in the area where the collision occurred. This collision was purely down to driver error in not checking their mirrors when performing a left turn. Now, was the driver contrite? Did he check if the cyclist was ok? Nope, he bleated on about how he had a sticker on the back of his vehicle that said 'Cyclist stay back' so therefore the cyclist was automatically in the wrong.

But, I don't just blame the driver in this video, the manner in which he drove at this particular point in time was a by product of an industry taxed to the hilt which makes it very hard to turn a profit, and a Government to weak to tackle a whole industry because over time (given other external factors) has evolved to make it so the very infrastructure of this country is based on the road network and freight being moved by trucks.

That being said the Tfl/Government could do way more to enforce safer driving in London, presumed liability would be a good start.

Certainly not saying that you should just 'look after yourselves' and give trucks plenty of room, this does not address the issue at all.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It was a suggestion rather than a question.
> 
> GC


So, the cyclist, knowingly in danger. Should just stay there, because of "their rights", instead of avoiding being squashed?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Sep 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So, the cyclist, knowingly in danger. Should just stay there, because of "their rights", instead of avoiding being squashed?



The lorry driver, knowing he'd be putting the cyclist in danger, should hang back.

GC


----------



## subaqua (3 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> Notice that the article specifically talks of 'construction lorries'. They are a separate breed. Mostly paid by the load, it is in their financial interests to get as many loads a shift as possible, regardless of the impact on ANY other road user. Most HGV drivers regard them as a lower order and the sooner our dear Government gets it's common sense brain into gear and outlaws this type of payment system, the better.


I think it should be deemed tipper / muck away rather than construction.

the multi drop courier who delivered a PLC card to me today on site could technically be a construction lorry as it delivered to a construction site . it might be the only construction site he goes to all day . ( it was going to be , I asked out of curiosity , today being cycle to work day.) Guy was really nice and cycles 25 miles to his depot every day , which I would never have found out if the standard hadn't published the "Ban on lorries left turn " headline. he thinks its a damn stupid suggestion .

I think it could work , but is going to be a nightmare to police/enforce/administer.

the glass doors however are agreat idea and I have seen them on several vehicles in London already . NOT tippers though.


----------



## classic33 (3 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> The longer cyclists and lorry drivers keep bickering at each other, the longer the killing will go on.
> 
> I've been a cyclist for over 50 years and a lorry driver for over 30 years. I have never met a lorry driver who wants to go out and intentionally kill or hurt people but I have met plenty of cyclists who think it is their god given right to ride on that little bit of road, regardless of the consequences.
> 
> ...


Tried the opposite approach on here & trucknet.
That was to try and get a HGV driver to cycle with a cyclist, on their daily commute, and see the roads from the cyclists point of view. Not a single volunteer.


----------



## simongt (3 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> At least we don't have these farking monsters to deal with. This is the one that hit and killed 22-year-old Danish cyclist Rebekka Meyer in September, 2014 as she waited to turn right on a Brisbane street. It has a 7 metre blind spot in front. Seven metres!
> 
> 
> View attachment 102454
> ...


 So at least be thankful that the vast majority of HGVs in the UK are what is known as 'forward control' where the engine is under the cab and not sticking several metres out in front giving the driver's an even worse forward blind spot.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> So at least be thankful that the vast majority of HGVs in the UK are what is known as 'forward control' where the engine is under the cab and not sticking several metres out in front giving the driver's an even worse forward blind spot.



Don't you think that's the point I was making?

GC


----------



## glenn forger (3 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> the manner in which he drove at this particular point in time was a by product of an industry taxed to the hilt .



Road freight enjoys gigantic subsidies. HGVs are parasites on the roads, they pay virtually nothing toward the damage they cause. You have truckers on twitter boasting about hurting cyclists, you hve rampant anti-cyclist sentiment on trucknet, including "jokes" about killing us and the industry as a whole has the worst criminality rate among road users. The lorry drivers who killed Ms Patel and Mr Neve had between them been banned from driving 25 (twenty five) times. Both got jobs driving 30 ton lorries in the capital. Two cyclists, neither doing anything wrong, killed by men who should never have been allowed behind the wheel. How many more lorry drivers like that are out there? Count how many HGVs overtake you and remember every eighth one is on the road illegally.


----------



## classic33 (4 Sep 2015)

Hasn't Boris jumped the gun in London, trying to steal the thunder?

Question
You're approaching a cross roads, marked lanes, with the intention of turning right. Your required lane is slightly shorter, to allow HGV's to make the turn. Where do you place yourself?

Vehicles in the left hand lane may be using the extra room afforded to them to make a right hand turn. Those in the right hand, likewise, but going left.


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (4 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> All my HGV/LGV driving was done in the UK. I drove for Tescos and Sainsburys along with a host of other companies. A quick look through Youtube will show some great examples how cyclists can be total dicks when it comes to riding near lorries or heavy vehicles.
> 
> I'm not saying lorry drivers are not to blame but cyclists can do a lot more to keep themselves safe. If there is a 30 ton lorry in front of me, I'm keeping away from it. That's my attitude. But other cyclists have the attitude "Why should I".
> 
> Everyone has a responsibility to look out for each other on the road, but cyclists need to look out for themselves first.



Well sort of agree with you on some of your posts, but that is just daft ok stay away from a 40 tonne truck they are dangerous what about a 7.5 tonne truck? or a 3.5 truck? or a 1/2 tonne car? they can be dangerous too so if I stay away from all things dangerous am I ever going to move on my bike ??? why do people who drive over take me with 30 meters to spare then have to brake so fast they end up in the ASL or they pull over so far you can't go up the inside to get to the ASL? police do not enforce crimes against cyclist so yes cyclist get angry and say this is our spot I've a right to be in it which they have.


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (4 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I used to work for sainsburys at their distribution depot at Haydock. Lots of the drivers came to work by bike. The bike sheds were packed. This was a regular thing at a lot of the depots, the same for tescos. I've known quite a few long distance drivers, including myself, take their bikes on trips with them. That is just my experience. You may have more experience than me about lorry drivers and bikes. But my hunch is that you have no idea and are just guessing. How can you possibly know how many truck drivers ride bikes.
> 
> I'm not all for truck drivers but I am against total drivel if its being used to put a case across.


sure they were the lorry drivers and not the warehouse personnel ????


----------



## Lonestar (4 Sep 2015)

Obviously none with all the drivel and the "I hate cyclists" threads I see on other forums or in the media/Metro.Quoted all the same crap about cyclists for the last ten plus years + and the constant wind ups from motorists in the messroom which has now come to a situation now where I just ignore and don't engage.The RLJers who are also motorists but go out of their way with the WUMs (online) and wherever when in motorists mode.Lycra louts,road tax,Mamils etc etc etc,stirred up by the media so the idiot public fall for it.

RANT OVER.


----------



## Globalti (4 Sep 2015)

It's interesting that when we cycle in the Yorkshire Dales, the vehicles we fear most are the quarry trucks. These are the four-axle tippers, which shuttle back and forth to the limestone quarries all day. Presumably their drivers are paid by the load and familiar with the routes and I guess they must handle pretty well empty, with their stiff suspension and all those wheels and a high viewpoint from the cab because they are always driven fast and will blast past you frighteningly fast and close.

These seem to be the type of vehicle that is mostly responsible for the deaths of cyclists who don't understand the dangers. As others have written above, the drivers are probably not of the same calibre as long-distance HGV drivers who have a whole lot of other challenges to tackle in their daily routine.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The lorry driver, knowing he'd be putting the cyclist in danger, should hang back.
> 
> GC



Of course, and I'm not suggesting he shouldn't. But it's not reality.

I'm not talking of fantasist scenarios, when that lorry comes to the side of you, the best thing to do is hang bag and let it go. After all, if they're so incosiderate that they have squeezed next to you, why trust them with your safety? I'm not in anyway suggesting that the lorry is "correct", merely that if you're in that situation that you have an ability to keep yourself safe.

I don't cycle in heavily populated areas, but at a junction with a left turn and a straight on, why are so many people seemingly positioned next to the curb to go straight on? Is it just me that will take primary at a junction like this to go straight?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Road freight enjoys gigantic subsidies. HGVs are parasites on the roads, they pay virtually nothing toward the damage they cause. You have truckers on twitter boasting about hurting cyclists, you hve rampant anti-cyclist sentiment on trucknet, including "jokes" about killing us and the industry as a whole has the worst criminality rate among road users. The lorry drivers who killed Ms Patel and Mr Neve had between them been banned from driving 25 (twenty five) times. Both got jobs driving 30 ton lorries in the capital. Two cyclists, neither doing anything wrong, killed by men who should never have been allowed behind the wheel. How many more lorry drivers like that are out there? Count how many HGVs overtake you and remember every eighth one is on the road illegally.



Absolutely, the issue is that legislating safety features into HGVs will not fix this issue. There needs to be a change to the system. If the HGV was as dangerous of a vehicle, as many suggest, we would be seeing far more incidents. In fact, it seems the fault is primarily with poor drivers.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Sep 2015)

BEHMOTH66 said:


> say this is our spot I've a right to be in it which they have.


Of course they have a right to be there.

But I would rather ensure my safety and give the HGV room, rightly or wrongly, than put myself in danger to prove a point.


----------



## Markymark (4 Sep 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Of course they have a right to be there.
> 
> But I would rather ensure my safety and give the HGV room, rightly or wrongly, than put myself in danger to prove a point.


Neither would I. Nor anyone who asks me. But it shouldn't be punishable by death.


----------



## SpaceGhost (4 Sep 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Absolutely, the issue is that legislating safety features into HGVs will not fix this issue. There needs to be a change to the system. If the HGV was as dangerous of a vehicle, as many suggest, we would be seeing far more incidents. In fact, it seems the fault is primarily with poor drivers.



I note the Mayor's Office is trying to introduce prescribed routes with fewer left turns. I'm not sure how feasible that is given the increasing number large construction projects in London. HGVs are already limited as to when they can enter London an unpopular compromise could be prescribed routes which bans cyclists or HGVs from high risk junctions depending on the use cases. 

Sadly given the finite space on London's roads I doubt they'll ever find a workable solution but hopefully the increased publicity around the problem will make both drivers and cyclists much more careful of each other.


----------



## Chris_Kn (4 Sep 2015)

So with changes to HGV design and being routed to be safer and longer in distance and time. Who is going to pay for all this??


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> So with changes to HGV design and being routed to be safer and longer in distance and time. Who is going to pay for all this??


You and me. Do you think it's a bad thing to spend money to make cycling safer?


----------



## Dan B (4 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> So with changes to HGV design and being routed to be safer and longer in distance and time. Who is going to pay for all this??


People who are not dead


----------



## classic33 (4 Sep 2015)

SpaceGhost said:


> I note the Mayor's Office is trying to introduce prescribed routes with fewer left turns. I'm not sure how feasible that is given the increasing number large construction projects in London. HGVs are already limited as to when they can enter London an unpopular compromise could be prescribed routes which bans cyclists or HGVs from high risk junctions depending on the use cases.
> 
> Sadly given the finite space on London's roads I doubt they'll ever find a workable solution but hopefully the increased publicity around the problem will make both drivers and cyclists much more careful of each other.


Thought Boris had banned trucks from parts of London, at certain times, effective from the 1st of this month.


----------



## Lonestar (5 Sep 2015)

Ironically I came up against a large left turning lorry near the Bow flyover yesterday and as soon as he threw it to the right first I knew what he was doing but he was looking out well.Guess he had to look out for cars coming up the inside as well.Not a problem because I was aware but good of him to look anyway.

I can appreciate the terrible blindspots they have.Glad I don't have to drive one.Must be a nightmare at times and a good lorry driver is very skilled.


----------



## Chris_Kn (5 Sep 2015)

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
Or you just nip down the inside and clip a wing mirror/scratch down the side of a car because you weren't really paying any attention due to all the gizmos being used.
Or the pram you just hit because you are on the phone or resetting garmin or Mp3 player. Add to that the nervous newcomer commuter and it's a recipe for disaster.
Nothing ever seems to get said about this side of the argument re road safety. Nothing gets said and reported because really nothing serious happened, 
I hope no ones luck runs out. 

So, yes I've had cars scratched, wing mirrors bent the wrong way. Cyclists leaning on the near-side side rails of the lorry I've been driving, guess it saved unclipping.
Seen grannies nearly get knocked over, mothers having to take that quick step back as the cyclist with the knee stuck out nearly KO's her toddler.

Cyclists are very vulnerable road uses but there is a lot they can do to help them selves just by being more aware of people/things around them. 
Accidents will always happen though.

As for spending money to make cycling safer, it's a great idea. BUT re-routing vehicles so there are fewer left turns. more mirrors. jesus I'll spend 
more time time looking at mirrors than looking where I'm going. Plus all mirrors do is create more blind spots, cameras I hear you cry, get real I'll be like
the cyclist in my example above, to busy looking inside the cab at gizzmos than looking what is outside.


----------



## summerdays (5 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
> How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
> add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
> small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
> ...


I've had more near misses due to other people than my own fault by a long way. This morning 7 am cycled one mile, met 4 cars in total, two sensible, two took risks, first overtaking me as car coming the opposite side of the road was coming, the second pulled out of a side road as I was literally passing causing me to brake. I didn't do anything stupid on that one mile journey. I must admit I did think that it was a much higher proportion of idiots around at that time this morning.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
> How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
> add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
> small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
> ...


You forgot to mention red light jumping or you'd have had the full bingo card

& this mythical lunatic on a bike still doesn't kill or injure even a tiny fraction of the people that big trucks do.

Go figure.


----------



## snorri (5 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> One thing that I don't................................................he cab at gizzmos than looking what is outside.


So really nothing constructive to add to the debate?.


----------



## classic33 (5 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
> How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
> add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
> small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
> ...


I'd start getting used to the idea, as well as being on CCTV whilst driving. 
If your aware of your weaknesses whilst on the road, you'd expect to compensate for them. It us after all only self preservation and not the off loading onto other road users that should be done.


----------



## simongt (5 Sep 2015)

Cor, I really started something here eh - ?! Now just to add a little more fuel to the fire, there are SOME cyclists who do themselves no favours by cycling in dull / dark coloured outfits. Yes, I know what some of you will say, 'why should I have to look like something from the Mardis Gras festival when I use a bike' but it's common sense; the brighter you are, the more likely you are to be seen in time. Basis logic. And DON'T get me started on decent lights - !


----------



## classic33 (5 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> Cor, I really started something here eh - ?! Now just to add a little more fuel to the fire, there are SOME cyclists who do themselves no favours by cycling in dull / dark coloured outfits. Yes, I know what some of you will say, 'why should I have to look like something from the Mardis Gras festival when I use a bike' *but it's common sense; the brighter you are, the more likely you are to be seen in time. Basis logic. *And DON'T get me started on decent lights - !


Flawed logic there
Contrast works better than simply bright colours.
As for decent lights, its the work of five minutes to go round your vehicle and at the least make certain the lenses on your lights are clean.
You might even consider using the orange flashing ones every now and then. We're not mind readers.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Sep 2015)

@simongt I deliberately wear dark clothing, it provides vivid contrast even in bright daylight for the Sam Browne belt I always have on when riding and wide yellow slap bands I wear on each arm as indicators.

Even though these slaps aren't factory fitted to me and not blindingly simply activated by a flick of a switch routinely in finger reach, I indicate a damn sight more consistently and frequently than ALMOST ALL motorised vehicles.
I also have pedal reflectors on every bike, even buying special platforms with them for my roadie SPD's my bikes all have front and rear reflectors, multiple lights front and rear, reflective sidewall tyres and 3M spoke straws. Yet I still get dumb barstewards in big vehicles, which have their own lights in addition to all of my efforts, passing too fast and too close.

Pro rata, big vehicles rank only behind rusty unliveried Transit vans as the road vehicles that scare me the most. And I'm not one for whining about close passes every ride.

Also, do you expect the same clothing apartheid to be applied to pedestrians crossing the road and people who may be getting in and out of vehicles parked on the road, if anything there will be less of an expectation of them being there than people travelling by bicycle and as such should be making more of an effort to mitigate for your self confessed optical failings.

I can only assume that your posting on this thread is (to be kind) mischievous.


----------



## Markymark (5 Sep 2015)

E


Chris_Kn said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
> How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
> add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
> small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
> ...


sounds like it's too much for one driver and it needs 2 like an airplane.


----------



## Simpleton (5 Sep 2015)

Chris_K member: 44534 said:


> One thing that I do't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
> How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
> add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
> small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
> ...



I would not advocate cycling with headphones, but you can still be aware of what's around you - you just need move your head.


simongt said:


> Cor, I really started something here eh - ?! Now just to add a little more fuel to the fire, there are SOME cyclists who do themselves no favours by cycling in dull / dark coloured outfits. Yes, I know what some of you will say, 'why should I have to look like something from the Mardis Gras festival when I use a bike' but it's common sense; the brighter you are, the more likely you are to be seen in time. Basis logic. And DON'T get me started on decent lights - !



Being brighter is not proportionate to being seen if the third party is not looking. 

it has to be said that i don't believe you are doing yourself any favours with this thread and your ill thought out opinions when what you refer to regarding hgvs and being seen is potentially upsetting to those who know someone that has been killed.


----------



## Markymark (5 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> Cor, I really started something here eh - ?! Now just to add a little more fuel to the fire, there are SOME cyclists who do themselves no favours by cycling in dull / dark coloured outfits. Yes, I know what some of you will say, 'why should I have to look like something from the Mardis Gras festival when I use a bike' but it's common sense; the brighter you are, the more likely you are to be seen in time. Basis logic. And DON'T get me started on decent lights - !


Quick question. You park a car on the road. Is it your fault if someone crashes into it for not wrapping it in hi-viz and covering it in lights? Common sense innit.

I do wonder hiw much your insurance is after constantly crashing into dark parked cars.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Sep 2015)

@Chris_Kn 

On my commute this morning, it was 1 for 1 on stupidity of drivers and cyclists.

First the cyclist:
Traffic slowing, for a delivery truck turning into a side street With an indicator on, just after a turn. I was 3 cars back, after the truck started to make its a turn, a cyclist came up the inside of everybody, and had to brake hard to miss the truck, then gesticulating to the driver.

Stupid, really stupid.

The driver:
Only about 10 minutes later, I was following a car that appeared either lost, ,or unfamiliar to the area, who was driving quite slowly and poorly positioned as if they was looking for something.

Stopped at the give way on the right hand side of the lane, then turned left from, but they sat at the giveway for a minute or so, looking around. And then pulled out directly infront of a cyclist, who luckily managed to stop. Car continued apparently unaware they had nearly took a cyclist off, I stayed behind the cyclist, as the car park I use was only about 100m away, overtaking was pointless. But the car ahead, pulled over and parked at the curb, less than 60m from the junction, meaning the cyclist they pulled out of, then had to go around their parked car.

Today, neither incident looked deliberate. But both the cyclist in the first incident, and the car driver in second, were extremely unaware of what was going on around them.

But, with the stupidity of cyclist 1, he was only endangering himself, whereas the driver in the 2nd, was endangering somebody totally innocent of their actions.

While in the first incident, a collision would have been another HGV left turn, and a cyclist incident to argue about it. There's no way the driver would be to blame. But it would have been another stat.

We can argue about stats, and fault all the time, cyclist in some situations may be able to do more to keep themselves safe from idiots. But as motor vehicle drivers, you have to be aware that when you oblivious to your surrounding, you're not endagering just yourself, but often an innocent party.

As a cyclist, you are primarily only endagering yourself. Yes we see incidents like the recent Blackpool one, and it is nasty, but they very, very, very rarely result in a fatality. How does it compare to impacts with vehicles?

As a motorcyclist for 11 years, I feel I have developed some very good defensive riding abilities. I have never been knocked off a motorcycle, or a bicycle. Nor have I been in a car accident in that time either. I agree some cyclists need to learn more about keeping themselves safe on the road, and what they can do to reduce the chances of idiots involving them.

So while I agree some cyclists can do more, their inaction only harms them, the inaction of drivers to do more to improve their driving harms others.


----------



## mickle (5 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is the amount of cyclists that have near misses due to there own negligence??
> How about this example, Take one cyclist, with the obligatory dark glasses, and bike computer/all singing and dancing phone,
> add the ear buds playing there fav music. You have NO idea what is going on around you, you glance at the phone/BC, find that
> small pothole and opps big wobble and a near miss. You don't post all the details on here as it was your fault and you would get slagged off for it.
> ...



Jesus farking wept.

You're one of a million other muppets who've got it into their heads that motor vehicle traffic is some kind of unstoppable force of nature and we vulnerable road users should bloody well be grateful that you let us use your roads. It's just tough luck if people make a mistake out there and get themselves squished. They knew the dangers!

If you can't operate your vehicle on the roads you shouldn't have a license. If there's something intrinsically dangerous about your vehicle - like for example you can't see out of it properly(!) - then it's nor fit for purpose and it shouldnt be on the road. 

Our cities have becime toxic obnoxious environments for humans to exist in. Because they've been designed for the exclusive use of motorised vehicles. Things need to change, and especially attitudes like yours.


----------



## classic33 (5 Sep 2015)

Vehicle design is easier change than attitude though.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Vehicle design is easier change than attitude though.



But put an idiot in the safest vehicle possible. And they'll still manage to kill somebody.

Better to be more effective at keeping idiots out of any vehicle.


----------



## classic33 (5 Sep 2015)

Coming to a road near you maybe!


----------



## Chris_Kn (6 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> Jesus farking wept.
> 
> You're one of a million other muppets who've got it into their heads that motor vehicle traffic is some kind of unstoppable force of nature and we vulnerable road users should bloody well be grateful that you let us use your roads. It's just tough luck if people make a mistake out there and get themselves squished. They knew the dangers!
> 
> ...



Mickle I'll ignore being called a muppet for now at least, but all that will happen is. Pressure groups will push and push. something will get done but here will be a cost. See you can't have the cake and eat it in this world. In the case of cycling safety, 

1/ Everyone will have to pass a test.
2/ All bikes will have to be MOT'd
3/ Cyclists will need a compulsory insurance
4/ All bikes will need some kind of registration number
5/ New rules will come on law to say what you can and can't do.
6/ Finally as a road user you will pay some kind of duty

It doesn't matter if the new system would be workable, it would just create problems for everyone..

But you will get the safer bike friendly HGV's and town centers.

Also go do some research and see how much money the haulage industry puts into the coffers of the treasury, 
then go see how much cycling puts in. Money does seem to a have a lot of influence when it comes down to the 
bottom line.

As for my attitude I just speak from experience @mickle I guess I went past 1,000,000 miles more than a few years ago.

Yes things need to change I don't disagree, yes there are lots of drivers that are just unaware of the danger they pose to cyclists
and also probably a % that don't care. All I did was not put forward a cycling biased opinion. You being the narrow minded person 
you are couldn't see past that. It wasn't posted to score points or gain favour or make me feel good.

Chris..


----------



## Markymark (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Mickle I'll ignore being called a muppet for now at least, but all that will happen is. Pressure groups will push and push. something will get done but here will be a cost. See you can't have the cake and eat it in this world. In the case of cycling safety,
> 
> 1/ Everyone will have to pass a test.
> 2/ All bikes will have to be MOT'd
> ...


Oh dear. Cycling saves a fortune for society. The lack of damage and death. The health benefits. Hospitals are full of fat guys who drive everywhere not injured cyclusts. I couldn't care less if it costs the haulage industry more. It might make then employ people who haven't been banned numerous tines of dont fiddle tacho or drive on the mobile.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (6 Sep 2015)

@Chris_Kn 

If you look at my previous posts I'm far from cycling biased on these issues, and have got into disagreements with the usuals about it.

But to argue that hgv needs less control due to the money they bring in is ridiculous.

You can't seriously be suggesting that money fit the economy is worth killing cyclists for?


----------



## Chris_Kn (6 Sep 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @Chris_Kn
> 
> If you look at my previous posts I'm far from cycling biased on these issues, and have got into disagreements with the usuals about it.
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing that at all Phil, just pointing out what might happen. It isn't right that ££££'s always seem to have more say. But just because it isn't
right doesn't mean it won't happen. Nothings worth killing any road user for not just cyclists. I know it's a cycling forum so answers will be focused
it that direction. Sometimes objectivity gets blinkered I just went in the total opposite direction. 

@0-markymark-0 
I'm well aware of how much good cycling does, but it doesn't put billions £'s in. It might save the odd fat bloke, 
make everyone a little fitter. Doesn't kill anyone. As for the I don't care what it costs the haulage industry point, 
I suppose everything in your house has never been on a lorry?? Hmmm!! Any import in a shipping container.
All food in your local super market. guess you hate them but can't live without them.


----------



## Simpleton (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Mickle I'll ignore being called a muppet for now at least, but all that will happen is. Pressure groups will push and push. something will get done but here will be a cost. See you can't have the cake and eat it in this world. In the case of cycling safety,
> 
> 1/ Everyone will have to pass a test.
> 2/ All bikes will have to be MOT'd
> ...



Okay, lets say for arguments sake that the controls you mention are put into place.

Please cite (with the greatest respect) a case of a cyclist being killed in London and how the controls you mention would prevemt such a death.


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> As for the I don't care what it costs the haulage industry point,
> I suppose everything in your house has never been on a lorry?? Hmmm!! Any import in a shipping container.
> All food in your local super market. guess you hate them but can't live without them.


If someone offered you the chance to buy all your consumer goods for 10% off, but the caveat was that an extra ten people a year would die, would you take it?


----------



## Simpleton (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> I'm not arguing that at all Phil, just pointing out what might happen. It isn't right that ££££'s always seem to have more say. But just because it isn't
> right doesn't mean it won't happen. Nothings worth killing any road user for not just cyclists. I know it's a cycling forum so answers will be focused
> it that direction. Sometimes objectivity gets blinkered I just went in the total opposite direction.
> 
> ...



'Save the odd fat bloke' I suggest ypu research the cost of treating diabetes and obesity in this country and then how cycling could perhaps reduce this.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> Okay, lets say for arguments sake that the controls you mention are put into place.
> 
> Please cite (with the greatest respect) a case of a cyclist being killed in London and how the controls you mention would prevemt such a death.


I could imagine a cyclist failing their MOT - no tread on their slicks, perhaps - so going to work by train and tube, leaving a tipper truck one less cyclist to hit. Might get hit by the truck but they wouldn't be a cyclist, would they?

Further legislation of cyclists will do nothing towards increasing road safety or reducing journey times. Besides, cyclists aren't the problem that legislation and enforcement should be solving.


----------



## Simpleton (6 Sep 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I could imagine a cyclist failing their MOT - no tread on their slicks, perhaps - so going to work by train and tube, leaving a tipper truck one less cyclist to hit. Might get hit by the truck but they wouldn't be a cyclist, would they?
> 
> Further legislation of cyclists will do nothing towards increasing road safety or reducing journey times. Besides, cyclists aren't the problem that legislation and enforcement should be solving.



Agreed, I'm waiting for Chris to make it part of the road traffic act for cyclists to move out the way when a hgv is approaching. After all this will make it "safer' for bikes and hgvs to share the road. Not forgetting of course that there is already a bit of the rta about driving with due care and attention. And with this checking ones mirrors at a traffic light before moving off.
Made easier of course by looking at the near side mirrors when you are sitting there stationary at the lights.


----------



## Chris_Kn (6 Sep 2015)

There's no way I'll try and argue individual points, but from the manner they seem to be posted it looks like something I posted must have had a ring of truth.
Guys all I've done is point extremes out, if they don't sit well hey it's your problem. I would hate anything like the things mentioned to happen. As for sarcasm,
I find it used by fools and idiots, when they have nothing better to say. 

Lets just point out that in politics everything is a compromise. 

Cyclists demand safer roads to ride on.
Government of the day, OK we'll do this this and this and it will be law.
But, you will be legislated and abide by the new rules. 
Cyclists, but that's isn't fair. 
Government, we know but you have got what you wanted.

Just remember that any rule changes would have to include all Europe as well, we all know how militant the French lorry drivers can be.


----------



## Markymark (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> I'm not arguing that at all Phil, just pointing out what might happen. It isn't right that ££££'s always seem to have more say. But just because it isn't
> right doesn't mean it won't happen. Nothings worth killing any road user for not just cyclists. I know it's a cycling forum so answers will be focused
> it that direction. Sometimes objectivity gets blinkered I just went in the total opposite direction.
> 
> ...


Oh dear. Cyvling eoyld save thousands of years of ill people in hospital. Huge numbers. Not the off one. Yes stuff is delivered by lorry. If they can't do it safely the gits must be forced.


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> There's no way I'll try and argue individual points,... all I've done is point extremes out


There's a special word for people who are only interested in promoting their own views and don't engage with responses


----------



## Chris_Kn (6 Sep 2015)

@0-markymark-0 Cycling can only help the general populations heath IF individuals take up the personal challenge. They can't be forced to, unless that is the next step in your plan. Please accept that the road is a dangerous place, the more people use it the more people will get hurt. More lorries will lead to more numpty drivers, more cyclists will lead to more cyclists involved in accidents just because we are the most vulnerable. Unless the whole infrastructure is changed there really isn't a feasible answer, any other solution is just applying a sticking plaster to an open cut.

@Dan B perhaps so Dan, but they aren't my views just an alternative talking point. Asking me to look for stats on diabetes/obesity isn't really the point. Not once have I said hey this is my opinion and I'm right.


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

The haulage industry is at present fighting for further legislation not to be brought in for cyclists.
The simple reason being the increased cost to them. As part of this package they have conceded the safety aspect is down to them.
Boris hijacked the scheme for his own ends, but that's the thin edge of the wedge. Cost of these measures, per vehicle, were posted on here.

On the MOT question, who's going to be doing it? Will it include the engine(the rider(s)), and will you as a driver be made to sit the same test? You can't pick and choose what parts of the test you want to take part in. So I'd think twice before saying it'll come. Because if it does, you'll have more tests for yourself.


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

Safer roads can only come about when all those using them realise that they have to do their bit.

As a cyclist, I am traffic and the sooner drivers realise that the sooner the roads will become safer.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> I'm not arguing that at all Phil, just pointing out what might happen. It isn't right that ££££'s always seem to have more say. But just because it isn't
> right doesn't mean it won't happen. Nothings worth killing any road user for not just cyclists. I know it's a cycling forum so answers will be focused
> it that direction. Sometimes objectivity gets blinkered I just went in the total opposite direction.
> 
> ...



How many fat kids and adults do we all see in a day?, why are very eminent medical types talking about an Obesity timebomb and a Diabetes epidemic? Why do the government sponsor wellbeing and fitness programs? 

Because lack of physical exercise is making us a nation of people like the passengers in the spaceship in Wall-E. All of this assists in putting an intolerable strain on the NHS, costs M/Billions a year in treatment, lost productivity from the workforce, state support for those too ill to work...... Offset against by far the loudest and most frequent mantra of the non cyclist:

I would but it is too dangerous.

Facts and evidence by the bucket load can't shift the prejudice of a gory headline and a photo of a tipper truck stopped mid turn and a lumpy blanket on the ground next to it.

Not everyone wants or can afford the gym, cycling is a massively cost effective manner of solving m/billions of £s of health issues a year as well as freeing up road space for people who NEED to drive, like hauliers, from traffic jams added to by people too scared by the current status quo to get out of their cars and onto bikes.

'The odd fat bloke' hahahaha

not only does cycling not kill (and maim) daily like motorised traffic does, it enhances health and wellbeing and keeps people alive and off the care bill for far longer.

You accuse a cycling forum of being blinkered whilst yourself focussing solely on the ££££ haulage brings in, ignoring or simply not considering the part it plays in costing £££ in other ways.


----------



## Chris_Kn (6 Sep 2015)

Hey, @classic33 fair points and I agree with you. HGV drivers do have to have a medical/mot though it's been like that from over 30 yrs ago. From a selfish cyclists point of view,the solution is simple drop the speed limit around town to a level that the average cyclist can maintain, which will allow us to take a better road position with traffic behind us. The best way to sort out HGV drivers would be to educate them. Given todays tech it would/should be very easy to incorporate some kind of simulation test that was all about bike awareness, if this was one of the mainstays of the test they would have to take more notice of it. Also make the road safety simulation an annual re-test as each year the roads change. 

@shouldbeinbed But cycling only does all that if an individual accepts the personal challenge, if 'JoePublic' won't help himself it can do nothing for him, therefore it won't/can't add anything.
You can't force someone to cycle just because it's good for them and the country.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Sep 2015)

Nobody's going to force people to cycle. The large increase in commuting cyclists in London is largely due to a safer space having been provided by bus lanes. People will cycle when it's safe to do so. And our roads *shouldn't* be dangerous.


----------



## Markymark (6 Sep 2015)

Roads aren't dangerous. No road has ever killed anyone. People are dabgerous. Enforcing laws will help that. 

Ban any driver caught on the phone. Make speeding 6 points and £2000. Make fiddling tacho instant ban. 

Guess what will happen then. 

Can't make people cycle but reallocate road space and make it safer and more will take it up.


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

@Chris_Kn, IF HGV drivers have to have a medical/MOT, is it every year and where is it done? If it is every year, then I know four drivers that shouldn't be on the road.

You can't decide to have one part of your vehicle tested in one place, another part somewhere else. Its all done in the one place, at the same time.

Retests should be done in real conditions, not a simulator, because then you can't enter with a false sense of security. Real conditions ensure that any mistakes made are there for all to see. And any damage caused will have to fixed, if possible. Leave the simulations to learning only, tests/retests realtime conditions.


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> So with changes to HGV design and being routed to be safer and longer in distance and time. Who is going to pay for all this??


Simple with regards the first one. If the vehicle fails to meet safety requirements, its removed from the road until suchtime as said defects have been fixed. Who meets the cost of bringing any vehicle upto minimum requirements? The owner normally.


----------



## jayonabike (6 Sep 2015)

@classic33 Over the age of 45 the medical is every 5 years, I had mine in July. Eye test, general health etc


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

jayonabike said:


> @classic33 Over the age of 40 the medical is every 5 years, I had mine in July. Eye test, general health etc


Thought it was. An MOT would be every year though. The powerplant(engine) on a pedal cycle is the rider. Requiring the cyclist to have a yearly medical/MOT. Haulage industry fought against yearly medicals, now we've an individual wanting another class of road user to undergo extra testing compared to himself. 
Who'll meet the cost I wonder?


----------



## Chris_Kn (6 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Who'll meet the cost I wonder?



In my example that's the price the cyclist pays for getting the safety they need, the compromise.
I never said it was fair just that it might happen..


@classic33 the medical at the moment is when you apply for your license, then again at 40 then every 5 yrs after. 
They are supposed to be done by your GP who has full access to ALL your medical history, but there are companies out there that offer them cheaper.
My opinion would be that DVLA be given full access and that they be done by an appointed body. DVLA had/have a medical centre in Liverpool. Also 
the frequency should be yearly. As a persons heath can go downhill overnight

Realtime bike awareness testing could prove dangerous for the cyclist which is why I said a simulation. Also ultimately any added costs re 
defects as you suggested will eventually be passed on to the end user which is 'You' the customer. Fuel price goes up it gets passed on,
same with any increase. Given the amount of 'foreign' HGV's on British roads how would you go about making Europe wide?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> @shouldbeinbed But cycling only does all that if an individual accepts the personal challenge, if 'JoePublic' won't help himself it can do nothing for him, therefore it won't/can't add anything.
> You can't force someone to cycle just because it's good for them and the country.



Could you have another read of my post please because you've spectacularly missed the point.


----------



## Markymark (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> In my example that's the price the cyclist pays for getting the safety they need, the compromise.
> I never said it was fair just that it might happen..
> 
> 
> ...


Simple fact is the lorries do the killing. The only study taken shows the driver is 3 times more likely to be at fault than the cyclist. Google Westminster cycle fault study to see. 

The problem lies with badly driven cars and lorries. Fix that and the issue will be massively improved. Your resistance tells me everything I need to know about the mindset of the haulage industry. 

'Dangerous roads'. Ffs.


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> In my example that's the price the cyclist pays for getting the safety they need, the compromise.
> I never said it was fair just that it might happen..
> 
> 
> ...


Yet you'd be happy for cyclists to be tested every year, seperate from the vehicle they'd be powering. Does an MOT currently allow multiple test points for different parts of the vehicle?

Why should retesting, in realtime conditions be dangerous for cyclists? Currently living near a test centre and cycle on the same roads. Would those being retested present any special hazard because of their driving.

Why should the cost of fixing vehicle defects be passed onto a third party. If the vehicle fails to meet minimum standards and remains on the roads, then is it not on the road illegally? Why should this be allowed, when there are many that keep there's legal in order to use the roads.


----------



## subaqua (6 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Simple fact is the lorries do the killing. The only study taken shows the driver is 3 times more likely to be at fault than the cyclist. Google Westminster cycle fault study to see.
> 
> The problem lies with badly driven cars and lorries. Fix that and the issue will be massively improved. Your resistance tells me everything I need to know about the mindset of the haulage industry.
> 
> 'Dangerous roads'. Ffs.





0-markymark-0 said:


> Roads aren't dangerous. No road has ever killed anyone. People are dabgerous. Enforcing laws will help that.
> 
> Ban any driver caught on the phone. Make speeding 6 points and £2000. Make fiddling tacho instant ban.
> 
> ...




So a road can't kill , but another inanimate object can . Make your mind up . 

The point you made about people is the salient point here. 

My father drove lorries for 30 years and it never killed anybody, neither did he for that matter. Seriously injuring himself in the process of not killing somebody by not following the guidelines of " stay in a straight line wherever possible under heavy braking" 

I drove back from Wales today. I am of the understanding that a round sign with a Red border is a prohibitive sign. So if a cycle symbol is on such a sign then us cyclists shouldn't be there . Apparently if you are a member of a cycle club in the midlands and have all the gear and not a frickin clue , you can ignore these signs and mix it with rather large vehicles with impunity. 

I did stop in a layby and make a 999 call .


----------



## classic33 (6 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Mickle I'll ignore being called a muppet for now at least, but all that will happen is. Pressure groups will push and push. something will get done but here will be a cost. See you can't have the cake and eat it in this world. In the case of cycling safety,
> 
> 1/ Everyone will have to pass a test.
> 2/ All bikes will have to be MOT'd
> ...


Reverse that question and ask how much does the haulage industry take out of of the coffers. Road maintenance, wider roads, stronger roads, to take weights they were never designed for, bigger vehicles on the way. Bypass routes, built to keep the running costs down, by missing out busy town centres. Subsidised fuel. Special parking areas.


----------



## Chris_Kn (7 Sep 2015)

OK guys, you don't like being told things you don't like even though they might be very extreme hypothetical ideas.

The problem is from what I can gather class 2/3 short bodied tipper/construction vehicles.

Other than the area directly behind the vehicle. Plus in line with the door/windscreen pillars.
THERE ARE NO BLIND SPOTS ON THAT TYPE OF VEHICLE lets get that straight. The cab has a minimum of three mirrors
on the near side one looking down over the top of the front wheel, the other two looking down the side of the vehicle, a long one 
to give full view down the side and to the rear, the smaller one is a wide angle one which is intended to do just what it says. These 
three mirrors do just that give the driver a good view down the nearside, remember this is not on a vehicle that is articulated in any 
way. 
Adding more mirrors cameras won't improve anything if the driver doesn't use them, (_ calm down guys and stop cheering_) At present
the large % of this type of vehicle is open sided, eg you can see all the chassis. If it is filled in by rails as you find on Class1 vehicles 
to prevent someone falling under them, all that will happen is the victim will end up on the floor and roll under the gap that there has 
to be, to allow the vehicle ground clearance. Before someone says make them into a skirt that will just push the victim along the floor.
You will also find the odd "cyclists" up the inside leaning on the rails, please don't say it won't happen.

Is there a solution, yes but only through education, I know @classic33 doesn't believe in simulators but you can't put a person there in real 
life on the test as someone would get killed. From an articular I read yesterday it seems that this type of accident in London killed 5 women.
Now before anyone says anything lets make this clear, if someone is nervous in heavy traffic, then that is NOT the place for them. They are 
male/female an accident waiting to happen. Some people don't like driving there car on a motorway and therefore don't, some don't like 
driving at night and likewise don't. Surely if a situation makes you feel bad don't do. That is not picking on anyone nor is it trying to deflect anything
just stating the obvious.

HGV's don't kill cyclists, just the same as guns don't kill people, bad drivers kill cyclists.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> OK guys, you don't like being told things you don't like even though they might be very extreme hypothetical ideas.
> 
> The problem is from what I can gather class 2/3 short bodied tipper/construction vehicles.
> 
> ...


Correct, bad drivers do. The law breaking amongst hgv drivers is staggering. Given how much danger they pose any law breaking should result in s ban. Sadly the operators employ people who have been banned multiple times and go on to kill. Fiddling tacho meters is rife. So is talking on the mobile. 
I would want to see instant lifetime ban given the potential seriousness of la breaking.


----------



## Simpleton (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> *OK guys, you don't like being told things you don't like even though they might be very extreme hypothetical ideas*.
> 
> The problem is from what I can gather class 2/3 short bodied tipper/construction vehicles.
> 
> ...



Not at all, what you proposed initially regarding test for bikes, licensing etc does not tackle the issue of cyclists dying in London, and as such was (quite rightly) challenged because what you was saying was not right.

However reading the above we seem to be making some headway regarding what the actual problem is. I agree that if someone is nervous that being in a large amount of traffic is not for them, however this should still not make any difference regarding a HGV driver accounting for them in the way that they drive.

I'm sure with your experience (over 1m miles) you have come across all sorts of drivers and riders, you simply adapt the way you drive and in doing so account for what the other person may or may not do. It is what you are paid to do and is what is taught to you when you learn to drive a HGV.


----------



## Chris_Kn (7 Sep 2015)

@0-markymark-0 You do seem to have chip on your shoulder about HGV drivers. 'Potential' isn't a crime sorry to say. Plus it isn't usually round town/city construction drivers that fiddle tacho's.
They have no need to, it's the long haul drivers usually. 

@Simpleton It shouldn't make a difference, that's why education is the good solution. Plus making it an area of the test, which would be easy to re asses every 12 months.
Experience is something that doesn't happen overnight @Simpleton There are times over the years that situations crop up that the test just doesn't/didn't in '84 address.
Which is why there has always been the question asked by employers_ "how much experience do you have??" _No experience, used to mean no job. But how do you get a job
with no experience?? Driving Agencies at one time, not sure what it's like to-day.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

Nothing potential about the complete disregard for the danger posed.. See here. It is rife amongst your industry.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> 1/ Everyone will have to pass a test.
> ..


Yup


Chris_Kn said:


> 2/ All bikes will have to be MOT'd
> ..


Ok



Chris_Kn said:


> 3/ Cyclists will need a compulsory insurance
> ..


Righto


Chris_Kn said:


> 4/ All bikes will need some kind of registration number
> ..


Sure


Chris_Kn said:


> 5/ New rules will come on law to say what you can and can't do.
> ..


Gotit


Chris_Kn said:


> .
> 6/ Finally as a road user you will pay some kind of duty
> ..


Fine.

So anyone else find no objection to any of these, for city riding.

I pay strava £40 a year out of brand loyalty, be happy to pay the same to Dave and his crew for the satisfaction of shutting up all those who winge on that I am not trained, hold no licence, pay no duty...yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....


----------



## snorri (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Also go do some research and see how much money the haulage industry puts into the coffers of the treasury,
> then go see how much cycling puts in. Money does seem to a have a lot of influence when it comes down to the
> bottom line..


Many of us have done the research and wonder why cycling is not getting a fair deal.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> 6/ Finally as a road user you will pay some kind of duty



How much do these cars pay in Duty then?

RENAULT Twizy Cargo Electric Van 13kW Auto
RENAULT Twizy Electric Car Urban 13kW Auto
RENAULT Twizy Electric Car Expression 13kW Auto
VW e-Up! Electric Car 60kW Auto
PEUGEOT iOn Electric 47kW Auto
BMW i3 Electric Car 127kW Auto
MITSUBISHI i-MiEV Electric Car Keiko 47kW Auto
CITROEN C-Zero Electric Car 47kW Auto
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E.
SMART ed coupe 55kW 74bhp Auto
SMART ed cabrio 55kW 74bhp Auto
VW e-Golf Electric Car 85kW Auto
SUZUKI Celerio 1.0 SZ3 Dualjet
PEUGEOT 208 1.6 BlueHDi Active 75 S&S
RENAULT Clio 1.5 dCi Expression+ 90 Stop and Start ECO
RENAULT Clio 1.5 dCi Expression+ 90 Stop and Start
PEUGEOT 308 1.6 BlueHDi Active 120 S&S
BMW i3 Electric Car 127kW with Range Extender Auto
FORD Fiesta 1.5 Duratorq TDCi Style Econetic 95PS Start/Stop
TOYOTA Yaris Hybrid 1.5 VVT-i Active CVT
VAUXHALL Astra Hatch 1.6 CDTi Design 110PS S/S ecoFLEX
TOYOTA Yaris Hybrid 1.5 VVT-i T3 CVT
PEUGEOT 308 SW 1.6 BlueHDi Active 120 S&S
KIA Rio 1.1 CRDi 1 74hp ISG
TOYOTA Prius Plug-In Hybrid 1.8 VVT-i CVT
RENAULT Zoe Electric Car Expression Nav 65kW Auto
FIAT 500 0.9 TwinAir Pop Star 85HP
NISSAN Leaf Electric Car Visia 80kW Auto
HYUNDAI i20 1.1 CRDi S Blue 75PS
TOYOTA Yaris 1.4 D-4D Icon 5-door
CITROEN C4 Cactus 1.6 BlueHDi Flair 100hphp
CITROEN C3 1.6 BlueHDi Exclusive 100hp
AUDI A3 1.6 TDI ultra SE 110PS
CITROEN C3 1.6 BlueHDi VT 75hp
FIAT 500C 0.9 TwinAir Pop Star 85HP
DACIA Sandero 1.5 dCi Ambiance 90hp
VW Golf 1.6 TDI BlueMotion 110PS
FIAT 500 0.9 TwinAir Pop Star 85HP Dualogic
FIAT 500C 0.9 TwinAir Pop Star 85HP Dualogic
RENAULT Clio 1.5 dCi Dynamique Nav 90 EDC Auto
SKODA Fabia 1.4 TDI S 90PS
VAUXHALL Astra Hatch 1.6 CDTi SRi 110PS S/S ecoFLEX
SEAT Ibiza 1.4 TDI SE Ecomotive 75PS
NISSAN Note 1.5 dCi Visia 90PS
SMART fortwo coupe 1.0 passion 71hp start/stop
AUDI A1 1.6 TDI SE 116PS
TOYOTA Yaris Hybrid 1.5 VVT-i Sport CVT
FORD Focus Electric Electric Car 107kW Auto
PEUGEOT 308 SW 1.6 BlueHDi Allure 120 S&S
TOYOTA Yaris Hybrid 1.5 VVT-i Excel CVT


I'll tell you what. To make you happy, as a cyclist, I will quite happily pay the same amount of duty (VED) as the cars listed above.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

ianrauk said:


> How much do these cars pay in Duty then?
> 
> RENAULT Twizy Cargo Electric Van 13kW Auto
> RENAULT Twizy Electric Car Urban 13kW Auto
> ...


I would even pay Twice as much as the above.


----------



## Chris_Kn (7 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Nothing potential about the complete disregard for the danger posed.. See here. It is rife amongst your industry.



Like I said, chip on your shoulder Mark. Try going on youtube and typing in cyclist udertaking, it only comes up with 1800+ examples. Please lets not get into a tit for tat type of discussion at it really serves no purpose.

@jonny jeez It was posted as an exteme Jonny, it would be pretty much unenforceable. Education of bad drivers is the best way forward as I posted earlier.
@ianrauk wouldn't make me happy Ian, it was an extreme example of what might happen. As the thread has moved on some from that, to the point where I 
suggested that "awareness education" is a good way forward.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Like I said, chip on your shoulder Mark. Try going on youtube and typing in cyclist udertaking, it only comes up with 1800+ examples. Please lets not get into a tit for tat type of discussion at it really serves no purpose.
> 
> @jonny jeez It was posted as an exteme Jonny, it would be pretty much unenforceable. Education of bad drivers is the best way forward as I posted earlier.
> @ianrauk wouldn't make me happy Ian, it was an extreme example of what might happen. As the thread has moved on some from that, to the point where I
> suggested that "awareness education" is a good way forward.


Do you think drivibg a lorry illegally is the same as a cyckist undertaking? You really are very special. 
I would gladly see any la breaking in a 20 tonne truck get prison. Might have stopped those poor sods in Glasgow or bath and countess others beibg killed. 

The fact you can equate an illegal hgv being taken off the road to a cyclust undertaking shows breathtaking stupidity.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Like I said, chip on your shoulder Mark. Try going on youtube and typing in cyclist udertaking, it only comes up with 1800+ examples. Please lets not get into a tit for tat type of discussion at it really serves no purpose.
> 
> @jonny jeez It was posted as an exteme Jonny, it would be pretty much unenforceable. Education of bad drivers is the best way forward as I posted earlier.
> @ianrauk wouldn't make me happy Ian, it was an extreme example of what might happen. As the thread has moved on some from that, to the point where I
> suggested that "awareness education" is a good way forward.


Sure...my point is that I actually disagree. I have maintained for a long time that there is a good argument to enforce liscencing for cyclists who take to busy city roads. I don't think it would be that hard to enforce either. I see tons of riders proudly wearing their sportive tags, months after they entered, so perhaps a licence would alos be a badge of honour for devoted City riders.

I'm up for it. And would happily partake...and pay. If it helped to adjust other road users impressions of city riders as equals.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> .
> 
> @jonny jeez It was posted as an exteme Jonny, it would be pretty much unenforceable. Education of bad drivers is the best way forward as I posted earlier.
> [.


Also, without looking like a pedant, I'm pretty sure this contradicts your comment about it being partly riders fault.

I would rephrase this as "education of ROAD USERS" is the best way forward.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (7 Sep 2015)

+ lots to the blue mans post

Also as VED is currently emissions based (barring the odd fart, me and all of my bikes are emission free) so why do so many people propose the government actively discriminates against the cleanest vehicles on the roads.

Maybe we should pay something for the damage to the road surface and structure that bikes cause??? errrr

@Chriskn: Go and look at any supermarket car park in the wet and tell me what the 4 little puddle filled dints in every parking space correspond to and why you'll never see a bike parking facility anywhere with a wheel groove worn into it simply by standing weight. Also there are numerous roads around my way that I can drive along blind by slotting into the grooves worn by other vehicles.

Not only do bikes not create or add to costly road damage but by us being on a bike and not in a car we are 1 less causal factor.

When you think sensibly and without the dog in the manger blinkers on, cycling would qualify for a rebate rather than a charge.

Notwithstanding my choice to ride a bike and be a positive factor in the road and air quality debate ( not being a sandal weaving eco warrior here, simply recognising a fact) I pay Taxes and NI and VED already to subsidise both the damage that motorised vehicles cause and the creation and upkeep of e.g. M roads that I am not allowed to cycle on.

Hows about we install every wheeled vehicle with a smartmeter that assesses the REAL impact it has physically and chemicaly on its environment and charge individual vehicles appropriately - maybe a surcharge for roads that legally preclude other users from their use or suffer greater wear from higher speeds?

That'd be fairer wouldn't it.


----------



## summerdays (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Like I said, chip on your shoulder Mark. Try going on youtube and typing in cyclist udertaking, it only comes up with 1800+ examples. Please lets not get into a tit for tat type of discussion at it really serves no purpose.


And how many for close overtakes of cyclists, or left hooks?


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

@Chris_Kn, you've yet to answer the question about why a cycle and rider should be treated & tested as one unit, whilst every other class of vehicle gets rider/driver tested seperatly. You raised it, yet refuse to answer it.

As regards the use of simulators for the test, yes I'm against their use in a test situation. Any final test on which the licence decision is made should be on the road, in realtime. You'd prefer not to do the test on the road as it'd put people in a dangerous situation. Make a mistake on the road and people may get hurt, make the same sort of mistake in a simulator and you walk away safe in the knowledge that it was only a computer simulation. 

As said I live near a test centre and use the same roads they do. There are also three specialist heavy haulage companies nearby that use the same roads as me.

The only time I've had a problem with any of them was going to work one morning. Driver in the wrong lane on a roundabout, jumped from the cab, leaving the vehicle to carry on, on its own straight across three lanes, hit the slip lane entrance and then a lampost on the banking. I didn't stop to find out what he did, if he was willing to jump from behind the steering wheel what'd he do to me. Instead a slight detour made on the way home, to explain what happened, was made. He no longer drives for any local company.


----------



## Chris_Kn (7 Sep 2015)

OK let's see if we can get a little less OTT posts towards this particular HGV driver

As good as cycling is or isn't for people and the country, if people don't do it it can't. Regardless of any other factors.

@classic33 where did I say they should be tested as one unit, it was you that brought the separate test issue up saying
engine = rider and car = bike, I guess the local GP should be able to test a bike though, or the LBS take someones blood pressure
and check there heart.

So you would put someone in the way on a live test to see if the driver saw them or not and see how he/she reacted???

As for youtube searching @summerdays it really was in response to someone with a chip on there shoulder pointing out
some more 'London' facts. I know how many close calls there probably are, it's a shame you couldn't just have acted on the last
sentence of my post re tit for tat posting.

I really thought this had moved on..


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> OK let's see if we can get a little less OTT posts towards this particular HGV driver
> 
> As good as cycling is or isn't for people and the country, if people don't do it it can't. Regardless of any other factors.
> 
> ...


You said that drivers should all be tested by the DVLA. 
Cycle and rider are one unit, with the rider being the sole power unit in most cases. As I said, an MOT doesn't allow for seperate parts to be tested in seperate locations.

With regards the use of simulators, where are driving tests taken? If, as you have pointed out, you are not happy at driving on the roads. Don't do it. Don't sit the test, you'll never get a licence.
This asked simply because you seem keen to go down the simulation route, do you actually drive on the real roads? If you do, have they changed that much since you took your test that you think you'd fail under actual conditions? Where are test currently held.


----------



## summerdays (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> As for youtube searching @summerdays it really was in response to someone with a chip on there shoulder pointing out
> some more 'London' facts. I know how many close calls there probably are, it's a shame you couldn't just have acted on the last
> sentence of my post re tit for tat posting.
> 
> I really thought this had moved on..


Sorry I wasn't trying for tit for tat posting instead responding to one point you made, I thought it an interesting comment about using you tube videos of one wrong type of behaviour, and for balance was pointing out another. As a form of statistics it's deeply flawed by the numbers of each type of transport and how many are likely they are to post on you tube.

I am quite happy to state they are lots of good lorry drivers who probably aren't cyclists and that doesn't stop them from overtaking me courteously but as in all walks of life there are some that shouldn't be on the road. Problem is they are much bigger than me and their mistakes could affect me.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> OK let's see if we can get a little less OTT posts towards this particular HGV driver
> 
> As good as cycling is or isn't for people and the country, if people don't do it it can't. Regardless of any other factors.
> 
> ...


Is pointing out that the most potentially dangerous vehicle on the road us driven in the majority of times illegally a chip on my shoulder? I say it shows how the industry and drivers on she whole don't give a sh1t abiut safety. What say you on the number of those driven illegally?


----------



## Chris_Kn (7 Sep 2015)

I said drivers with medical conditions, are tested by the DVLA in Liverpool or used to be. Plus when the vehicle consists of two parts human
and mechanical, it can't really be done by the same person unless your LBS wants to take your blood pressure. As for driving professionally 
today no thanks, i saw the way things where going a few years ago and stopped. No longer worth the hassle and stress. Would I pass today
jesus @classic33 probably not because there is a whole world of difference between driving and driving to pass a test. As for simulators, pilots 
use them F1 drivers use them. You know that if you put someone in harms way on a live test they could get hurt. 

I do/did give a sh1t hence no accidents, I don't like guys like you shoving info down my throat as if you are are all high and mighty and 
never done anything wrong. As for the numbers driven illegally, I'm surprised there isn't a lot more, as that is probably the tip of the iceberg.
No driver really wants to run illegal, from my time in the past the pressure comes from bosses and the clients they work for to make deliveries
on time. It really comes down to the fact you do it or you can walk down the road. Yes I've walked a few times well got a lift from mates and tossed 
the keys in the field. But that was a time when drivers could just walk from one job and get another within 24hrs. Normally back then it was younger 
drivers that didn't know any better.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

I'm not perfect. But if driving something that could and does kill hundreds yearly, I'd do that safely and legally


----------



## mjr (7 Sep 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Are bikes expected to have the same type of sign on our back that says 'HGV drivers, stay back'?



I've ridden with this on before:








steveindenmark said:


> I've never seen stats about fatalities in London but would be interested to see what percentage is attributed to the lorry drivers themselves.


The Westminster council cycle fault study mentioned earlier in this discussion didn't distinguish lorry drivers from other motorists in its 68% motorists, 12% neither/both, 20% cyclist fault conclusion and there's not enough data in the report to split them. It should fairly simple (if tedious) to find out by using www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com to get the answer, if anyone wants to. I suspect you will need to request data from both the Met and the City police to get a full picture.



simongt said:


> Cor, I really started something here eh - ?! Now just to add a little more fuel to the fire, there are SOME cyclists who do themselves no favours by cycling in dull / dark coloured outfits. Yes, I know what some of you will say, 'why should I have to look like something from the Mardis Gras festival when I use a bike' but it's common sense; the brighter you are, the more likely you are to be seen in time. Basis logic. And DON'T get me started on decent lights - !


So, won't use the search box to find a good past discussion of that and picks on a minority reason for wearing ordinary clothes. Why not quit before the broom wagon takes you? 



classic33 said:


> On the MOT question, who's going to be doing it? Will it include the engine(the rider(s)), and will you as a driver be made to sit the same test?


Actually, aren't there are a few of each type who would fail an emissions test?


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> I said drivers with medical conditions, are tested by the DVLA in Liverpool or used to be. Plus when the vehicle consists of two parts human
> and mechanical, it can't really be done by the same person unless your LBS wants to take your blood pressure. As for driving professionally
> today no thanks, i saw the way things where going a few years ago and stopped. No longer worth the hassle and stress. Would I pass today
> jesus @classic33 probably not because there is a whole world of difference between driving and driving to pass a test. As for simulators, pilots
> ...



You're in favour of both vehicle and driver/rider sitting seperate yearly tests then. If that is the case explain why the vehicle engine, which in the case of a pedal cycle is the rider, should be tested elsewhere. 

As for simulators why are you happy to be tested in a virtual world, in order to drive in the real world. Driving for a test should be no different from your day to day driving, standards wise.

Simulators were introduced in F1 after a partial ban on actual testing. The actual test that allows the person the licence, has to be done in reatime, on the track. Airforces/airlines use them on the grounds of cost & safety. Smaller airlines, along with two international airlines still use an actual flight for in house retesting. Fail & they'll ground you, not some body appointed to test you.

In aircraft simulations, the RAF Typhoon can pull 15G, the F-35 has been recorded as pulling 39G.
The Commanche, in simulated conditions flew perfectly. In real life, not so well.


----------



## Chris_Kn (7 Sep 2015)

So @classic33 you would deliberately put someone in harms way to see if the person being tested saw them and reacted??? 
As without the 'live and dangerous" aspect it would be a pointless exercise, stick him/her on a simulator if they pass that put 
them on the road for a 'live' awareness test. 
As pointed out, it would mean the DVLA having tech staff at medical centres or vice versa. 

You like to have your say, so "How would you improve the safety of cyclists" you have made it clear that you have the intellect
to sort it out. The forum is yours make your points..


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> So @classic33 you would deliberately put someone in harms way to see if the person being tested saw them and reacted???
> As without the 'live and dangerous" aspect it would be a pointless exercise, stick him/her on a simulator if they pass that put
> them on the road for a 'live' awareness test.
> As pointed out, it would mean the DVLA having tech staff at medical centres or vice versa.
> ...


Same points you raised, and objected to the answers, were given to a group of MP's over five years ago. They've yet to get back with a single answer.

To use your point of if you don't like doing something, don't do. If you don't feel safe driving on the roads, don't do it.

You're stuck with two issues, cycle and rider are one unit when in use, only the one riderless cycle seen sofar. The cyclist is the powerplant(engine), how do you plan on testing the engine?

I've never said put anyone in harms way to see how they'd react to a person being tested. Just that all tests/retests be carried out in realtime conditions, something you seem to regard as dangerous yet perfectly safe to do once the test has been passed. You see no difference between before and after.


----------



## Profpointy (7 Sep 2015)

slightly lost my way in this, but are we really debating compulsory medicals for cyclists? (the "engine" of a bike)


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

Profpointy said:


> slightly lost my way in this, but are we really debating compulsory medicals for cyclists? (the "engine" of a bike)


Seems to be what @Chris_Kn is in favour of, but he won't answer the question.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Seems to be what @Chris_Kn is in favour of, but he won't answer the question.


Only an idiot would argue for that....


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Only an idiot would argue for that....


Its for safety reasons, as far as I can tell.


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

It took over ten years to get changes made to the pedlec regulations to include quads in the current UK rules.
Any kneejerk reaction on cyclist registration won't help cyclists.


----------



## Markymark (7 Sep 2015)

It'll never happen. Our city roads are gridlocked and polluted. Cycling is the councils' answer.


----------



## theclaud (7 Sep 2015)

See post #134, peeps. No need to dance to this tune.


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

theclaud said:


> See post #134, peeps. No need to dance to this tune.


that'd be post #111, not seen since.


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2015)

simongt said:


> With the recent coverage of HGVs and cyclists in London, it's time to play devil's advocate. I believe myself to be reasonably qualified to observe on the situation as over the last forty years, I've driven cars, vans large and small, 7.5tonne, 18 tonne and 32 tonne HGVs, all in urban and rural situations. And I've been cycling urban and rural for the last twenty plus years - !
> The problem is very much a two way thing; HGVs are large with restricted vision compared with a car or bike. If an HGV driver can see a cyclist, he / she can react accordingly. But if a cyclist rides / hovers in a blind spot, then there is potential for trouble. Mirrors are fine, but with five plus mirrors to have to scan, an HGV driver can't be watching them all all of the time. Many of the HGV drivers I talk to on a daily basis complain about the number of road users who think an HGV is as easy to control as a car. The main issue appears to be when an HGV needs to turn left, it will often have to swing over to the right in order to negotiate the turn. Even when the HGV has clearly signalled its intention to turn left in good time, cars and cyclists will often whizz up on the left between HGV and kerb, then wonder why they get trashed. It's happened to me as an HGV driver and I've seen it many times on the road. Many HGVs now have a sign on the back stating 'Cyclists, beware of passing on the inside' - it's there for a reason.
> Sorry if this sounds HGV bias, but surely it's common sense to stay behind an HGV if it's there before you and if one comes up beside you at lights etc., let it get away first. Those few seconds delay will probably save your life. Following those two basic rules, in twenty years, the GLW and I have never had any issues with HGVs.


Have a gander at www.tfl.gov.uk/safer-lorry-scheme should you come back.


----------



## flyingfifi (8 Sep 2015)

I was on my cycle tour in june i was hit by a log lorry between oban and Lochgilphead the driver never stopped forced me into a 2 feet ditch i was on my own with full panniers front and back and tent it taking me ten minutes to get out of the ditch i don't see no one to help me all i remember seeing 3 big wheels hitting my wing mirror i tell you the make of the tyres that close it has knocked the conference out of me going onto roads still and if i do go on roads im in tears maybe one day i get there


----------



## mjr (8 Sep 2015)

flyingfifi said:


> I was on my cycle tour in june i was hit by a log lorry between oban and Lochgilphead


Just to make certain: had you passed the lorry on its left?


----------



## flyingfifi (8 Sep 2015)

mcyclingay said:


> Just to make certain: had you passed the lorry on its left?


No i was cycling along the main road going around a conrer when the lorry over taken me on the right his trailer got me he did not see me with a bright pink fluorescent jacket and yellow bib on bike with flyingfifi on tour on the back still donot stopped


----------



## Chris_Kn (8 Sep 2015)

Hey @classic33 Lets get something straight shall we. Your good self, had 2 posts in this thread prior to my posts. Both did nothing to put forward a solution. Since then all you have done is shoot your mouth of and still not put forward solutions.

Giving cyclists medicals is not something I put forward as there would be no need for it and it's kinda daft, if I did it was only after you had said about separating the bike from the rider.
which was a error on my part, You still seemingly want to put people in harms way before you'll accept the a simulator might be a way to help educate/re-educate HGV drivers, which is 
where this thread had moved onto. Instead you seem to want to rake over long gone posts and pull out odd phrases. That fit your agenda, what ever that may be.

Even in the extreme as most of my earlier ones where it focused the attention towards trying to find a solution instead of just being yet another thread becoming the shortcomings of HGV's on British roads.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> a simulator might be a way to help educate/re-educate HGV drivers, which is
> where this thread had moved onto.



But giving cyclists space is all basic stuff learned while getting a car license. Why should professional drivers require education on something that they had to know in order to get their license in the first place.

I don't believe that they don't know the danger they pose. It is negligence, that is causing deaths.


----------



## Simpleton (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Hey @classic33 Lets get something straight shall we. Your good self, had 2 posts in this thread prior to my posts. Both did nothing to put forward a solution. Since then all you have done is shoot your mouth of and still not put forward solutions.
> 
> Giving cyclists medicals is not something I put forward as there would be no need for it and it's kinda daft, if I did it was only after you had said about separating the bike from the rider.
> which was a error on my part, You still seemingly want to put people in harms way before you'll accept the a simulator might be a way to help educate/re-educate HGV drivers, which is
> ...


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Hey @classic33Even in the extreme as most of my earlier ones where it focused the attention towards trying to find a solution instead of just being yet another thread becoming the shortcomings of HGV's on British roads.


The best solution would be to make HGVs safer by better visibility and safer by punishing illegality. Seeing as a substantial number of cyclists are killed by lorries passing and killing them or whilst driven on mobiles or by drivers who should not be on the road, this is more urgent. You don;t like it because it is your industry that behaves despicably. You just call it a 'chip on the shoulder' when pointed out.

You even agreed the illegality is rife. Yet you come on here about cyclists having tests. Foxtrot Oscar and get your house in order first.


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Hey @classic33 Lets get something straight shall we. Your good self, had 2 posts in this thread prior to my posts. Both did nothing to put forward a solution. Since then all you have done is shoot your mouth of and still not put forward solutions.
> 
> Giving cyclists medicals is not something I put forward as there would be no need for it and it's kinda daft, if I did it was only after you had said about separating the bike from the rider.
> which was a error on my part, You still seemingly want to put people in harms way before you'll accept the a simulator might be a way to help educate/re-educate HGV drivers, which is
> ...


To which post do you refer? Then do a quick search of HGV, using my username. See what pops up.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that the rider on a pedal cycle is the power source(engine). Current regulations require the whole vehicle be tested, in one go. That includes the powerplant.
Yesterday I was articulate, now I'm shooting my mouth off, with no change in stance. Which is it?

Read the post about pedlec requirements, changed in April this year. Over nine years spent getting that change brought in, and not on my own either.

You want to be able to use a simulator for a retest, because the roads are too dangerous. But having passed the simulated retest, the same roads are no longer dangerous. Would you care to explain how that works?


----------



## Chris_Kn (8 Sep 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> But giving cyclists space is all basic stuff learned while getting a car license. Why should professional drivers require education on something that they had to know in order to get their license in the first place.
> 
> I don't believe that they don't know the danger they pose. It is negligence, that is causing deaths.



Phil, let's accept this as a fact. Once the 'accident' has happened it's too late to change that drivers ideas and thinking. By going down the road of regular re education
or not getting a license renewed or new one, would be a stark reminder that drivers need to be aware of more vulnerable road users. It isn't if only the 'negligent driver'
is dealt with. As not every driver would be aware that someone had been prosecuted.

According to form and previous posts illegality is getting punished. I actually don't a rats a*** if every HGV driver this side of the Euro tunnel was tested medical/driving
every 12 months and pulled every day Like I said the first few posts got focused the direction of the thread that tbh was floundering along going nowhere, things 
have moved on. So @0-markymark-0 being so offensive does show a certain attitude..

@classic33 you have two posts only in this thread, I'm not really interested in how many threads you have been active in, you where not that active round this one.
THIS , "You seem to misunderstand the fact that the rider on a pedal cycle is the power source(engine)." Is just splitting hairs and being argumentative, if
that extreme was ever to come about it would be something totally new and require new rules. But I thought we had moved on from extremes.. The fact you
can't seem to put forward solid ideas only shoot down ones put forward probably constitutes as 'shooting ones mouth off' if you don't like that then try being more
constructive towards moving the thread forwards. In post #178 you are clearly given an opportunity to to put forward ideas you might have but you decided
not to, just to continue along the same lines. 

@Simpleton not sure how I'm digging a hole. 

Just because an ex HGV driver is trying to engage in some sort of dialogue I don't understand the why try and use me as a target. 
But hey feel free, it does say a lot though.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Phil, let's accept this as a fact. Once the 'accident' has happened it's too late to change that drivers ideas and thinking. By going down the road of regular re education
> or not getting a license renewed or new one, would be a stark reminder that drivers need to be aware of more vulnerable road users. It isn't if only the 'negligent driver'
> is dealt with. As not every driver would be aware that someone had been prosecuted.
> 
> ...


Because the massive elephant in the room is that the illegality and carelessness if from the hgv ubdustry not the cyclists.


----------



## Simpleton (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Phil, let's accept this as a fact. Once the 'accident' has happened it's too late to change that drivers ideas and thinking. By going down the road of regular re education
> or not getting a license renewed or new one, would be a stark reminder that drivers need to be aware of more vulnerable road users. It isn't if only the 'negligent driver'
> is dealt with. As not every driver would be aware that someone had been prosecuted.
> 
> ...




Because in a nutshell your contribution to this thread has been:-


Post a load of assertions regarding the way cyclists ride


Ignore all rebuttals made by other members instead chipping in with the odd strawman and non sequitur


Post another load of assertions, again the onus being on the cyclist


As point 2
It’s tedious. Please stop.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

My guess is that its someone on some trucknet type forum who is getting all the grievances from other HGV drivers and trying to make us change tom compensate for their awful driving attitudes.. I'm guessing it's the same HGV drivers who break the alw constantly in their 20 tonne trucks but it;s difficult to say.

The points raised are never answered, just dismissed as 'chips on shoulders', or 'we have moved on'.

The worry is that this is a glimpse into the mindset of the haulage industry. 

"We're dangerous so you must stay away." 
"But why don't you stop being dangerous?"
"Because it's not us who are getting killed so tough luck. We'll just carry on"


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2015)

When HGV drivers stop killing cyclists by over taking and left turning into them, myself as a cyclist will stop killing HGV drivers by.. oh.. hold on!


----------



## Chris_Kn (8 Sep 2015)

Seeing how things have turned out rather childish on this thread. I'll let all you experts sort out the problem. 
Guys that did move things on thanks, guys who didn't enough said.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

Chris_Kn said:


> Seeing how things have turned out rather childish on this thread. I'll let all you experts sort out the problem.
> Guys that did move things on thanks, guys who didn't enough said.


The sorting needs to come from your colleagues. Are you afraid to tell them?


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The sorting needs to come from your colleagues. Are you afraid to tell them?


Why are you expecting him to sort out the HGV side, in the same way I'm not responsible for cyclists who go through red lights or do go along the side of a HGV. The more HGV drivers who understand the cyclists perspective the better IMO.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> Why are you expecting him to sort out the HGV side, in the same way I'm not responsible for cyclists who go through red lights or do go along the side of a HGV. The more HGV drivers who understand the cyclists perspective the better IMO.


He seems the sort to debate what others should do. The change needs to come from drivers so that woukd be the place to start.

Oh, and you think anything put forward has been 'understood'? It's barely even been read.


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> He seems the sort to debate what others should do. The change needs to come from drivers so that woukd be the place to start.


Being aggressive to one who is listening is not going to get you a sympathetic ear. He isn't responsible for other's bad driving, yes you won't agree totally on what the problem is but is an aggressive attitude going to convert him to your point of view. 

This problem does need to be tackled from multiple sides including recognising that some cyclists don't realise the danger they can put themselves in, equally, cab design is a long way from perfect, and many cyclists end up in the wrong position in relation to a HGV because of the lorry's actions rather than theirs. The fact that some drivers aren't fit to be behind the wheel also needs looking at, but that's one for the police, liciencing authorities and employers.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

To c


summerdays said:


> Being aggressive to one who is listening is not going to get you a sympathetic ear. He isn't responsible for other's bad driving, yes you won't agree totally on what the problem is but is an aggressive attitude going to convert him to your point of view.
> 
> This problem does need to be tackled from multiple sides including recognising that some cyclists don't realise the danger they can put themselves in, equally, cab design is a long way from perfect, and many cyclists end up in the wrong position in relation to a HGV because of the lorry's actions rather than theirs. The fact that some drivers aren't fit to be behind the wheel also needs looking at, but that's one for the police, licencing authorities and employers.


''equally'??? Really??
There is nothing equal about it. The odds are massively stacked against us. HGV industry from those driving to those controlling on the whole do not care. The illegality is rife. Make every cyclist obey the law or every HGV driver obey the law. Guess which one would save by far the most lives. To come on here and tell us that lorries pay into the tax system so should be given some leniency is offensive in the least. Any notion of drivers taking responsibility is just dismissed. I am not saying he is responsible, but go preach to those that are.

To quote another fellow memeber:

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2015)

I tried to answer the points he raised, whilst trying to get an answer as to how a road can be unsafe for a test(when your driving is at a different level) & safe once the test has been passed on a simulator.


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2015)

I didn't mean equal as in the same amount, just in looking at the other side, words aren't always my best side, as if you look at what I wrote after the equally I did feel that I said a lot more problems from the lorry side. Not sure what word I should have used instead. I'm trying to say that there are multiple angles from which the problem needs to be looked at.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> I didn't mean equal as in the same amount, just in looking at the other side, words aren't always my best side, as if you look at what I wrote after the equally I did feel that I said a lot more problems from the lorry side. Not sure what word I should have used instead. I'm trying to say that there are multiple angles from which the problem needs to be looked at.


Fair enough. I bet my wife's bike that our friend thinks it's equally.


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Fair enough. I bet my wife's bike that our friend thinks it's equally.


I'd say its a shared responsibility though, no-one seems to be watching out for us


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Have a gander at www.tfl.gov.uk/safer-lorry-scheme should you come back.


And the result, from the drivers side of things on Trucknet


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (9 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> And the result, from the drivers side of things on Trucknet


just read the Trucknet forum and they go on about why are they on the nearside. have you ever tried to cycle on the offside of the road all you get is abuse. one guys goes on about the cycle lane being there but doesn't mean you still should go up the nearside of a cab. Hang on that our lane that drivers constantly whinge about now they don't want us to use it to pass them. how the hell can we pass them in any other way????


----------



## Profpointy (9 Sep 2015)

BEHMOTH66 said:


> just read the Trucknet forum and they go on about why are they on the nearside. have you ever tried to cycle on the offside of the road all you get is abuse. one guys goes on about the cycle lane being there but doesn't mean you still should go up the nearside of a cab. Hang on that our lane that drivers constantly whinge about now they don't want us to use it to pass them. how the hell can we pass them in any other way????



truck driver is basically right here - ie cycle lanes are nearly always useless and dangerous as they encourange cyclists into the most dangerous position. And then as you say, we get beeped at for not using em


----------

