# Left turn alarm on lorries



## simon the viking (19 Dec 2013)

I was overtaken by a Lorry on the approach to an island this morning (No issues with overtake... plenty of room)

As I approached the back of the lorry I saw its indicator but as I got closer I heard a loud bleeper, And I thought "Aghhhhh he's reversing!" but then the bleeper shouted "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT."

Wow.... what a good idea, I've never come across this before.... Is it common on new lorries? and does it come on with indicators (as it seemed to start later than indicators as I had already seen them) or does the driver press it when he overtakes a cyclist near a junction. 

Note: I wasn't going to go up the inside of said lorry I always wait behind vehicles that will squash me and my bike properly.....


----------



## Globalti (19 Dec 2013)

It would be easy enough to programme the truck so that the warning sounded when the gearbox was in neutral or the brake applied and the left hand indicator switched on. The speakers could be along the nearside of the vehicle.


----------



## simon the viking (19 Dec 2013)

Globalti said:


> It would be easy enough to programme the truck so that the warning sounded when the gearbox was in neutral or the brake applied and the left hand indicator switched on. The speakers could be along the nearside of the vehicle.


It did seem to activate later than the signal.... Is it common though never heard of it before


----------



## Chris S (19 Dec 2013)

I think there is a problem with lorry drivers seeing cyclists, overtaking them and then making left turns. 

It hapened to me. I think the only reason why the lorry driver stopped was because there were other vehicles behind us who had seen what he had done.


----------



## tyred (20 Dec 2013)

How do you expect me to hear it when I'm wearing headphones?


----------



## classic33 (20 Dec 2013)

Some vehicles are being fitted with them, others havd cameras that allow the driver to see if there is anything coming up either side.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Dec 2013)

Don't lorries already have indicators? Surely lorry drivers who don't use indicators won't use a left turn alarm. And cyclists who ignore indicators will ignore a left turn alarm. Technological solutions to human problems don't work.


----------



## buggi (20 Dec 2013)

they are fitting them to our works LGVs. Nice to hear feedback like this. I think they are loud and accompanied by a beep so you should hear them if you had headphones but it's something I'll bring up at work and ensure its fed back.


----------



## oldroadman (20 Dec 2013)

Shouldn't be wearing bl...y headphones at all. All senses should be at best level when riding. The buzzer/warning thing is probably automatic and an extension of the wanings when trucks/buses are reversing. If you don't hear that because of some stupid song blasting away in headphones, then a darwin award possibly awaits, along with removal of the sense of immortality!


----------



## buggi (20 Dec 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Shouldn't be wearing bl...y headphones at all. All senses should be at best level when riding. The buzzer/warning thing is probably automatic and an extension of the wanings when trucks/buses are reversing. If you don't hear that because of some stupid song blasting away in headphones, then a darwin award possibly awaits, along with removal of the sense of immortality!


 it's not illegal to wear headphones (whatever your opinion) and therefore I think a valid point has been made. the fact remains that some cyclists do wear them, and so do some pedestrians.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Dec 2013)

buggi said:


> it's not illegal to wear headphones (whatever your opinion) and therefore I think a valid point has been made. the fact remains that some cyclists do wear them, and so do some pedestrians.




I think the only validity in this point is that some people do wear them.

If those people choose to wear them and turn them up so loud that they cannot hear what is going on around them, then it is their lookout. They have a responsibility to look after their own safety and not expect to be Molly coddled by every other road user.

I am not sure how the new alarms work but I think any steps that lorry firms are taking to make the roads safer for cyclists has to be applauded.

Steve


----------



## Mugshot (20 Dec 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Shouldn't be wearing bl...y headphones at all. *All senses should be at best level when riding. *The buzzer/warning thing is probably automatic and an extension of the wanings when trucks/buses are reversing. If you don't hear that because of some stupid song blasting away in headphones, then a darwin award possibly awaits, along with removal of the sense of immortality!


Quite right too, we should make sure deaf people dont ride bikes either for that very reason.


----------



## buggi (20 Dec 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I think the only validity in this point is that some people do wear them.
> 
> If those people choose to wear them and turn them up so loud that they cannot hear what is going on around them, then it is their lookout. They have a responsibility to look after their own safety and not expect to be Molly coddled by every other road user.
> 
> ...


 
yea but if you have a choice between sensors to tell the driver there is a cyclist or a voice telling the cyclist the lorry is turning, would it cross their minds the cyclist might not be able to hear because they were plugged in... or.. in the extreme... come to think of it... could the cyclist be deaf or have limited hearing. Plus, the audible warning is for all vulnerable road users not just cyclists. you could have a deaf pedestrian. All I'm saying is, it might not have been considered when making the decision.

So I'm gonna ask how loud it is and if this has been considered.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Dec 2013)

Ok if you are deaf the indicators are a visual aid. I don't go along with the argument that all lorry drivers don't indicate. Being an ex lorry driver, I think the majority of them do indicate.

I have never heard one so don't know if there is an audible alarm and a voice, or how loud they are.

I have an ex colleague who has one fitted to his truck. I will ask him.


----------



## wait4me (20 Dec 2013)

buggi said:


> yea but if you have a choice between sensors to tell the driver there is a cyclist or a voice telling the cyclist the lorry is turning, would it cross their minds the cyclist might not be able to hear because they were plugged in... or.. in the extreme... come to think of it... could the cyclist be deaf or have limited hearing. Plus, the audible warning is for all vulnerable road users not just cyclists. you could have a deaf pedestrian. All I'm saying is, it might not have been considered when making the decision.
> 
> So I'm gonna ask how loud it is and if this has been considered.



Regarding the people wearing earphones I feel you're defending the indefensible.
I fail to understand the brain workings of someone who puts a bit of music ahead of self preservation.
These people expect another person to take extra care for them when they don't bother to take all possible safety measures for themselves?


----------



## Ganymede (21 Dec 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Don't lorries already have indicators? Surely lorry drivers who don't use indicators won't use a left turn alarm. And cyclists who ignore indicators will ignore a left turn alarm. Technological solutions to human problems don't work.



You have a point, but if you are a lorry driver who has this alarm fitted to your truck, you're going to have been made much more aware of the whole turning-left danger scenario and therefore probably more likely to signal. I mean, having the alarm fitted acts as education in itself to the driver.



steveindenmark said:


> Being an ex lorry driver, I think the majority of them do indicate.



Unscientifically, I can definitely say I've had far more trouble with cars not indicating than trucks. And as a driver of quite big vans myself, I do think there is a strong sensibility when you're up in a van cab to make sure people know where you're going - not that this always translates into awareness of everything/body around you, and it can't deal with the issue of blind spots. Some car drivers do like to "nip out" of places or nip into gaps - you really can't do that in a big vehicle.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

I agree 100% with Steve and wait4me! 
Whether you're cycling, driving or walking, everyone has a responsibility to look after their own safety.


----------



## oldroadman (21 Dec 2013)

buggi said:


> yea but if you have a choice between sensors to tell the driver there is a cyclist or a voice telling the cyclist the lorry is turning, would it cross their minds the cyclist might not be able to hear because they were plugged in... or.. in the extreme... come to think of it... could the cyclist be deaf or have limited hearing. Plus, the audible warning is for all vulnerable road users not just cyclists. you could have a deaf pedestrian. All I'm saying is, it might not have been considered when making the decision.
> 
> So I'm gonna ask how loud it is and if this has been considered.


 
If you know anyone deaf (I do) who riders, what's interesting is that they appear to be far more aware of what's happening round them because they have to compensate for poor/nonexistant hearing and are suitably careful. Unlike someone who sticks earphones on and does not instantly get that innate compensating from other cues, or has the heightened sense of self-preservation I've observed. Others may call this road sense!


----------



## simon the viking (21 Dec 2013)

A few people have asked how loud It was? loud enough for me to think "WTF is that" then realise it was the lorry....

With regard to being able to hear it because of headphones all I can say is......


----------



## buggi (21 Dec 2013)

oldroadman said:


> If you know anyone deaf (I do) who riders, what's interesting is that they appear to be far more aware of what's happening round them because they have to compensate for poor/nonexistant hearing and are suitably careful. Unlike someone who sticks earphones on and does not instantly get that innate compensating from other cues, or has the heightened sense of self-preservation I've observed. Others may call this road sense!


 well, it doesn't matter what you think of people wearing headphones, they exist, it's not illegal so they are not breaking the law and therefore it should be something to be considered when deciding on what equipment goes on lorries.


----------



## buggi (21 Dec 2013)

wait4me said:


> Regarding the people wearing earphones I feel you're defending the indefensible.
> I fail to understand the brain workings of someone who puts a bit of music ahead of self preservation.
> These people expect another person to take extra care for them when they don't bother to take all possible safety measures for themselves?


Sometimes I wear them and sometimes I don't. I don't find it makes a difference. Cars give me the same room when overtaking whether I'm wearing them or not (and you can hear traffic). I never change position on the road without first looking whether I'm wearing them or not. I never signal and change lanes without first looking whether I'm wearing them or not, and when I see a lorry at a junction I'm just as careful if I'm wearing them than if I'm not. If someone hits me from behind because they pass too close, I'm pretty sure that would happen whether I was wearing them or not, as my hearing is not so toned in any event that I can tell if they are going to hit me because of a few inches they didn't give. If I looked back at every car that I heard approaching from behind, I'm pretty sure I would crash because I wouldn't be looking where I'm going. 

when I'm in my car, I always play music too. It blocks the sound from outside. I don't see anyone whinging about that. Yes, I have mirrors but I have to look in them if I want to see behind. When I'm cycling I look back if I want to see behind and as a cyclist I have a much wider field of vision anyhow. 

and just as there are cyclists who ride up the inside of lorries who don't wear headphones, so there are those that ride up the inside of a lorry that do wear headphones. The cost of sensors to tell the driver a cyclist is riding up the inside is, I understand, £600. It is the same cost to put the audible alarm on. So if you're going to spend £600 putting equipment on lorries, it seems sensible to me that you would consider all angles and choose the most appropriate for your £600. Particularly, as riding with headphones is common practice and legal.


----------



## uclown2002 (21 Dec 2013)

I wear only one earphone and hear the traffic perfectly fine!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Dec 2013)

Ganymede said:


> You have a point, but if you are a lorry driver who has this alarm fitted to your truck, you're going to have been made much more aware of the whole turning-left danger scenario and therefore probably more likely to signal. I mean, having the alarm fitted acts as education in itself to the driver.


 
Fair point, but we're back to educating other road users again, which I've always said is the only way forward. Far too much time and energy is spent making the world safe for idiots* these days when the only long term solution is to educate the idiots. Lorries already have a highly visible warning device to tell other road users they're going to turn, the driver just needs to choose to use it.

*by "idiots" I mean cyclists and lorry drivers; there are idiots in both camps. Not pointing the finger at any one group in particular ...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Dec 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> I wear only one ear phone and hear the traffic perfectly fine!


 
On the other hand, the music must sound crap!


----------



## Alun (21 Dec 2013)

I wear an eye patch over one eye when I'm cycling!


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

It's been said many times....don't cycle up the inside of lorries!
This debate on headphones verses car stereos is a really stupid comparison. The world of hgv's isn't gonna change just to suit cyclists. Those injured in the past. 9 times out of 10 have themselves to blame.


----------



## oldroadman (21 Dec 2013)

buggi said:


> well, it doesn't matter what you think of people wearing headphones, they exist, it's not illegal so they are not breaking the law and therefore it should be something to be considered when deciding on what equipment goes on lorries.


 Indeed I am sure you are correct in what you say. We have sometimes to have rules to protect people from their own lack of sense of preservation.


----------



## Saluki (21 Dec 2013)

I think that the left hand turning alarm is a good idea.
I have heard alarms saying 'caution vehicle reversing' often enough so a left hand turn alarm is a reasonable idea.

I don't cycle up the inside of big vehicles. I do sometimes listen to a bit of music (in one ear) while cycling. I never have headphones in when cycling through towns or cities, just when I am out on proper roads. Its not on at a loud volume at all, I can hear my wheels on the tarmac. Sometimes the music just gives me a bit of ooof when I need it.


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Dec 2013)

I wonder if the cyclists of the Netherlands are currently debating the need for indicator/proximity alarms on Dutch trucks?


.............?


----------



## buggi (21 Dec 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> I wonder if the cyclists of the Netherlands are currently debating the need for indicator/proximity alarms on Dutch trucks?
> 
> 
> .............?


No, they are still too busy laughing their asses off at our cycle highways.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Dec 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Indeed I am sure you are correct in what you say. We have sometimes to have rules to protect people from their own lack of sense of preservation.


So you wish I should stop cycling because I have impaired hearing?

I also where I wear headphones whilst out cycling.

Alan...


----------



## buggi (21 Dec 2013)

I find that those wearing headphones act pretty much the same as they do if they weren't. You are either a conscientious cyclist or you're not. You are either trained or untrained. and you are either experienced or non-experienced. The headphones don't make a difference, those that wear them cycle the same if they are wearing them as they do when they are not. and if someone is inexperienced enough to cycle up the side of a lorry on an occasion where a more experienced cyclist would take caution, they will do so whether they are wearing headphones or not. This is the reason why it is sensible to take this into account when deciding on whether to have an audible alarm for cyclist or a sensor to alert the driver. Ideally, they would put both types of alarms on lorries. That would be best. But either way, one or the other is better than non at all.


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Dec 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> I wonder if the cyclists of the Netherlands are currently debating the need for indicator/proximity alarms on Dutch trucks?
> 
> 
> .............?


Yes they are. They are also talking about it in Denmark as well. Even though we have excellent cycle path systems we still have fatalities involving lorries turning right (We drive on the other side of the road), but not on the scale of the UK, obviously.

Buggi, if you can hear the traffic when wearing your headphones, you will apparently have no problem hearing the alarms and warnings from the trucks because they are louder than the traffic.


----------



## PK99 (21 Dec 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> I wonder if the cyclists of the Netherlands are currently debating the need for indicator/proximity alarms on Dutch trucks?
> 
> .............?




*Information*
This entry was posted on 20 November 2013 bybicycledutch in Original posts and tagged figures,infrastructure, sustainable safety, trucks.

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/cycling-and-trucks-dutch-way/







from another source:


Publications
The problem of lorries turning right.
C. Schoon (2006). R-2006-2. Leidschendam,
SWOV. [In Dutch, with a summary in
English]

The circumstances of blind spot crashes
and short- and long-term measures.
C. Schoon, M. Doumen. & D. de Bruin
(2008). R-2008-11A en R-2008-11B.
SWOV, Leidschendam. [In Dutch, with a
summary in English]

Blind spot crashes. SWOV Fact sheet,
May 2009.

Model design for Blind spot Detection and
Observation Systems. D. Hoedemaeker,
M. Doumen, M. de Goede, J. Hogema,
R. Brouwer, & A. Wennemers (2010) Rapport
TNO-DV 2010 C150. Soesterberg,:
TNO Defence, Security and Safety. [In
Dutch, with a summary in English

And here, not so recent (2011) but relevant:
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf
Topics:
Safety in numbers: more cyclists, lower risks?

Cycling fatalities in blind spot crashes

Infrastructure and bicycle crashes: safety increasing, yet more to do

Music and phone calls: increased risk while cycling

Bicycle helmets: The pros and cons INCLUDING:
Project
To promote the use of bicycle helmets, all
primary school pupils of groups 1 to 4 (ages
4-7) in the Dutch province of Zeeland are
given a free bicycle helmet during the period
Publication
Bicycle helmets. SWOV Fact sheet,
December 2011.
The use of helmets
is currently being promoted in a number
of other (European) countries.
2011–2015. An evaluation study in which
SWOV participates investigates which factors
are responsible for children wearing or not
wearing their helmet. It will also look at the
effects on injury trends. The study monitors the
development in helmet wearing, injuries and
perception from the start of the project in 2011
until the end of the project in 2015. ■


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2832922 said:


> Bollocks, and offensive bollocks at that.


Bollocks to you aswell!


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Bollocks to you aswell!


If people cycle up the inside of trucks and something happens it's their own fault. Just stay back, it's simple. 
What's offensive about the truth?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> What you said was not the truth, it was ignorant and very offensive to anyone connected with the people who have been killed by HGVs while doing absolutely nothing wrong. You should go and look at the reports of the recent accidents, and then come back here and apologise.


How many of the drivers were arrested? Also, the drivers were doing nothing wrong either. If a lorry is turning left just wait behind. Or if you're really desperate, filter on the right and sit right in front of the driver.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> What you said was not the truth, it was ignorant and very offensive to anyone connected with the people who have been killed by HGVs while doing absolutely nothing wrong. You should go and look at the reports of the recent accidents, and then come back here and apologise.


And also, stop trying to lay the guilt factor about the deaths with me.


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> And also, stop trying to lay the guilt factor about the deaths with me.



Then stop making baseless assertions that 90% of cyclists are to blame when they are injured in collisions with HGVs - it's arrant nonsense that is both disrespectful and hurtful to the victims and their families.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Origamist said:


> Then stop making baseless assertions that 90% of cyclists are to blame when they are injured in collisions with HGVs - it's arrant nonsense that is both disrespectful and hurtful to the victims and their families.


LOL


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> LOL


If you don't ride up the inside of HGV's you won't get squashed. What part of that don't you get?


----------



## Mugshot (21 Dec 2013)

Why do you keep quoting yourself? Its bad enough we have to see it once.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Why do keep quoting yourself? Its bad enough we have to see it once.


Incase you missed it!


----------



## Mugshot (21 Dec 2013)

Unfortunately not


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Unfortunately not


Why is it so terrible to speak the truth?


----------



## Mugshot (21 Dec 2013)

Speaking the truth is admirable, as has been pointed out however, you are not.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> *by "idiots" I mean cyclists and lorry drivers; there are idiots in both camps. Not pointing the finger at any one group in particular ...



The point this misses is that cyclists, idiotic or not, don't kill and main lorry drivers. Lorries and their drivers continue to kill and maim cyclists (and pedestrians), idiotic or otherwise.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Speaking the truth is admirable, as has been pointed out however, you are not.


Educate me!


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> From another thread on here:


That's just a bias article written by a cyclist. They got the title right on the bottom right of the page.
If the lorry is at fault 75% of the time! why do the drivers never get charged?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> And from the same thread:
> 
> http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/john-forester-is-an-peanut/


[/quote]
You're just quoting people that have died. I know this!


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> I see you are just trolling, and beneath contempt, so I'll not bother with you any more.


To tell the truth is to troll. You're just a car hating cyclist. You have told me nothing, because you have nothing to offer. Perhaps try another thread where you may be of some service?


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> If you don't ride up the inside of HGV's you won't get squashed. What part of that don't you get?



I see you are making no attempt to support your view that 9/10 cyclists are to blame for being injured. That is a relief, as it is embarrassing when people whose views are based on ignorance and bias try to substantiate an idiotic claim.

Are you aware that there are many different collision types involving cyclists and HGVs? Have you read any of the literature published by TRL and TFL on the subject? I'm guessing not. I'd recommend looking at the topic in more depth and try to stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.

Finally, you are not voicing "unspeakable truths" - they are ill-informed opinions that are offensive to many people.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

Origamist said:


> I see you are making no attempt to support your view that 9/10 cyclists are to blame for being injured. That is a relief, as it is embarrassing when people whose views are based on ignorance and bias try to substantiate an idiotic claim.
> 
> Are you aware that there are many different collision types involving cyclists and HGVs? Have you read any of the reports published by TRL and TFL on the subject? I'm guessing not. I'd recommend looking at the topic in more depth and try to stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.
> 
> Finally, you are not voicing "unspeakable truths", but ill-informed opinions.


So....what part don't you get?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833194 said:


> You made the assertion that 90% had themselves to blame. Back it up, apologize, or !@#$ off.


Back it up? You only have to watch what some stupid people do on the road. You're obviously another "get out the way world" I'm a cyclist merchant.
What swear word was that? I have noted the spelling though....Thanks


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833217 said:


> The bit where you show how 90% those deaths occurred through mistakes made by the cyclist.


How many drivers were charged?


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2013)

buggi said:


> . The cost of sensors to tell the driver a cyclist is riding up the inside is, I understand, £600. It is the same cost to put the audible alarm on. So if you're going to spend £600 putting equipment on lorries, it seems sensible to me that you would consider all angles and choose the most appropriate for your £600.



Quite. In an either-or scenario, sensors are the better option, because they place the responsibility where it belongs - on the operator/s of the vehicle posing the threat. My main objection to alarms is that they do exactly the opposite, and endorse the principle that it's OK to bring anything, however dangerous, onto a public road as long as it is shouting "GET OUT OF MY WAY!" loudly enough. That and the fact that there's already too much unpleasant vehicle-related noise in our lives. I'd be surprised if anyone hears a left-turning-lorry alarm over the near-constant and entirely pointless wailing of car alarms (which should obviously be banned).


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Back it up? You only have to watch what some stupid people do on the road. You're obviously another "get out the way world" I'm a cyclist merchant.
> What swear word was that? I have noted the spelling though....Thanks



The point is that you're demonstrably WRONG as well as offensive.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> The point is that you're demonstrably WRONG as well as offensive.


Why, Because you say so? What is this offensive crap that you all keep saying? Stop trying to gain sympathy all the time and get away from the real issue of some cyclists stupidity in traffic.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833229 said:


> Yes back it up, apologize or !@#$ off.


You don't sound as if you get out much. Or you live somewhere real quiet. Am I right Ade?


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Why, Because you say so? What is this offensive crap that you all keep saying? Stop trying to gain sympathy all the time and get away from the real issue of some cyclists stupidity in traffic.



The word you missed is _demonstrably_.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Why, Because you say so? What is this offensive crap that you all keep saying? Stop trying to gain sympathy all the time and get away from the real issue of some cyclists stupidity in traffic.


There are stupid cyclists. There are stupid posters on cycling forums. Nobody wants to be stupid. So why not stop?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> The word you missed is _demonstrably_.


I didn't miss it Mr the.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I didn't miss it Mr the.


Ah - so you just have no idea what it means, then?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> There are stupid cyclists. There are stupid posters on cycling forums. Nobody wants to be stupid. So why not stop?


Because a few of you good ol' boys don't like the truth I am supposed to just agree, is that it?
Not me matey.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> Ah - so you just have no idea what it means, then?


That's it claud, you got me matey. That one word is just too much for my very limited vocabulary.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> Ah - so you just have no idea what it means, then?


What a very childish way to respond. Is that really all you've got? I'm not surprised though, not atall.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Because a few of you good ol' boys don't like the truth I am supposed to just agree, is that it?
> Not me matey.


No, because I believe you're wrong. You're not my ''matey'' either.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> *Is that really all you've got?* I'm not surprised though, not atall.



Hell no. But there's no need to get the heavy artillery out to shoot fish in a barrel. Especially really stupid fish.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> No, because I believe you're wrong. You're not my ''matey'' either.


Ha ha ha ha! Like it. You believe I'm wrong, but I don't! It's always the same here, the same little band of brothers that all clique together when some one has a different opinion. You all brown nose each other all the time anyway.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> Hell no. But there's no need to get the heavy artillery out to shoot fish in a barrel. Especially really stupid fish.


Sorry Mr claud sir, what does that mean Mr claud sir?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833285 said:


> So nothing of any substance then. Oh well.


Oh well indeed Adey. You potter off up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire, it's getting late.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Ha ha ha ha! Like it. You believe I'm wrong, but I don't! It's always the same here, the same little band of brothers that all clique together when some one has a different opinion. You all brown nose each other all the time anyway.


I've stopped riding. I haven't been out on the streets since Boris decided to defend himself by attacking headphone wearers. Introduce an oral specification that doesn't apply to any other road user than cyclists. Because they might not be fully aware of the killers out there? 

And, believe me, although I admit to appreciate getting likes online, I brown nose nobody. 

I'm also capable of being a solid and versatile adversary.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833305 said:


> Seriously, no attempt to justify your original, loathsome assertion at all? Why is it loathsome to tell the truth? Stay behind the lorry until it goes and you won't have an accident at that time. It's pretty simple really.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I've stopped riding. I haven't been out on the streets since Boris decided to defend himself by attacking headphone wearers. Introduce an oral specification that doesn't apply to any other road user than cyclists. Because they might not be fully aware of the killers out there?
> 
> And, believe me, although I admit to appreciate getting likes online, I brown nose nobody.
> 
> I'm also capable of being a solid and versatile adversary.


Why would that stop you riding?


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833325 said:


> And in those cases where the lorry overtook and left hooked you stupid arse?


Personal insults will get you nowhere. Have I personally insulted you or sworn at you?, no.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Why would that stop you riding?


If the driver is exonerated for being unable to see what they're doing, the victim stands no chance other than luck. If the headphone wearer is vilified for not being able to hear what the killers all around might do, then I believe the balance is in the rider's disfavour. If that's accepted by the courts as some kind of ''I couldn't see what I was doing'' defence, then I don't want to be a statistical loser in a pre-weighted battle. I don't want to be a soundbite for a politician's belated interest, or collateral damage in the KSI figures for London.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If the driver is exonerated for being unable to see what they're doing, the victim stands no chance other than luck. If the headphone wearer is vilified for not being able to hear what the killers all around might do, then I believe the balance is in the rider's disfavour. If that's accepted by the courts as some kind of ''I couldn't see what I was doing'' defence, then I don't want to be a statistical loser in a pre-weighted battle. I don't want to be a soundbite for a politician's belated interest, or collateral damage in the KSI figures for London.


I understand what you are saying totally. It's a pretty tough decision to decide not to ride again though. But I do understand.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

2833331 said:


> How about you just deal with the question, rather than the avenues for ducking it.


I refuse to lower myself to your level and be drawn into calling each other names. I am a better person than you, obviously.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I understand what you are saying totally. It's a pretty tough decision to decide not to ride again though. But I do understand.


It's never lasted as long as 2 months before. We'll see. I might just go out from sheer desperation.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's never lasted as long as 2 months before. We'll see. I might just go out from sheer desperation.


I sincerely hope you do. Otherwise they have won. I love riding, I do it very day, even in my sleep.


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

2833355 said:


> You are a twat who has made a dispicable assertion about some people killed whilst going about their lives and who is now weaseling out of talking about that. Whether or not I am even worse is of no consequence.


Adrian, you seem to have a lot of pent up anger there. And your use of derogatory language towards me isn't nice atall. But I will not rise to it.
Swear at me as much as you like, it will only be you that pays the consequences.
I do get the impression that you are not a very nice man to know. Do you live alone by any chance?


----------



## buggi (22 Dec 2013)

Just because a cyclist rides up the side of a lorry doesn't make them stupid, it makes them inexperienced. everyone makes mistakes, and more so are made in this scenario because there is often a nicely painted cycle lane inviting the inexperienced cyclist into it. Often young people (and particularly girls i think) and those that don't drive do not understand the turning circle of large vehicles. And having done it once, and nothing untoward happens, they continue to do it blissfully unaware of the danger. No one goes out the house in the morning to die and no one goes out the house meaning to kill. But the responsibility is always on any driver to take more care around road users more vulnerable than themselves, whether that be a car driver or lorry driver. Inexperienced cyclists do not deserve to die because they chose, legally, to ride up the inside of a lorry and the driver, for whatever reason, does not see them (be it his mistake or not) and neither should the driver have to suffer the trauma, which is why everything should be done to reduce these terrible accidents. If that means debating whether to install camera's, sensors or audible alarms whilst taking into account all angles/circumstances, then so be it. 

The bottom line is, it's not illegal to either filter or wear headphones, and although opinions will always vary, just as with helmets, the fact remains that this scenario exists and therefore should be considered when debating what equipment to install. And if a company install a £600 system that fails because the cyclist doesn't hear it then it is, literally, a waste of money. I do think however, as stated earlier by another poster, that the alarm is very loud so likely to be heard by someone wearing headphones.


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> If you don't ride up the inside of HGV's you won't get squashed. What part of that don't you get?


I had right of way, legally, and still ended up under one. 
Driver & vehicle cut across the road, tightening his turn as he pulled out from the factory yard. Even stationary I'd have stood no chance of avoiding the trailer. And I was in front of him, head on.


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

You're just quoting people that have died. I know this![/quote]
Have I missed something or have posts been deleted?
Can you explain how you quote someone who has died?


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

I'm trying to work out who else has/had the same style of posting as roadrider48. And not for the first time either.

Rough cost for the equipment to become compulsory if Labour win the next General Election.
Figures given for typical 18-tonner.
Reversing Alarm: £130.
Rear-view Camera: £450.
Flashing Lights & Beacons: £650.
Daytime Running Lights: £350.
Class VI(Cyclops) Mirror: £25.
Rear Warning Signs For Cyclists: £3
The above to be fitted within a month of the election, the following by December 2017.
Side Underrun Guards: N/A.
Blind Spot Elimination Devices: £450.
Audible Warning For Cyclists: £130.
Comes to about £2,200.
An Artic would cost disproportionately more & Tipper Operators can add a further £2,500 for Side Underrun Bars & Sheeting System.

Uncertainty yet as to wether the beacons will be required to be on at all times. If so what about vehicles already oblliged to have these fitted & in operation when on the road.


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

classic33 said:


> I'm trying to work out who else has/had the same style of posting as roadrider48. And not for the first time either.
> 
> Rough cost for the equipment to become compulsory if Labour win the next General Election.
> Figures given for typical 18-tonner.
> ...


What are you talking about? Waffling on about nothing.


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

classic33 said:


> I had right of way, legally, and still ended up under one.
> Driver & vehicle cut across the road, tightening his turn as he pulled out from the factory yard. Even stationary I'd have stood no chance of avoiding the trailer. And I was in front of him, head on.


I am sorry to hear about your accident.


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

buggi said:


> Just because a cyclist rides up the side of a lorry doesn't make them stupid, it makes them inexperienced. everyone makes mistakes, and more so are made in this scenario because there is often a nicely painted cycle lane inviting the inexperienced cyclist into it. Often young people (and particularly girls i think) and those that don't drive do not understand the turning circle of large vehicles. And having done it once, and nothing untoward happens, they continue to do it blissfully unaware of the danger. No one goes out the house in the morning to die and no one goes out the house meaning to kill. But the responsibility is always on any driver to take more care around road users more vulnerable than themselves, whether that be a car driver or lorry driver. Inexperienced cyclists do not deserve to die because they chose, legally, to ride up the inside of a lorry and the driver, for whatever reason, does not see them (be it his mistake or not) and neither should the driver have to suffer the trauma, which is why everything should be done to reduce these terrible accidents. If that means debating whether to install camera's, sensors or audible alarms whilst taking into account all angles/circumstances, then so be it.
> 
> The bottom line is, it's not illegal to either filter or wear headphones, and although opinions will always vary, just as with helmets, the fact remains that this scenario exists and therefore should be considered when debating what equipment to install. And if a company install a £600 system that fails because the cyclist doesn't hear it then it is, literally, a waste of money. I do think however, as stated earlier by another poster, that the alarm is very loud so likely to be heard by someone wearing headphones.


That's quite a good post....I like that!


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

classic33 said:


> You're just quoting people that have died. I know this!


Have I missed something or have posts been deleted?
Can you explain how you quote someone who has died?[/quote]
I don't know, did you miss something?
I am not obliged to explain anything to you. You are another of these "usual suspects"


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

2833365 said:


> Pathetic


Tut tut tut Adrian, is one getting irked?


----------



## Mugshot (22 Dec 2013)

classic33 said:


> I'm trying to work out who else has/had the same style of posting as roadrider48. And not for the first time either.
> 
> Rough cost for the equipment to become compulsory if Labour win the next General Election.
> Figures given for typical 18-tonner.
> ...


Are these manifesto pledges?


----------



## ianrauk (22 Dec 2013)

Keep to the topic in hand people. 
No more tit for tat personal insults or thread bans will ensue.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Shouldn't be wearing bl...y headphones at all. All senses should be at best level when riding. The buzzer/warning thing is probably automatic and an extension of the wanings when trucks/buses are reversing. If you don't hear that because of some stupid song blasting away in headphones, then a darwin award possibly awaits, along with removal of the sense of immortality!



Does the Darwin Award also go to any driver who closes their windows?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2013)

This is not the answer that is needed!

I personally find that the respsonsible companies and drivers are fine, yet these are the ones fitting the mirrors, cameras, audible devices etc.

What we need is a way to tackle the cowboy outfits and poor drivers who are the real issue for me


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Are these manifesto pledges?


Yes. Its been broken down into what will be required, and the cost of doing so, at present prices. If you can remember the cost of the humble warning device designed to be fitted to a bicycle, the bell, before the change in the law(49p) to after(£4.50), same shop, same bell. Whats to stop the same happening here, if its brought in?

Gives them something else to have a go at cyclists for.


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Have I missed something or have posts been deleted?
> Can you explain how you quote someone who has died?


I don't know, did you miss something?
I am not obliged to explain anything to you. You are another of these "usual suspects"[/quote]
Explain how you get a quote from a dead person? Very simple question, although getting it answered is proving hard.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> If you don't ride up the inside of HGV's you won't get squashed. What part of that don't you get?



The problem for many of those who died and for those of us who ride the roads every day is the HGVs that overtake us.

I am "in correspondence" with a firm that demonstrates this fully

I am on a main road, approaching a central island, I look, and there is nothing for a hundred yards, so I signal and pull out to the Primary

About 50 yards from the island an HGV decides that there is space between me and the island and he can force his way through

I am now in exactly the situation that kills so many each year. On th inside of an HGV that is on a converging course and a narrowing space for me.

Luckily I managed to avoid the HGV by going up on the pavement, but had there been a railing, I would have been in real danger

*THAT* is what is not being understood

All too many cyclists are injured or killed because of this standard of driving


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Ha ha ha ha! Like it. You believe I'm wrong, but I don't! It's always the same here, the same little band of brothers that all clique together when some one has a different opinion. You all brown nose each other all the time anyway.



That is more to do with being too close to the rear, nothing to do with overtaking


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem for many of those who died and for those of us who ride the roads every day is the HGVs that overtake us.
> 
> I am "in correspondence" with a firm that demonstrates this fully
> 
> ...


I agree about the left hooking side of things with HGV's. Good post!


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> That is more to do with being too close to the rear, nothing to do with overtaking


Again, I agree. I was saying about filtering up the inside. But as usual all other scenarios come into play.
It happens a lot here; someone makes a comment or statement and is set upon by the same half dozen people.
Mt original post was about the filtering up the inside bit it suddenly turns into a witch hunt saying that I am disrespecting all the dead cyclists and their families, and a whole load of other crap too.
You are not one of the dirty dozen, you make good posts and make sense. I admit that sometimes I have a habit of not backing down, but saying one thing and then being made a scapegoat for others is another matter.
I agree with you about the overtaking lorry thing. That wasn't what I was saying to begin with.
Maybe it's just me, but I ride every single day, including weekends. And I never really have any major issues with anyone.


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I agree with you about the overtaking lorry thing. That wasn't what I was saying to begin with.



What you _were _saying consisted of victim-blaming lies.


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2833482, member: 45"]You know this isn't true. You know it's provocative. Why did you post it?[/quote]
Because my original point, if you bother to read it....is true. I am not being deliberately provocative to anyone.
If anything, you lot are. You come back at me saying all of these comments about me being disrespectful and provocative. My original point was about filtering up the inside of lorries. I am not saying accidents don't happen in other secenarios.
But as usual here you get pounced on by the group of good ol' boys who take everything you say totally out of context.


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> What you _were _saying consisted of victim-blaming lies.


If you filter up the inside of an HGV, you are asking for trouble. How is that a lie? That was my original point.
But you like the other few, choose to make more of it and open up every other accident scenario known to man.


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> If you filter up the inside of an HGV, you are asking for trouble. How is that a lie? That was my original point.





Roadrider48 said:


> Those injured in the past. 9 times out of 10 have themselves to blame.



A straightforward victim-blaming lie. Which you have refused to withdraw.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Dec 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Because my original point, if you bother to read it....is true. ...


if it's true, then prove it... _9 out of 10 have themselves to blame_. It can't be hard to prove if it's the fact you claim it to be.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Dec 2013)

Would these alarms sound when they are changing lanes or just turning, is there a way to differentiate?

I'd imagine perhaps its deactivated above 30mph perhaps?


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Would these alarms sound when they are changing lanes or just turning, is there a way to differentiate?
> 
> I'd imagine perhaps its deactivated above 30mph perhaps?


 Currently, where fitted, they are active the whole time. What happens in slower moving traffic though.Lorry is moving forward & every stationary object is seen as moving. Now put that into the context of living near one of the roads with heavy HGV/LGV traffic & it it'll be sounding non stop.
It "see's" everything as a moving object & will therefore sound. Just like the car alarms, how long before people start ignoring them then start complaining about them?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2013)

I have said this before and I will continue to repeat this.

A novice cyclist, and many who have come from driving to cycling will sees a cycle lane as that - a _*lane*_

In the same way that they would drive inside an HGV on a dual carriage way, assuming that it will behave appropriately, they adopt the same procedure on a cycle lane as acceptable and safe.

We need to have a look at the whle problem including the behaviour of traffic where there are cycle lanes.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Dec 2013)

I had a look at the 'Cycle Eye' and think that is a much better proposition, it helps account for the novice rider by warning a driver someone is on the inside rather rather than this approach.

Mind you I think both have potential?


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> A straightforward victim-blaming lie. Which you have refused to withdraw.


Yes your honour!


----------



## Tanis8472 (22 Dec 2013)

In principal, it could be a good idea, but I feel it will add to the noise already outside many homes.
I live in a house on a traffic light junction. Imagine having that going on 24/7.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Dec 2013)

Seems like a damn good idea to me (OP) - at the very least it ought to keep a few argumentative cyclists from visiting cycle heaven.


----------



## classic33 (22 Dec 2013)

Tanis8472 said:


> In principal, it could be a good idea, but I feel it will add to the noise already outside many homes.
> I live in a house on a traffic light junction. Imagine having that going on 24/7.


 Bear in mind that Labour want to make it compulsory, should they win the next General Election!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> The point this misses is that cyclists, idiotic or not, don't kill and main lorry drivers. Lorries and their drivers continue to kill and maim cyclists (and pedestrians), idiotic or otherwise.


 
I never said they did, in fairness. But - and in no way am I saying that all lorry / cyclist incidents are down to this, nor that all cyclists blithely ride up the inside of lorries indicating to turn left - you have to be something of an idiot to ride between the left hand side of an indicating truck and a pedestrian fence at traffic lights. I've had any number of cyclists do this to me while I've been waiting at traffic lights and indicating left, so it does happen. I'm not sure that a cyclist who ignores a left turn signal on a truck will pay much more attention to an audible warning, and that's before you get into the discussion about a warning only being as much use as a driver's willingness to use it.
My own answer is always the same: educate the driver to keep a constant watch on his or her left hand mirror for cyclists (as I do; I've never failed to spot one yet), and educate the cyclist to keep away from any area of the road where there's no obvious escape route, such as the nearside of a large vehicle. This'll be of far more use than tinkering around the edges with audible alarms which merely duplicate the visible ones already fitted to nearly every road legal motor vehicle.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> Quite. In an either-or scenario, sensors are the better option, because they place the responsibility where it belongs - on the operator/s of the vehicle posing the threat. My main objection to alarms is that they do exactly the opposite, and endorse the principle that it's OK to bring anything, however dangerous, onto a public road as long as it is shouting "GET OUT OF MY WAY!" loudly enough. That and the fact that there's already too much unpleasant vehicle-related noise in our lives. I'd be surprised if anyone hears a left-turning-lorry alarm over the near-constant and entirely pointless wailing of car alarms (which should obviously be banned).


 
This I agree with (especially the bit about the noise). Although I still believe that educating drivers to look out for other road users, rather than relying on technology to do this for them, is a more productive way forward.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Dec 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I have said this before and I will continue to repeat this.
> 
> A novice cyclist, and many who have come from driving to cycling will sees a cycle lane as that - a _*lane*_
> 
> ...


 
I think that's a very big part of the problem, though. When you learn to drive, you learn that undertaking traffic - any traffic - on a dual carriageway is a bad idea and illegal to boot. When you learn to cycle ... well, you don't learn to cycle, you just buy a bike and off you go. While this is undoubtedly part of the charm of cycling and a thing I wouldn't like to see come to an end, it does mean that there are cyclists who just don't realise where the danger zones are and why that nice inviting cycle lane on the nearside of the road is a dangerous place to position your vehicle.
I see it virtually every evening on my way to work: there's a bike lane for going straight on painted on the road to the left of the lane for left turning cars and lorries. I'd never use this in a million years and would always put my bike squarely in the middle of the "straight on for cars" lane, but I see plenty of people positioning themselves at the lights to the left of a row of left turning cars. It's not their fault, and it's no less the drivers' responsibility to spot them, but wouldn't it be better if that cycle lane was repositioned (or better still, done away with altogether because cyclists were just an accepted part of the traffic)?


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Dec 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I think that's a very big part of the problem, though. When you learn to drive, you learn that undertaking traffic - any traffic - on a dual carriageway is a bad idea and illegal to boot. When you learn to cycle ... well, you don't learn to cycle, you just buy a bike and off you go. While this is undoubtedly part of the charm of cycling and a thing I wouldn't like to see come to an end, it does mean that there are cyclists who just don't realise where the danger zones are and why that nice inviting cycle lane on the nearside of the road is a dangerous place to position your vehicle.
> I see it virtually every evening on my way to work: there's a bike lane for going straight on painted on the road to the left of the lane for left turning cars and lorries. I'd never use this in a million years and would always put my bike squarely in the middle of the "straight on for cars" lane, but I see plenty of people positioning themselves at the lights to the left of a row of left turning cars. It's not their fault, and it's no less the drivers' responsibility to spot them, but wouldn't it be better if that cycle lane was repositioned (or better still, done away with altogether because cyclists were just an accepted part of the traffic)?



But it isn't undertaking...

It is using a lane where traffic is travelling at different speeds, and that is perfectly legitimate and legal

For example on my commute there is a dual carriageway where the bulk of traffic turns right, so there is stationary traffic. Drivers do not sit parallel to the rear car of the right hand lane, they proceed to the junction - legal and accepted practice.

Equally the expectation is that if a driver decides to change lane, then they look and filter in, not drive across and to hell with he user of that inside lane.



Expecting the same concession to a cycle path is not unreasonable, and there is absolutely no reason at all for it not not happen.?


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

These devices are fitted to dozens of lorries now and although not ideal, it is a start. There still seems to be a resistance for cyclists not to go up the inside of buses and lorries, especially in cities. I am sure the fatality number would drop if this practice stopped.

With regards to people living at junctions where these lorries turn and the noise the lorries emit. Within a few days you wouldn't hear them. I have had experience of it. I also lived under a flight path for a while, it was only the visitors who heard the planes.

Truck firms seem to get slagged for doing nothing and then get slagged for taking advice and doing something. 

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

But so often it all ends in grief as we know Adrian. Not only in the UK but in Denmark as well. It is the biggest killer of cyclists over here and probably there as well.

We can argue all we like about alarms, truck drivers, mirrors etc. but if cyclists kept away from the inside of lorries, the death rate would drop rapidly.

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

That does not make any sense at all to me.

I don't know if you are suggesting that we get rid of lorries....which certainly won't happen, or get rid of bikes..which won't happen, but they would go before lorries.

Or maybe you are having a "Why should we" moment. That is fine with me as well. I keep away from the inside of trucks and buses, I am never in that much of a rush. But in 2014 people will still ride into that space and die. If they keep out of it they won't. It is all about personal choice and opinion.

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

Your wrong. Both parties bring the danger and if the smaller party does not recognise that they could well pay with their lives.


----------



## Roadrider48 (27 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2841482, member: 30090"]*Beano has to have a brief moment to himself when imagining Claud giving a severe thrashing (not literally of course) to another CC member.*



Your original post was crass victim blaming and rather then apologise you've continued with remarks that are both disrespectful, ignorant and hurtful to members of the victims family, friends and also members on here.

The whole 'why did the driver not get charged' is strawman bollox, your original assertion was that 90% of cyclists are to blame for their own deaths - nothing to do with why did the driver get charged or not. And the irony is lost on me when you start having a pop at other members about personal remarks when your conduct in this thread has been worse then **** poor.

As mentioned you either back up your assertion, apologise or f*** off, but don't go making personal remarks about a persons homelife though as it really is quite sad.

In answer to the OP I think it is a good idea, I'm hoping that it will come with some sort of campaign that can further raise awareness.[/quote]
LOL....


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2841492, member: 30090"]How can a cyclist bring danger to a truck?[/quote]

Did I say a bike could bring danger to a truck? Read the rest of the sentence and you might understand what I meant.

Tiny, I do not know where the other posters get their information from to make them certain how this recent spate of accidents were caused. I am just talking in general about trucks, bikes and accidents.

We all know it won't be long before we are talking about another cyclists getting killed on the inside of a truck. Would it happen if they were not on the inside of the truck?

Maybe I am missing the point of this post.

Steve


----------



## Roadrider48 (27 Dec 2013)

2841587 said:


> I think I ought to say, at this point, that Roadrider and I have exchanged PMs and are cool.


Thankyou Adrian. I apologised to Adrian for some remarks I made and he very kindly accepted.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2841492, member: 30090"]How can a cyclist bring danger to a truck?[/quote]

They don't necessarily bring danger to a truck, but one shouldn't underestimate the impact running over a cyclist can have on the life of someone who didn't go to work that morning in order to kill someone. I know that the impact on the driver of the truck is nowhere near as devastating as the impact on the cyclist and their family, but I also know that I'd be absolutely devastatded if I'd killed someone with my lorry, whether it was my fault or not.


----------



## swansonj (27 Dec 2013)

2841343 said:


> Why should it? There is no problem whatsoever in going up the inside of a lorry, provided that it is either not moving to the left or you are going to be clear by the time it does.


I agree with you Adrian. But, for myself, I don't trust myself to judge whether those two criteria are met with sufficient consistency (I only have to get it wrong once in a lifetime's cycling). So I set myself a personal rule of not filtering up the inside of a lorry, full stop. Sometimes I yield to temptation, but that's the self-imposed rule I try to follow. Other cyclists, who are better at snap spatial judgements, are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly entitled to follow your rules.


----------



## swansonj (28 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Who said anything about rules? It's about behaving like an adult.


Whoops - sorry if "rule" was the wrong word, though I did say "self imposed" rule. I'm not very good at making snap judgements, so I like to have rules, or principles, or decision algorithms, or whatever you want to call them, worked out, as far as possible, in advance. 

The point I wanted to make, in as far as I can remember it now or even had a point at the time, is that Adrian doesn't like people insisting on a universal mantra "thou shalt never go up the inside of a lorry", whereas for me, that is more or less what I try to follow - but there is no contradiction there, because, given the incredible, appalling reality that there are people let loose with lethal weapons they can't adequately control in public spaces, even those of us most alert to and opposed to victim blaming have to make decisions about the behaviours we are going to adopt in the interests of self preservation - and those decisions can legitimately be different for people with different levels of skill or experience.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Dec 2013)

swansonj said:


> The point I wanted to make, in as far as I can remember it now or even had a point at the time, is that Adrian doesn't like people insisting on a universal mantra "thou shalt never go up the inside of a lorry", whereas for me, that is more or less what I try to follow - but there is no contradiction there, because, given the incredible, appalling reality that there are people let loose with lethal weapons they can't adequately control in public spaces, even those of us most alert to and opposed to victim blaming have to make decisions about the behaviours we are going to adopt in the interests of self preservation - and those decisions can legitimately be different for people with different levels of skill or experience.


 
I don't think it's a bad mantra, though, or a bad general rule (or principle or guideline, call it what you will) to follow. I don't cycle much any more, but when I did I never went up the inside of a lorry unless I could see that it wasn't going to move until I was past it, and that I had an escape route if I needed it. I don't see this as blaming victims or telling the more vulnerable road user to keep out of the way: it just seems like common sense to me. In much the same way, I don't try and undertake lorries on roundabouts in my car, or position my car in the rear three quarter blindspot of another car on the motorway for longer than I have to. It's just about understanding what other road users can and can't see.
Of course, you always need to make allowances for the fact that they haven't seen you, or that they don't care even if they have seen you, but if you keep out of the danger zone in the first place, that doesn't matter so much. That's part of the essence of being a good driver: anticipating the danger zones and keeping out of them. You can extend the same principle to cycling fairly easily, and it doesn't alter the fact that it's still the job of the lorry driver to look out for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.


----------

