# SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/0...-cyclist-death-crash-escapes-prosecution.html



> *Another HGV driver in cyclist death crash escapes prosecution*
> 
> 08 June 2012
> The driver of a lorry involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist has become the second in months to escape prosecution, I can reveal.
> ...


 
The way it reads to me, a lorry driver could smash the mirrors off his lorry and he's got the perfect excuse all lined up and ready.


----------



## Davidc (8 Jun 2012)

It's presumed liability.

In the UK that means that the most vulnerable road user in a collision is presumed to be liable for the incident.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

Best to stay clear of the blind spot then.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

The only evidence that Daniel was in a "blind spot" in the first place came from the person who took a faulty vehicle onto the road and killed him.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> The only evidence that Daniel was in a "blind spot" in the first place came from the person who took a faulty vehicle onto the road and killed him.


 
Plod will have looked into it pretty closely....they do with fatalities. Sad as it is there will have been a fair amount of evidence as to where the poor chap was when he was hit.

It is tragic, but it does highlight that it is wise to keep away from blind spots.


----------



## PpPete (8 Jun 2012)

I'm all for a change to strict liability as in some EU countries - as I understand it that means driver is liable every time ?
but... aren't most of these HGV related fatalities happening with bike filtering on left of HGV which then turns left ? 
I'll happily be corrected on that,.
but that "left of a potentially left turning vehicle" is a position I make strenuous efforts to avoid.... not sure why any cyclist wouldnt do the same.
Yes I get funny looks holding my primary in a queue of cars while other cyclists go up the left, but at least I'm (hopefully) avoiding any blind spots.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Plod will have looked into it pretty closely....they do with fatalities.


 
They didn't even put a witness sign up until prompts from the public. When Eilidh Cairns was killed the police waved witnesses away and completely cocked up the investigation:



> _"So it is up to each and every coroner how wide they inquire and whether or not they feel inclinded to put their mind to making recommendations. In this case one would have thought that the fact that HGVs cause over half of cyclists deaths and yet make up less than 4% of traffic, and that Eilidh was a proficient and experienced cyclists, and that she was in front of the lorry and hit from behind, and that the investigating officer said there should have not been a blind spot if the mirrors were set correctly, and that there was a blind area in the front of the lorry at Eilidh’s position even thought the police concluded the mirrors were set correctly, and that they used an officer 6 inches taller than the driver to test the position of the mirrors, would have lead the coroner to inquire into these issues thoroughly and to consider whether they were material to the cause of death rather than curtailing our questions with 'I think we have heard enough about mirrors'._
> 
> 
> _"The judge stated that the coroner had asked the investigating officer what could be done. He responded “If I knew that I wouldn’t be standing here now”. She asked one policeman one question at one point in time. This particular police officer had not even been involved in the investigation. He had been drafted in last minute to cover the inquest, because the original investigating officer [*PC Ewan Rathie*] was not available as he was under investigation himself for a crime of which he was later acquitted. The new officer had only visited the site the day before the inquest. _
> ...


 
http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/1...s.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef016761f6933a970b

A driver took a vehicle he knew was unsafe onto the roads. He was indicating right, then turned left and killed a cyclist. The decision not to prosecute is farcical.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

PpPete said:


> . aren't most of these HGV related fatalities happening with bike filtering on left of HGV which then turns left ?


 
No.


----------



## Davidc (8 Jun 2012)

PpPete said:


> I'm all for a change to strict liability as in some EU countries - as I understand it that means driver is liable every time ?
> but... aren't most of these HGV related fatalities happening with bike filtering on left of HGV which then turns left ?
> I'll happily be corrected on that,.
> but that "left of a potentially left turning vehicle" is a position I make strenuous efforts to avoid.... not sure why any cyclist wouldnt do the same.
> Yes I get funny looks holding my primary in a queue of cars while other cyclists go up the left, but at least I'm (hopefully) avoiding any blind spots.


 
It's usually presumed liability, where it's up to the driver to prove that the pedestrian/ cyclist/ motor cyclist etc. was at fault. Absolute liability would mean that, for example, a motorist was automatically liable if he hit an RLJ cyclist who came out in front of the car, which would be ludicrous.

I've read that when introduced this leads to a general improvement in injury and death figures, not just to those for vulnerable road users. So no chance here then.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> They didn't even put a witness sign up until killed a cyclist.
> 
> Clip clip clip
> 
> The decision not to prosecute is farcical.


 
You are making a very strong case to support my inital comment. Stay away from the blind spot. It's called defensive riding.

I am not justifying what happened. I am saying that it is wise to recognize the real world for what it is. But, if you want to filter up the left hand side of lorries then feel free to do so.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I am not justifying what happened.


 
Nope, you're just posting stuff that isn't true and suggesting Daniel was to blame for his own death.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Nope, you're just posting stuff that isn't true and suggesting Daniel was to blame for his own death.


 
Don't be silly. I have not suggested that at all. Nor am I saying that I know exactly what happened. I have not seen the official court records, nor have I seen the evidence which the police have, nor am I reading things into a newspaper report. If you know the full story then let us see the evidence.

I am saying that it wise to avoid filtering on the left. If you want to argue that it is then go ahead.


----------



## PK99 (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> No.


 
but from the press report this one apparently was:




> Mr Cox, whose inquest will be held at Poplar coroner’s court on Monday (June 11), is thought to have cycled along the inside of the Mercedes HGV lorry as it waited at traffic lights at the junction of Dalston Lane and Kingsland Road.


 
best advice to any cylicts is:

if you arrive first at a set of lights stop in the centre of the lane in Primary Position.

if you arrive after and HGV do not under any circumstances cycle up the left hand side, instead stop in Primary Position some way behind the HGV.


----------



## PK99 (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> No.


 
but from the press report this one apparently was:




> Mr Cox, whose inquest will be held at Poplar coroner’s court on Monday (June 11), is thought to have cycled along the inside of the Mercedes HGV lorry as it waited at traffic lights at the junction of Dalston Lane and Kingsland Road.


 
best advice to any cylicts is:

if you arrive first at a set of lights stop in the centre of the lane in Primary Position.

if you arrive after and HGV do not under any circumstances cycle up the left hand side, instead stop in Primary Position some way behind the HGV.


----------



## Davidc (8 Jun 2012)

We were taught not to ride up the inside of busses or lorries when I took my cycling proficiency test. That was 1961. The advice is just as good now as it was then.

However - that *doesn't* excuse the actions of a lorry driver taking a faulty vehicle on the roads, and not taking adequate care, and then killing someone.

UK road law and its enforcement is a very sick joke. If you want to kill someone just do it in a motor vehicle. No one will mind then and unlike stabbing them to death you won't even have to appear in court, let alone serve a life sentence.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

We have no evidence Daniel placed himself in danger so it's rather tasteless to lay the blame on him. It also ignores the fact that the lorry was indicating right, the decision not to charge means any cyclist killed by a lorry turning the opposite direction it was indicating may have their death treated the same way.

Catriona Patel was hit by a drunk driver chatting on a mobile, Eilidh Cairns by a driver with faulty eyesight who hit her from behind, _*Svetlana*_ Tereschenko by a driver who was sat behind her for 30 seconds before pulling away and crushing her. 



> One of the accident reports concerns Paula User10571, 21, who died in April 2011 after colliding with a skip lorry.
> *RELATED ARTICLES*
> 
> The report shows Paula was cycling along a single carriageway on a clear, dry day when a skip lorry hit her.
> ...


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...n-two-thirds-of-cyclist-deaths-in-London.html

On 30 September 2008 the City of London Police carried out spot checks on HGVs as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which was intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries.

On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. 

All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way.


----------



## machew (8 Jun 2012)

If the lorry was indicating right and then turned left (as in the report) then the cyclist would have though it ok to filter up the inside.
If the advice now is ignore the indicators on a HGV and assume that it is turning left then what help is there for all the other road users


----------



## PpPete (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> No.


 
From the incidents you refer to above it sounds like just holding primary in front of an inattentive (or blind) driver may be as dangerous as filtering on the left? Is this really the case ?


----------



## YahudaMoon (8 Jun 2012)

PpPete said:


> Yes I get funny looks holding my primary in a queue of cars while other cyclists go up the left, but at least I'm (hopefully) avoiding any blind spots.


 
Same here. Its just not worth the risk only to be taken over by the same vehicle putting yourself in the danger zone yet again


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

PpPete said:


> From the incidents you refer to above it sounds like just holding primary in front of an inattentive (or blind) driver may be as dangerous as filtering on the left? Is this really the case ?


 
I don't know where you get that from. Filtering on the left can be dangerous, it isn't a significant factor in recent HGV/cyclist fatalities. You can eliminate blind spots with £30 mirrors or a cctv set up that costs less than £100, as things stand everything is weighted against the cyclist, an unscrupulous lorry driver- like the 100% criminality rate of drivers exposed in Operation Mermaid- could even smash the mirrors off his vehicle then cite the "Blind Spot" excuse if they kill someone.


----------



## PpPete (8 Jun 2012)

I didnt "get it" from anywhere... I was asking a question of someone who seems particularly well-informed. After all I'd like any information out there that will help me stay alive.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

I beg your pardon. I think rather than try to find blame the elephant in the room is why we allow dirty great vehicles on the roads, that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths, yet have these "blind spots" surrounding them that can be eliminated for £30, or £100 for a cctv system. In Svetlana's fatality the driver was chatting on a mobile and not indicating, she was nine feet in front of the lorry for half a minute and he still failed to see her, he claimed. Again, no charges. The driver that killed Daniel didn't even get the statutory fine for his missing mirror! Chillingly, it was his left-hand mirror.


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> I beg your pardon. I think rather than try to find blame the elephant in the room is why we allow dirty great vehicles on the roads, that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths, yet have these "blind spots" surrounding them that can be eliminated for £30, or £100 for a cctv system. In Svetlana's fatality the driver was chatting on a mobile and not indicating, she was nine feet in front of the lorry for half a minute and he still failed to see her, he claimed. Again, no charges. The driver that killed Daniel didn't even get the statutory fine for his missing mirror! Chillingly, it was his left-hand mirror.


It used to be illegal for a driver to look at cctv whilst on public roads, has the law changed regarding this?


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> It used to be illegal for a driver to look at cctv whilst on public roads, has the law changed regarding this?


 
It'snot only legal, it may become mandatory in the US in 2015.

http://www.therecruitgroup.com/hgv-news/new-law-set-to-cause-surge-in-reversing-camera-technology/


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

Perhaps the best thing to do is to wait until the inquest has been held next week.
Rather than banging on about what the driver may or may not have done, it is best to wait for the evidence to come out instead of jumping to conclusions.

Meanwhile, nothing in the law has changed. Nothing at all, and to claim that SMIDSY's are now enshrined in law is simply untrue.

The advice to not filter on the left of large vehicles, without great care, still stands


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2012)

PpPete said:


> I
> but... aren't most of these HGV related fatalities happening with bike filtering on left of HGV which then turns left ?
> I'll happily be corrected on that,.


 
In some cases that is the case, but I have seen (and experienced) all too many cases where the HGV overtakes a cycits wiating at a junction, and placing the cyclists at risk through no fault of their own


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Ross Lydall- the lorry driver didn't even get fined for the missing mirror. The mirror was missing from the left side, where Daniel died:

http://twitter.com/#!/RossLydall


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

I didn't know that the Evening Standard and twitter were now regarded as being reliable sources of forensic evidence. I'll wait until some reliable information is available.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

> Mr Weatherley, of Bromley, Kent, appeared at Thames Magistrates’ Court on Friday (August 26) charged with using a goods vehicle without the obligatory mirrors.​


 
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...g_cyclist_death_at_dalston_junction_1_1011475

They dropped ALL charges.


----------



## stowie (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I didn't know that the Evening Standard and twitter were now regarded as being reliable sources of forensic evidence. I'll wait until some reliable information is available.


 
From where? Are you going to ring the coroner or the magistrate?

Here in London there is a problem with cyclists and lorries. Cycle and Driver training is part of the equation, but surely having huge vehicles with large blind spots mixing it with cyclists and pedestrians at close quarters must be rectified. Especially since the equipment to greatly aid elimination of blind spots is readily available and not very expensive. 

On a related note, the fact that many of the vehicles appear to have defects which make matters worse, or that sometimes the drivers are unfit to drive, and that 13% of drivers are uninsured on London roads means that we really need to start making sure those vehicles on our roads in a fit state and controlled by capable people. The numbers indicate that there is an ingrained problem and there appears to be a lack of will to rectify.


----------



## slowmotion (8 Jun 2012)

I read somewhere that the very largest artics have a "blind spot" that extends a whopping five metres *in front of the cab.*
If that is so, plonking yourself in Primary in front of one might not be a healthy option.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

stowie said:


> From where? Are you going to ring the coroner or the magistrate?
> 
> Here in London there is a problem with cyclists and lorries. Cycle and Driver training is part of the equation, but surely having huge vehicles with large blind spots mixing it with cyclists and pedestrians at close quarters must be rectified. Especially since the equipment to greatly aid elimination of blind spots is readily available and not very expensive.
> 
> On a related note, the fact that many of the vehicles appear to have defects which make matters worse, or that sometimes the drivers are unfit to drive, and that 13% of drivers are uninsured on London roads means that we really need to start making sure those vehicles on our roads in a fit state and controlled by capable people. The numbers indicate that there is an ingrained problem and there appears to be a lack of will to rectify.


 
I haven't lived in London for years but, from what I have seen and read, there has been a massive increase in cycling over the last 20 years and there undoubtedly are problems which need resolving. One of the solutions is that cyclists should enter the blind spot with care.

From my different perspective of riding around the urban and rural roads of the West Country I would say that my biggest concern are cars (4X4's in particular) and Vans. HGV's are a concern but I find that, in relative terms, they are less so.


----------



## PK99 (8 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> In some cases that is the case, but I have seen (and experienced) all too many cases where the HGV overtakes a cycits wiating at a junction, and placing the cyclists at risk through no fault of their own


 
If the cyclist has stopped hard left against the kerb - it IS their fault. See cyclecraft.


----------



## PK99 (8 Jun 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I read somewhere that the very largest artics have a "blind spot" that extends a whopping five metres *in front of the cab.*
> If that is so, plonking yourself in Primary in front of one might not be a healthy option.


 
doing so after the arctic has stopped would indeed be a foolish thing to do - do not pass, stop behind in Primary Position


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2012)

stowie said:


> From where? Are you going to ring the coroner or the magistrate?
> 
> Here in London there is a problem with cyclists and lorries. Cycle and Driver training is part of the equation, but surely having huge vehicles with large blind spots mixing it with cyclists and pedestrians at close quarters must be rectified. Especially since the equipment to greatly aid elimination of blind spots is readily available and not very expensive.
> 
> On a related note, the fact that many of the vehicles appear to have defects which make matters worse, or that sometimes the drivers are unfit to drive, and that 13% of drivers are uninsured on London roads means that we really need to start making sure those vehicles on our roads in a fit state and controlled by capable people. The numbers indicate that there is an ingrained problem and there appears to be a lack of will to rectify.


I'm not going to ring either of them, but according to Ross Lydall's Twatter A/C "Sienna Millar has been attacked by a giant fox" so forgive me if I wait for confirmation.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

He's talking about this rather silly photo in today's Standard:







http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...foxes-plaguing-celebrity-enclave-7831166.html


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> If the cyclist has stopped hard left against the kerb - it IS their fault. See cyclecraft.


I don't think it is their fault, but they might have put themselves in a dangerous position.


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> He's talking about this rather silly photo in today's Standard:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly a misrepresentation,that's why I don't automatically believe what I read on Twitter.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Clearly a misrepresentation,that's why I don't automatically believe what I read on Twitter.


 

What are you disputing?


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> What are you disputing?


I'm just supporting Recycler when he says" I didn't know that the Evening Standard and twitter were now regarded as being reliable sources of forensic evidence. I'll wait until some reliable information is available."
It's a tragic incident, but let's wait until we know what happened !


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

I thought recycler's cynical sarcasm was misplaced, and I've demonstrated it was also unjustified, the original charge included the mirror and all charges were dropped. So, what are you disputing, exactly?



> The driver of the HGV that collided with Dan has since been charged with an offence related to not having a required mirror (one of the near-side wing mirrors was missing).​


 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-payne/london-cycling-deaths-dan-cox_b_1246193.html


----------



## mr_cellophane (8 Jun 2012)

machew said:


> If the lorry was indicating right and then turned left (as in the report) then the cyclist would have though it ok to filter up the inside.
> If the advice now is ignore the indicators on a HGV and assume that it is turning left then what help is there for all the other road users


When I took my driving test and when I trained as a Bikeability Instructor, the advice was to ignore any indicators and be prepared for the vehicle to turn in any direction. That may not make me the quickest driver/cyclist, but it has kept me safe from drivers who; haven't cancelled their indicators, are pulling in to stop just after a junction, can't be arsed to signal, etc, etc.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

Let's try a multiple choice question

1. You know that filtering on the left of HGV's is potentially dangerous
2. You know that many HGV's are not in the best of condition
3. You know that most HGV's don't have CCTV or alarms covering their blind spot.
4. You know that some HGV's don't have all the mirrors they should.
5. You know that the Highway Code advises against left filtering
6. ditto Cyclecraft.
7. You know that 40 tons of HGV is likely to do you a bit of damage it it gets too close to you.
8. You know that drivers get things wrong sometimes.

The multiple choice question.....
Is it wise to filter to the left of an HGV.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't know


----------



## lukesdad (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Let's try a multiple choice question
> 
> 1. You know that filtering on the left of HGV's is potentially dangerous
> 2. You know that many HGV's are not in the best of condition
> ...


Hammer,nail, head.


----------



## Dan B (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> The multiple choice question.....
> Is it wise to filter to the left of an HGV.
> a. Yes
> b. No
> c. Don't know


(b), as a rule. Question 2: is a lack of wisdom in this regard reasonable justification for being killed on the road? If so, why do we not apply the same standards in matters of e.g. household electrical safety? Would save an awful lot of money


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> I thought recycler's cynical sarcasm was misplaced, and I've demonstrated it was also unjustified,


 
Sarcasm? Most certainly.
Cynical? Most certainly not.

Nobody here is saying that the death of a cyclist, or indeed any other road user, is anything other than tragic. But for somebody to be trying to make a case based on the Evening Standard, Twitter and now, of all things, the Huffington Post is laughable.

The simple fact is that we don't know the facts. The police and CPS have far more information than we do and, until the Inquest and any other Court case is held, then that information will not be in the public domain and it seems to be pointless trying to hold an internet inquest in anticipation of the proper Inquest which is taking place next week.

With regards your boast that you have demonstrated that my comments are unjustified....I missed that bit. Where is it? Somewhere on Twitter perhaps?


----------



## Dan B (8 Jun 2012)

Sorry, that was two questions. But you can skip the second one if you answer 'no' to the first


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> But for somebody to be trying to make a case based on the Evening Standard, Twitter and now, of all things, the Huffington Post is laughable.


 
Why is it laughable? Ross Lydall has done some pretty good reporting on cycling in London, I trust his opinion. I also linked to the original charges, referenced in the Huffington Post, not known for inaccuracies. Also here:

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...g_cyclist_death_at_dalston_junction_1_1011475



> Simon Weatherley, 52, is accused of driving a goods vehicle without the required mirrors.​


 
What are you saying is laughable?


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> (b), as a rule. Question 2: is a lack of wisdom in this regard reasonable justification for being killed on the road? If so, why do we not apply the same standards in matters of e.g. household electrical safety? Would save an awful lot of money


 
I'm not quite sure what point or question you are making.
However, I am not saying that anything justifies people being killed on the roads but I am saying that. in general, cyclists could do more to ensure their own safety. Being unwise/foolish/reckless is certainly not likely to help us.

Sorry, I don't understand the point about electrical safety. I'm not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## lukesdad (8 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> (b), as a rule. Question 2: is a lack of wisdom in this regard reasonable justification for being killed on the road? If so, why do we not apply the same standards in matters of e.g. household electrical safety? Would save an awful lot of money


 
Yes^^^, care to expand on your second point ?


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

*BBC News: Cyclist killed by meteorite*

*Recycler: Was the cyclist in hi-vis?*


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> What are you saying is laughable?


 
I'm saying that quoting opinion and conjecture, apparantly as forensically proven fact, is laughable. All the more so whan the Inquest is to be held in just a few days and more information should then be available in the public domain. At the moment you are tilting at windmills and, other than getting it off your chest, it is pretty pointless.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> *BBC News: Cyclist killed by meteorite*
> 
> *Recycler: Was the cyclist in hi-vis?*


 
???? Ugh?


----------



## dawesome (8 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I'm saying that quoting opinion and conjecture, apparantly as forensically proven fact, is laughable. .


 
I agree. That's why I haven't done it. WTF are you talking about?


----------



## lukesdad (8 Jun 2012)

First duty of care whether it be on the road or in the home or anywhere else !

DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN HARMS WAY.


----------



## Recycler (8 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> I agree. That's why I haven't done it. WTF are you talking about?


 
I'm pretty sure that others understand the point. If you don't, or more likely can't, then there is no point in explaining it any further.

I would sincerly advise that you don't filter on the left without exercising great care but, if you want to ignore my advice, I would certainly defend your right to do so.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> If the cyclist has stopped hard left against the kerb - it IS their fault. See cyclecraft.


 

The last incident I had was at a set of lights.

I was in primary on the inside lane about 50 yards from the crossroads and at the end of a queue of vehicles.. HGV pulled alongside in the outside lane and then as the traffic progressed "left hooked" to the junction.

Absolutely nothing I could do.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2012)

Lets get this right...

Cycle craft is NOT the "bible" of cycling, nor is its existence even known of by the vast majority of cyclists.

Quoting Cyclecraft is an irrelevant red herring.

Even when you have cyclists who are aware of the primary it is not always possible to achieve, even less so if the cyclist is new, or inexperienced.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Let's try a multiple choice question
> 
> 1. You know that filtering on the left of HGV's is potentially dangerous
> 2. You know that many HGV's are not in the best of condition
> ...


 
Again the point is that as an experienced cyclist YOU know, but does the average BSO rider?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The last incident I had was at a set of lights.
> 
> I was in primary on the inside lane about 50 yards from the crossroads and at the end of a queue of vehicles.. HGV pulled alongside in the outside lane and then as the traffic progressed "left hooked" to the junction.
> 
> Absolutely nothing I could do.


 
I believe you, but please could you put up the video, else Recycler and company won't believe you.


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Again the point is that as an experienced cyclist YOU know, but does the average BSO rider?


Some lorries now carry a warning sign on the rear advising cyclists not to filter up their LHS, which will hopefully help the inexperienced rider, and maybe some experienced riders as well.


----------



## PpPete (9 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Again the point is that as an experienced cyclist YOU know, but does the average BSO rider?


Adds weight to the argument put forward by that twunt from Addisn Lee (CBA to look up his name) about cyclists needing (amongst other things) more training !


----------



## PpPete (9 Jun 2012)

1882935 said:


> Only if you accept that cyclists shouldn't filter past lorries on the left as a matter of principle not practicality. The fact is that it should be safe to do it and that is the standard we should be aiming for.


 
Agree entirely ! Question is, HOW ?


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I'm not quite sure what point or question you are making.
> However, I am not saying that anything justifies people being killed on the roads but I am saying that. in general, cyclists could do more to ensure their own safety. Being unwise/foolish/reckless is certainly not likely to help us.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand the point about electrical safety. I'm not sure what you are getting at.


 
True, but you're wasting your breath I fear against ye commuting folks of CC.

Where the standard is to put the cyclist high up on a pedestal and have other traffic find their own way around them.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1882935 said:


> Only if you accept that cyclists shouldn't filter past lorries on the left as a matter of principle not practicality. The fact is that it should be safe to do it and that is the standard we should be aiming for.


 
It is safe if done correctly, like all manner of dangerous tasks that are carried out - including dealing with any electrical hazards


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler's logic is sound. The boy Dawesome has some major squabbles and is looking to the far ends of the earth to make a point.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Again the point is that as an experienced cyclist YOU know, but does the average BSO rider?


 
TBH I wouldn't describe myself as an experienced cyclist. I am still learning.

However, I would expect that anyone who rides a bike has the nouse to make themselves familiar with the basics of the Highway Code which is pretty clear on the question of HGV's and bikes. Some of the points in my multiple choice (7 & 8 in particular) are also no more than simple common sense.

My concern, however, is not who is to blame rather what we can do to make things a little safer for ourselves. There is little point lying on a hospital bed with broken bones saying "It was his fault" rather than being at home saying "That was a narrow escape, I'm glad I did XYZ"


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

1882950 said:


> Obviously, just don't tell Recycler though.


 
Blimey, does that mean I've been elevated to the rank of arch-villain? 

What I have been saying is not "Don't left filter at all". I am simply saying "Don't left filter without taking extra care. Think before you get in that gap"


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> TBH I wouldn't describe myself as an experienced cyclist. I am still learning.
> 
> However, I would expect that anyone who rides a bike has the nouse to make themselves familiar with the basics of the Highway Code which is pretty clear on the question of HGV's and bikes. Some of the points in my multiple choice (7 & 8 in particular) are also no more than simple common sense.
> 
> My concern, however, is not who is to blame rather what we can do to make things a little safer for ourselves. There is little point lying on a hospital bed with broken bones saying "It was his fault" rather than being at home saying "That was a narrow escape, I'm glad I did XYZ"


 
Yep, fully agreed.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The last incident I had was at a set of lights.
> 
> I was in primary on the inside lane about 50 yards from the crossroads and at the end of a queue of vehicles.. HGV pulled alongside in the outside lane and then as the traffic progressed "left hooked" to the junction.
> 
> Absolutely nothing I could do.


 
What happened? I assume that you weren't killed?


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> True, but you're wasting your breath I fear against ye commuting folks of CC.
> 
> Where the standard is to put the cyclist high up on a pedestal and have other traffic find their own way around them.


Provided that pedestrians are elevated even higher - and the inform, elderly or disabled among their number raised to the top of the tree entirely - I see nothing wrong with this standard. It's called the Hierarchy of Provision


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Blimey, does that mean I've been elevated to the rank of arch-villain?
> 
> What I have been saying is not "Don't left filter at all". I am simply saying "Don't left filter without taking extra care. Think before you get in that gap"


 

You've done nothing wrong mate. It's just extremely sad that other people's perception is warped to the point where they can really see cyclists doing no wrong at all, and that it is all the motorits fault.

Some of the threads in the past when I've been lurking have amounted to an unbelievable amount of motorist bashing but when the boot is on the other foot then it's a lot less so.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> Provided that pedestrians are elevated even higher - and the inform, elderly or disabled among their number raised to the top of the tree entirely - I see nothing wrong with this standard. It's called the Hierarchy of Provision


 
Not quite sure where you are going with the above but it's not relevent to the original point that I was making.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> True, but you're wasting your breath I fear against ye commuting folks of CC.


 
In fairness, I suspect that these things are debated more hotly in "Commuting" because commuters are riding in rush hour and will experience the problems a lot more.
There are also many commuting Londoners hereabouts and traffic volumes in the capital are horrendous. I'm not sure that I would fancy it.

That's my theory anyhow.


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> My concern, however, is not who is to blame


JUst to clarify, you disagree with PK99 (post 33) on this matter?


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> Not quite sure where you are going with the above but it's not relevent to the original point that I was making.


I've lost track of which point was original. The instant point you appeared to be making was that some people hold HGV drivers to a higher standard than cyclists. On the basis that HGVs are a truckload more dangerous than people riding bicycles, I see nothing wrong with that "double standard" and number myself among them. In the same way I hold cyclists to a higher standard than pedestrians - and chainsaw jugglers to a higher standard than jugglers of feather dusters


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> In fairness, I suspect that these things are debated more hotly in "Commuting" because commuters are riding in rush hour and will experience the problems a lot more.
> There are also many commuting Londoners hereabouts and traffic volumes in the capital are horrendous. I'm not sure that I would fancy it.
> 
> That's my theory anyhow.


 
London is one of the safest places to ride a bike in, providing you do so in a safe and responsible manner.

This type of argument rages on and has been around the houses for donkey's years now. And it goes on and on because cyclists fail to acknowledge other road users and the dynamics of the vehicles that they are driving.


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> London is one of the safest places to ride a bike in, providing you do so in a safe and responsible manner.
> 
> This type of argument rages on and has been around the houses for donkey's years now. And it goes on and on because cyclists fail to acknowledge other road users and the dynamics of the vehicles that they are driving.





dawesome said:


> I think rather than try to find blame the elephant in the room is why we allow dirty great vehicles on the roads, that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths, yet have these "blind spots" surrounding them that can be eliminated for £30, or £100 for a cctv system.


This does not sound like "failing to acknowledge" the dynamics of other road users. This sounds more like root cause analysis


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> This does not sound like "failing to acknowledge" the dynamics of other road users. This sounds more like root cause analysis


 
LOL, ''blind spots'' quoted by Spinners backed with evidence from Twitter and a journo - do me a favour!


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1882999 said:


> The motor vehicle operator apologists' forum common sense forum is that way


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1883012 said:


> The best evidence we have, albeit a report from the SubStandard so not necessarily that good, is that the driver of the lorry indicated a right turn, realised that he was not allowed to make it and* turned left without being able to check properly.*Your insensitively insulting suggestion that cyclists need to understand the dynamics of other road users would appear to be a whole crock of shit in this instance. You can accordingly fuck off. OK?


 
Don't get abusive cus, remember this whole OP was started by said article(s).

It's ironic that Recycler has suggested that 'we' wait for the official inquest but he's the 'villian' here, best not to listen to him.

I find it a miracle that you can second guess what the driver done as well (bold). If that was the case then he would have been taken to court and tried.

But you and ye old CC commuting folk know better then the CPS.

What a bunch of ****ng rooks!! LOL


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1883033 said:


> You have much dealing with the CPS? Their decisions are frequently baffling.


 
You more then me mate, I'm not passing judgement on the driver here.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1883042 said:


> Why not? Are you happy to share roadspace with other users who kill your fellow cyclists in such a casual fashion?


 
LOLOL! You make it sound like the driver set out that day to kill a cyclist.

Cheers mush for personifying the whole ''Ye old CC commuting folk know more then everyone else.''

Pathetic.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1883052 said:


> No, I am saying that he set out with insufficient care as to the outcomes of his actions though. As for rest of it, if you join a cycling forum and only post a series of posts criticising cyclists for being killed by lorries what do you expect? Some thanks for your insight and wisdom?


 
Don't change what you was saying after the fact.

And yes I do expect thanks and praise. If people were to listen to me and ride in a fashion in which I ride then there would be zero deaths involving HGV's. I employ the advice giving out by Recycler and company earlier in the thread and I'm still here.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

1883063 said:


> You sir are an arse.


 

Really?? For staying behind large vehicles at red lights and not going up in the inside?

Or maybe waiting in primary at the lights and when I hear a large vehicle I look behind me and establish eye contact with the driver?

I'm an arse for doing that am I?!

For the third time it's time to use ''Ye old CC commuting folk.''


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

The CPS dithered over any prosecution, first it was Dangerous Driving, then back to Unsafe vehicle, then back to dangerous driving again,then all charges dropped:

http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-study/daniel-cox-killed-collision-lorry-2211



> CTC's view:
> 1) Driver was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving
> 2) Charges appear to have turned into merely driving a lorry with inadequate mirrors
> 3) Charges have now turned back into causing death by dangerous driving


 
We know the driver took a vehicle on the road that had missing mirrors. We know the driver was indicating right then turned left. We don't know that Daniel filtered on the inside. We do know the driver of the faulty vehicle hit and killed Daniel.

What's the point of having the driving test include proper signalling if drivers can ignore it on the roads and escape penalty? The driver through his own fault set off with no ability of seeing what was on his near side, with fatal consequences.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> London is one of the safest places to ride a bike in, providing you do so in a safe and responsible manner.
> 
> .


 
The City Of London is the most dangerous place in the UK to cycle in.

Use the statistics published by the Department for Transport showing the number of casualties per mile travelled - see this table. It says that there were 10,211 cyclist casualties per billion miles travelled in London, compared to 5,638 in England as a whole. So on this measure cycling in London does seem to be about twice as dangerous as in most other regions.



sandman said:


> I find it a miracle that you can second guess what the driver done as well (bold). If that was the case then he would have been taken to court and tried.
> 
> But you and ye old CC commuting folk know better then the CPS.


 
I'm afraid that's rather naive. A driver can collide with and kill a cyclist from behind in broad daylight and the CPS do nothing:

http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/373



> _We are members of Reading Cycling Club, gathered here this afternoon in a quiet protest or short vigil in memory of our fellow cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was killed by a van driver exactly a year ago on the A4130 north of Henley._
> _We make our protest at the Thames Valley offices of the Crown Prosecution Service, whose officers last year inappropriately, remissly, and to our minds unforgivably decided that the van driver who struck Anthony (and his companion) from behind would not face charges. We did not, and do not hold Anthony’s life so cheap._


 



sandman said:


> This type of argument rages on and has been around the houses for donkey's years now. And it goes on and on because cyclists fail to acknowledge other road users and the dynamics of the vehicles that they are driving.


 
Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

A mixture of strawman, hear say and cherry picking.

Wowsers.

With respect to London cycling, I said in a safe and responsible manner, your stats on London is has no point.

Not quite sure where you are going with the Reading incident. In fact you reinforce my point that you seem to know more then the CPS.

As for the RTC? Remind me how understanding dynamics of road vehicles has anything to do with who is responsible when a RTC occurs?


----------



## al78 (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> The City Of London is the most dangerous place in the UK to cycle in.
> 
> Use the statistics published by the Department for Transport showing the number of casualties per mile travelled - see this table. It says that there were 10,211 cyclist casualties per billion miles travelled in London, compared to 5,638 in England as a whole. So on this measure cycling in London does seem to be about twice as dangerous as in most other regions.


 
Has you taken into account the effect of motorways, trunk roads and other roads where cyclists are either banned or rarely found.

If not, then that may be skewing the stats, as London is a heavily built up area with few cyclist-free roads, a lot more in the way of junctions where collisions are more likely, and slower journey times so that a vehicle traveling a given distance in London will take longer to reach its destination on average than in other regions.

Try comparing London to other similarly built up areas, and see what statistics you get out then. I think you'll find that when you normalize for the effects of urbanization London is one of the safer places to cycle.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> JUst to clarify, you disagree with PK99 (post 33) on this matter?


 
If this were a court of law and you were a barrister then I would have to say that I do disagree with PK99.
But it is not a court of law and I rather suspect that PK99 was deliberately making it appear to be a black and white issue to make his point....of course I would not want to put words in his mouth, and I am sure that he can speak for himself.

The reality is that these things are not black and white and frequently culpability lies, to some extent, with both parties. In the case of the OP we simply do not know the facts and are not able to apportion blame....not that it is up to us. That is what the courts and the police need to do.

My honest answer to your question therefore has to be "yes" and "no"!


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> If this were a court of law and you were a barrister then I would have to say that I do disagree with PK99.


 
the point I was replying to was:

_I_


> _but... aren't most of these HGV related fatalities happening with bike filtering on left of HGV which then turns left ?_
> _I'll happily be corrected on that,_


_._



> In some cases that is the case, but I have seen (and experienced) all too many cases where the HGV overtakes a cycits wiating at a junction, and p*lacing the cyclists at risk through no fault of their own*


 
I wrote:



> If the cyclist has stopped hard left against the kerb - it IS their fault. See cyclecraft.


 
ie the cyclist has chosen to put him/herself in a potentially dangerous position by stopping hard left against the kerb contrary to the best advice of Cyclecraft and cycle trainers, and inviting another vehicle to share the lane, I stand by that comment. Best advice is to stop in the centre of the lane.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

1883063 said:


> You sir are an arse.


 
It's not very helpful to discuss things like that is it?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> The CPS dithered over any prosecution, first it was Dangerous Driving, then back to Unsafe vehicle, then back to dangerous driving again,then all charges dropped:.


 
The very fact that the CPS has dithered and changed it's mind makes me think that this case may well not be as cut and dried as you appear to be making it. Unless and until more information becomes available it is pure conjecture which doesn't really help the debate. It may be entirely down to the driver, it may be a bit of both. We don't know.

The discussion is, in my view, about the general issue filtering on the left of HGV's. We can discuss the specifics of OP when more information is available.

It's a pity that no HGV driver is online to give us the benefit of his experience. I'm not sure though that a HGV driver who is also a cyclist will want to put his head above the parapet on this one!


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> ie the cyclist has chosen to put him/herself in a potentially dangerous position by stopping hard left against the kerb contrary to the best advice of Cyclecraft and cycle trainers, and inviting another vehicle to share the lane, I stand by that comment. Best advice is to stop in the centre of the lane.


 
I agree wholeheartedly with that but I wasn't going to be pinned into a corner by the question which was put to me. 
You're right, though in stationary traffic at lights I will also, cautiously, filter on the left to get to the ASL when I believe it is safe to do so.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> The City Of London is the most dangerous place in the UK to cycle in.
> 
> Use the statistics published by the Department for Transport showing the number of casualties per mile travelled - see this table. It says that there were 10,211 cyclist casualties per billion miles travelled in London, compared to 5,638 in England as a whole. So on this measure cycling in London does seem to be about twice as dangerous as in most other regions.
> .


 
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I love the selective interpretation of those figures. A quick glance tells anyone that London is the most dangerous place in the country for every class of road user. Roughly twice as dangerous for everyone.

Hardly surprising given the traffic density.


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with that but I wasn't going to be pinned into a corner by the question which was put to me.
> You're right, though in stationary traffic at lights I will also, cautiously, *filter on the left to get to the ASL when I believe it is safe to do s*o.


 
Agreed on that, but that would (for me) never include passing on the inside of an hgv or bus and i would only do it if i knew how long i had till the lights changed eg the line of traffic i am in stops for the light and would not include cycling up the inside of a line of traffic I happen upon - in that case I stop in primary in the line well behind the last vehicle


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist.


 
I'ld be interested to see where you get that from. the TRL figures which I have show that the split for "blame" is pretty much equally divided between cyclists and drivers.

Source: Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britains Roads: establishing the causes.
Project Report PPR445.
various bits from P32 on refer.

What are you referring to?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> Agreed on that, but that would (for me) never include passing on the inside of an hgv or bus and i would only do it if i knew how long i had till the lights changed eg the line of traffic i am in stops for the light and would not include cycling up the inside of a line of traffic I happen upon - in that case I stop in primary in the line well behind the last vehicle


 
I agree with that too, but here in the sunny South West things are a little more laid back.
It's many years since I lived in your part of the country (I was in Southfields) but I don't envy you cycling around there, though I am sure that some parts are great.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I'ld be interested to see where you get that from. the TRL figures which I have show that the split for "blame" is pretty much equally divided between cyclists and drivers.
> 
> Source: Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britains Roads: establishing the causes.
> Project Report PPR445.
> ...


 
Almost every post you've made on this thread has contained a dishonesty. this is another one, the report says nothing of the kind. Troll elsewhere.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Wow, how constructive.


----------



## DRHysted (9 Jun 2012)

I work with 44 ton HGVs ( I am not a driver), when moving around them on foot, if the engine is running I always make sure I am in a position that I can see the drivers head (be it direct contact or via one of the many mirrors).
Despite the numerous mirrors that HGVs have fitted nowadays, they are surrounded by blind spots, and the moment that they turn in a direction all the mirrors on that side show is their trailer.
I am not commenting on the item that started this post, as I don't know the facts, but on a bike I will never go up the left hand side of a HGV, unless it is stationary in a right turn lane. Even in a car I spend the least time possible beside a lorry, left or right hand side, and will drop back on a motorway to ensure I am visible in their mirrors.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> London is one of the safest places to ride a bike in, providing you do so in a safe and responsible manner.


 
Catriona Patel was a safe and capable rider, she was killed by a drunk lorry driver chatting on a mobile phone. This is the reason why your's and recycler's victim-blaming posts are so distasteful


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> t
> ie the cyclist has chosen to put him/herself in a potentially dangerous position by stopping hard left against the kerb contrary to the best advice of Cyclecraft and cycle trainers, and inviting another vehicle to share the lane, I stand by that comment. Best advice is to stop in the centre of the lane.


If this advice were contained in the Highway Code I'd be a _little_ more predisposed to accept your apportionment of blame here, but that book contains not even a mention of the phrase "primary position", and the fact is that expectations of motorists are that cyclists are expected to ride on the left - it takes a quite confident cyclist to take the lane and accept the honking, close passes, and abuse that may result. I still don't like your implication that a cyclist who has not received the advice to take primary at junctions (hire bikes come with copies of cyclecraft attached to them, do they?), or who is not fast enough/thick-skinned enough to act on it, is to blame for their own misfortune.

It all comes down to what road environemnt we (as a society) want, and I see no reason that we should aspire to an environment where the mistake of a comparatively soft and fluffy road user should have consequences far out of proportion to the intrinsic danger they pose to their fellow road users. That's not a civilised space, that's a jungle. The road users who are making the environment more dangerous should bear the culpability for the danger they bring, not externalise it onto everyone else.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Almost every post you've made on this thread has contained a dishonesty. this is another one, the report says nothing of the kind. Troll elsewhere.


 
You have a rather odd way of debating a serious issue but, if you care to read the comment at the foot of page 32 in that report, you'll see that it says exactly what I have said. You will also see that the tables which follow support my comments.

I ask again....when you said earlier that


> In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist.


 I asked you to give your source. So far you have not been able to. Is it because you have simply made it up?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Catriona Patel was a safe and capable rider, she was killed by a drunk lorry driver chatting on a mobile phone. This is the reason why your's and recycler's victim-blaming posts are so distasteful


 
Despite your attempt to claim the moral high ground, nobody is saying that Catriona Patel's death was anything other than a tragedy caused by a driver who should not have been on the road.
However, for you to try to take that and seemingly extend it to an arguement which appears to be trying to condem all HGV drivers as being criminals is disingenous and unlikely to be accepted by any sane person.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> If this advice were contained in the Highway Code I'd be a _little_ more predisposed to accept your apportionment of blame here,


 
Whilst you are right that the HC does not mention Primary or Secondary have you read rule 73? It is very clear on this issue. I'd be interested in how you interpret that rule if you don't think that it says you should be very cautious about left filtering.

On the other points you make, all that is being said is recognise that you (i.e. "we") are in a vulnerable position on the road and act accordingly. To deny that cyclists should ride defensively is much like sticking your head in the sand. Yes, things can, and should be made better, but until such time as all other road users take the presence of cyclist properly into account then we have little option but to be realistic about what we do and to apply a little common sense . It is not "victim blaming" it is simple survival tactics.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

DRHysted said:


> I work with 44 ton HGVs ( I am not a driver), when moving around them on foot, if the engine is running I always make sure I am in a position that I can see the drivers head (be it direct contact or via one of the many mirrors).
> Despite the numerous mirrors that HGVs have fitted nowadays, they are surrounded by blind spots, and the moment that they turn in a direction all the mirrors on that side show is their trailer.
> I am not commenting on the item that started this post, as I don't know the facts, but on a bike I will never go up the left hand side of a HGV, unless it is stationary in a right turn lane. Even in a car I spend the least time possible beside a lorry, left or right hand side, and will drop back on a motorway to ensure I am visible in their mirrors.


 

Thanks for that.
I must admit that I was under the impression that the blind spot mirrors solved the problem. What you have said makes me realise that even that is not the case.
We learn something new every day.


----------



## Dan B (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Whilst you are right that the HC does not mention Primary or Secondary have you read rule 73? It is very clear on this issue. I'd be interested in how you interpret that rule if you don't think that it says you should be very cautious about left filtering.


I've read that rule and I agree with you as to its interpretation. The scenario PK99 was talking about, though, was where the cyclist had arrived first and stopped at the kerb, and the HGV drawn up alongside him subsequently - no filtering involved. I think it's a big ask of a novice cyclist to say "block the cars behind you when you're waiting at a traffic light", and blaming him when an HGV turns across his path when _the HGV driver could have waited behind him_ kind of sticks in the craw


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

1883443 said:


> Was there a discussion, other than the repeating of the mantra "don't go up the inside" which we all already knew? Any insights on how best actually to address the problem?


 
My earlier comment, as you well know, was in response to your name calling of another forumite.

I'm not sure that the message of "don't go up the inside" is already known to everyone and I think it was you (though I may be wrong) who was saying earlier that some cyclists don't know it. Certainly some know it, but don't practise it.

I'm also not sure that I am qualified to give you "insights" but I can give you my opinion which is that cyclists can do something about it today. Simply by taking the advice contained within the HC to heart.

Long term, we can educate HGV drivers and lobby for legislation about blind spot alarms (just as The Times is already doing with its recently started campaign) However, I really don't know whether the answer is alarms or mirrors or CCTV. But all that will take time.

If we wish to educate HGV drivers we will not succeed by simply blaming or attacking them for every problem. Cyclists need to "engage" (horrible expression, but it's the best I can find) with other road users. We need to understand what it is like to drive an HGV....(and I've certainly never driven one, though I have been in the passenger seat on many occasions). This is one of those occasions when attack is not the best form of defence; we are more likely to succeed by winning people over.

With regard some of the earlier comments earlier to the effect that HGV's shouldn't be on the road I can only say that the writer will have to get real.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> It's just extremely sad that other people's perception is warped to the point where they can really see cyclists doing no wrong at all, and that it is all the motorits fault.
> .


 
Except, nobody has said this or anything like it. You're plucking arguments from thin air like recycler, who's wibbled on for three pages about the dangers of filtering on the left when there's zero evidence that Daniel did anything of the kind. You're both twisting facts to suit your agenda.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> You have a rather odd way of debating a serious issue but, if you care to read the comment at the foot of page 32 in that report, you'll see that it says exactly what I have said. You will also see that the tables which follow support my comments.
> 
> I ask again....when you said earlier that I asked you to give your source. So far you have not been able to. Is it because you have simply made it up?


 

You're posting stuff that is not true, that's why you can't offer a link.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> , for you to try to take that and seemingly extend it to an arguement which appears to be trying to condem all HGV drivers as being criminals is disingenous and unlikely to be accepted by any sane person.


 
There's no such word as "disingenous" and I said no such thing, that's another lie you've made up.

I've posted the evidence that, in a random sample, all lorry drivers on London's roads were criminals. You ignored it:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum

Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way. Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case)

Anything which doesn't fit your victim-blaming agenda you ignore.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> I've read that rule and I agree with you as to its interpretation. The scenario PK99 was talking about, though, was where the cyclist had arrived first and stopped at the kerb, and the HGV drawn up alongside him subsequently - no filtering involved. I think it's a big ask of a novice cyclist to say "block the cars behind you when you're waiting at a traffic light", and blaming him when an HGV turns across his path when _the HGV driver could have waited behind him_ kind of sticks in the craw


 
I can understand that and I must admit that I do find it difficult at times to adopt and maintain primary (but I'm getting better at it!). Part of the problem is that car drivers simply don't understand what and why we are doing it so I suppose that there is an education job to do.

In the example you give of an HGV pulling up alongside me; I would firstly decide whether or not I am now in a vulnerable position. There are then three possible things to do, stay put, move forward, or even move back. There may be other options which I haven't thought of!


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> The simple fact is that we don't know the facts.


 
We know the lorry had a missing mirror on the near side. We know the lorry was indicating right, then turned left. We know the original charges included the mirrors. We know the driver didn't know the route and tried to drive into a no entry road. These are the facts, and you're bending the truth to try to excuse the driver.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> You're posting stuff that is not true, that's why you can't offer a link.
> 
> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> ...


 
I haven't bothered to find a link because the copy of that report has been stored on my machine for ages. I gave you the reference. Look it up if you want. Google is your friend.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> What happened? I assume that you weren't killed?


 
Not that I noticed, of course I could be a zombie!

This is one of those cases where experience and awareness counts. As the vehicle came alongside and started to signal, I knew what was going to happen., moved into the kerb, stopped and let it happen......


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> for somebody to be trying to make a case based on the Evening Standard, Twitter and now, of all things, the Huffington Post is laughable.


 
Can you explain why the details of Daniel's death make you laugh? Which parts do you dispute, which parts do you think are funny?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Can you explain why the details of Daniel's death make you laugh? Which parts do you dispute, which parts do you think are funny?


 
It is abundantly clear to anyone who is capable of understanding the English language that I was saying that it was your argument that was laughable. I have equally well made it clear on several occasions that any death on the road, whether cyclist or other road user, is a tragedy.

I say again, for you to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Beyond that, I refer you to post #138


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

Dawesome, in your post #100 you say
"Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist."
In your post #125 you say
"It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions."

Are you softening your stance, having shown us that "police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases," ?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Which parts do you dispute? Are you saying the Huffington version of the story is dishonest? How? It reports the facts, are you saying the facts are wrong?

You see, you and sandman have a habit of posting the equivalent of "that's rubbish!" You never actually say what you mean. What's "laughable" about any of this?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Dawesome, in your post #100 you say
> "Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist."
> In your post #125 you say
> "It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions."
> ...


 
No. Those figures are skewed too when there are two witnesses and one's dead. The trouble with the complete cock-up the legal system have made of this case is that "SMIDSY" is being made into a Get-out-of-jail card. That's it. That's all you have to say, and nothing happens. 

What's the point of having vehicle safety in driving tests when the rulebook goes out of the window after a tragedy? What's the point of having indicators if drivers are too stupid to use them properly?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Which parts do you dispute? Are you saying the Huffington version of the story is dishonest? How? It reports the facts, are you saying the facts are wrong?
> 
> You see, you and sandman have a habit of posting the equivalent of "that's rubbish!" You never actually say what you mean. What's "laughable" about any of this?


 
I refer you to #138.
answer awaited.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Which part of my argument is "laughable" please? Something in the Huffington link? Why can't you say?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Which part of my argument is "laughable" please? Something in the Huffington link? Why can't you say?


 

Once more I say refer to #138.
If you wish to discuss things in a civilsed way then say so. If you want to simply trade insults then I'm really not interested in what you have to say.

Final time of asking. Civilised discussion or mutual hurling of abuse?
Your call.
Answer awaited.


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> No. Those figures are skewed too when there are two witnesses and one's dead. The trouble with the complete cock-up the legal system have made of this case is that "SMIDSY" is being made into a Get-out-of-jail card. That's it. That's all you have to say, and nothing happens.
> 
> What's the point of having vehicle safety in driving tests when the rulebook goes out of the window after a tragedy? What's the point of having indicators if drivers are too stupid to use them properly?


You quoted those figures less than an hour ago, why did you do that only to now say that they are skewed?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Once more I say refer to #138.
> If you wish to discuss things in a civilsed way then say so. If you want to simply trade insults then I'm really not interested in what you have to say.
> 
> Final time of asking. Civilised discussion or mutual hurling of abuse?
> ...


 
I thought asked you perfectly politely, sorry if you got a different impression.

Sorry.

Did you think something in the Huffington link was "laughable"? What were you referring to please?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> You quoted those figures less than an hour ago, why did you do that only to now say that they are skewed?


 
Because you're the first person to ask about them. 

Do you think saying SMIDSY should be treated as an admission of dangerous driving? Or "blinded by the sun" which I've seen twice recently I think. That's basically meaning driving at a lethal speed as you cannot see in front of the car?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Of course, the RAF officer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...RAF-officer-Tom-Barrett-escapes-jail-sun.html


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Because you're the first person to ask about them.
> 
> Do you think saying SMIDSY should be treated as an admission of dangerous driving? Or "blinded by the sun" which I've seen twice recently I think. That's basically meaning driving at a lethal speed as you cannot see in front of the car?


Are you saying that you quote figures and then say that they are skewed when someone asks about them? Did you know that they were skewed when you quoted them?
I don't think SMIDSY is an acceptable excuse in an accident, but I don't think that someone should be convicted of dangerous driving on that evidence alone.
"Blinded by the sun" is not relevant to this thread, and I can see no reason to mention it other than to distract attention from the dodgy figures that you have used.


----------



## marafi (9 Jun 2012)

As they always say with HGV, buses and yes even a taxis stay behind don't filter through.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I don't think SMIDSY is an acceptable excuse in an accident, but I don't think that someone should be convicted of dangerous driving on that evidence alone.


 
And this case? A driver who took a faulty vehicle on the roads, a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads. He didn't know the route, was faffing about with the indicators and turned the opposite way when he KNEW he couldn't see down the nearside?


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> And this case? A driver who took a faulty vehicle on the roads, a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads. He didn't know the route, was faffing about with the indicators and turned the opposite way when he KNEW he couldn't see down the nearside?


 
I don't think we have enough evidence to charge the driver with "dangerous driving" at the moment I wonder what the inquest will reveal.

I don't think that "a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads." or " He didn't know the route." or even " was faffing about with the indicators." should form the main thrust of any potential prosecution either.

Why have you not denied knowing that your figures were skewed when you quoted them?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

You don't think the operators of dangerous machines should take extra care? I didn't say I know the figures are skewed, I can't know that for sure, but you must admit the police only have the evidence they see and hear. And people will lie if they think they are in trouble. In every court case one side must be lying. This driver failed to take basic care. What message do you think this gives unscrupulous hgv lorry operators? It's a cut-throat industry, undercut by Poles, paid by the load so there's a natural incentive to cut corners, take risks, speed. Do you think that some low-life scaffolding lorry firm or tipper lorry firm can read about what happened and think "I can even drive with missing mirrors, kill someone, and get away with it"? Mirrors or cctv costs less than £100. Less than the cost of most bikes.


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> . In every court case one side must be lying. .


 
That is not actually so: a case can turn on different recollections of fact or interpretations of the law


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

In any criminal court case? In any two different accounts of the same story.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> I thought asked you perfectly politely, sorry if you got a different impression.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Did you think something in the Huffington link was "laughable"? What were you referring to please?


 
As I said before, I think that what is laughable is using twitter, links to Huffington Post and the other link (sorry I can't remember what it was now) to support the claim that SMIDSY's are now "being enshrined in law". The law is not made in that way. It is primarily made by Acts of Parliament and Precedents which are made in the Courts.

I was not saying the reports were laughable (and, for the record, I was certainly not saying that the deaths were laughable). I was saying that I thought that your arguement, being based on poor sources, was laughable. The Inquest is being held next week when, hopefully a fuller picture will emerge. Sadly the full evidence is unlikely to be tested in court as the charges appear to have been dropped. We must assume that that is because the CPS believes that it is either unlikely to get a conviction or because it believes that it is not in the Public interest to proceed.

As an aside, though it is largely irrelevant, I don't take the Huff particulary seriously, I don't take twitter at all seriously, and I take most of what I see on the Web with a big pinch of salt. I do take official court records seriously.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> As I said before, I think that what is laughable is using twitter, links to Huffington Post and the other link (sorry I can't remember what it was now) to support the claim that SMIDSY's are now "being enshrined in law".


 
That's not what I did.


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> You don't think the operators of dangerous machines should take extra care? I didn't say I know the figures are skewed, I can't know that for sure, but you must admit the police only have the evidence they see and hear. And people will lie if they think they are in trouble. In every court case one side must be lying. This driver failed to take basic care. What message do you think this gives unscrupulous hgv lorry operators? It's a cut-throat industry, undercut by Poles, paid by the load so there's a natural incentive to cut corners, take risks, speed. Do you think that some low-life scaffolding lorry firm or tipper lorry firm can read about what happened and think "I can even drive with missing mirrors, kill someone, and get away with it"? Mirrors or cctv costs less than £100. Less than the cost of most bikes.


 
I do think the operators of dangerous machines should take extra care!

I don't think the police treat fatalities in such a cavalier fashion, I think they treat them very seriously and don't just rely on hearsay. I suppose that unless they read twitter or the Huffington Post (where is Huffington anyway?) they are unlikely to have the full facts though.

What have you got against Polish people?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

You think saying "undercut by Poles" is anti-Polish?


----------



## al78 (9 Jun 2012)

DRHysted said:


> I work with 44 ton HGVs ( I am not a driver), when moving around them on foot, if the engine is running I always make sure I am in a position that I can see the drivers head (be it direct contact or via one of the many mirrors).
> Despite the numerous mirrors that HGVs have fitted nowadays, they are surrounded by blind spots, and the moment that they turn in a direction all the mirrors on that side show is their trailer.
> I am not commenting on the item that started this post, as I don't know the facts, but on a bike I will never go up the left hand side of a HGV, unless it is stationary in a right turn lane. Even in a car I spend the least time possible beside a lorry, left or right hand side, and will drop back on a motorway to ensure I am visible in their mirrors.


 
Would it not be theoretically possible to have mirrors on HGV's that auto-readjust according to the angle of the cab with the trailer? All you need is the optimum mirror position when the cab and trailer are in a straight line, and the angle of cab to trailer when making a turn, and it should be possible to calculate a new mirror position which has the field of vision remaining down to the back of the trailer, not at the trailer. Do such mirrors exist?


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> You think saying "undercut by Poles" is anti-Polish?


Yes ! Many different nationalities are involved in competition, both fair and unfair, why single out the Polish?


----------



## Alun (9 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> Would it not be theoretically possible to have mirrors on HGV's that auto-readjust according to the angle of the cab with the trailer? All you need is the optimum mirror position when the cab and trailer are in a straight line, and the angle of cab to trailer when making a turn, and it should be possible to calculate a new mirror position which has the field of vision remaining down to the back of the trailer, not at the trailer. Do such mirrors exist?


I think it's a good idea, and sounds entirely feasible, I haven't heard of any in use though.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Yes ! Many different nationalities are involved in competition, both fair and unfair, why single out the Polish?


 
Because I'm massively racist towards Polish people.


----------



## stowie (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> As I said before, I think that what is laughable is using twitter, links to Huffington Post and the other link (sorry I can't remember what it was now) to support the claim that SMIDSY's are now "being enshrined in law". The law is not made in that way. It is primarily made by Acts of Parliament and Precedents which are made in the Courts.
> 
> I was not saying the reports were laughable (and, for the record, I was certainly not saying that the deaths were laughable). I was saying that I thought that your arguement, being based on poor sources, was laughable. The Inquest is being held next week when, hopefully a fuller picture will emerge. Sadly the full evidence is unlikely to be tested in court as the charges appear to have been dropped. We must assume that that is because the CPS believes that it is either unlikely to get a conviction or because it believes that it is not in the Public interest to proceed.
> 
> As an aside, though it is largely irrelevant, I don't take the Huff particulary seriously, I don't take twitter at all seriously, and I take most of what I see on the Web with a big pinch of salt. I do take official court records seriously.


 
I don't think what you will get on an internet forum is peer reviewed research. After all it is really an exchange of opinions.

Having said that, I do notice a lot of mitigation and defense of driving (normally after whacking a cyclist) relies upon "sun glare" in the case of cars and "blind spots" in the case of lorries. 

I have simply looked through the cambridge news and found the following

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Car-driver-stuck-on-busway-says-sun-was-in-my-eyes-06122011.htm
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hom...or-injuring-cyclist-in-collision-17042012.htm
(note that the one immediately above has a "low afternoon sun". At 1pm-2pm. In October)
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Fine-for-driver-who-crashed-into-cyclist-10052012.htm

The title of SMIDSY enshrined in law may be somewhat hyperbolic, but there seems to be a number of cases where mitigation was concerning "not seeing" the cyclist. In my opinion, if blind spots are so problematic (and they appear to be) on lorries then having HGVs with these blind spots in our cities needs to be carefully reviewed. Especially since there are cheap and easy things that can be done to help with the situation (as easy as, say Fresnel lenses, or a full compliment of correctly aligned mirrors). And judging from the number "sun-in-eyes" causing accidents one might be inclined to believe that only driving at night would be the solution!


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Except, nobody has said this or anything like it. You're plucking arguments from thin air like recycler, who's wibbled on for three pages about the dangers of filtering on the left when there's zero evidence that Daniel did anything of the kind. You're both twisting facts to suit your agenda.


 
I'm going to say this with the greatest of respect.

You're an idiot, who has posted an OP based on a newspaper article and any form of rebuttal against you or your stupid arse views and opinions elicit the above.

It's little wonder that you've been banned from this site numerous times before. Why the hell the staff has let you post your frothing dribble time and time again is beyond me. No wonder commuting is such a bad place to be.

Bring back Mag, Mr O, JJ, even the pious BM and have some real debate.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> , a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads.


 
Once more, I have to contradict your conclusion.

If you look at the DTp report "Reported road Casualties Great Britain 2008" published by the Office of National Statistics Page 119 you'll see that, in real terms, cars are involved in more accidents than HGV's
Cars are involved in fatalities or serious injuries approximately 50% more often than HGV's. (7.1 car accidents for every 100m kilometres against HGV accidents at a rate of 5.7 accidents per 100m kilometres). The explanation is down to HGV's driving higher average mileages than cars.

I really don't think that demonising HGV's is going to get us anywhere. HGV drivers are not perfect, just as any other road user is not perfect, but it is unrealistic to characterise them, or their vehicles, as being any worse than others.
I haven't checked the figures, but I suspect that we are far more likely to be killed or injured by a car than by an HGV.

FWIW we are also highly likely to be injured by ourselves (around 50%)...i.e. no other vehicle involved. But that is another discussion


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

> For most cyclists, HGVs are the thing most feared on urban roads. Despite only comprising 5% of traffic, they are involved in about 50% of cyclist deaths each year, and many more serious injuries.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jan/27/hgv-cyclists-safety-bike-blog

What, exactly, were you referring to when you used the word "laughable"? I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question. Something in the Huffington link?


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jan/27/hgv-cyclists-safety-bike-blog


 
some good advice in the link....



> The consensus is this: overtake, don't undertake, or simply wait behind the lorry. And always think this: is it at all possible that this truck could turn left or right in the time it takes me to overtake? The London Cycling Campaign provides this advice with a useful lorry blind spot diagram


 
and in the LCC link:




> Drivers of large vehicles need to make an extra effort to see cyclists, so be aware that they won't always have seen you. Follow the advice below at all times:.
> *1. Avoid cycling in the lorry risk zone*
> Be very careful cycling around large lorries, especially riding up their nearside near junctions.
> And if a lorry manoeuvres in such a way as to put you in its risk zone (above), you must move straightaway, braking to drop back if necessary.
> ...


Good to see the LCC gicing such sound advice - I take it ypu link to it because you agree with it?
.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> some good advice in the link....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Of course, I hang back from lorries. I let them pass if I can, I'd rather have them ahead of me. If one reverses out I will sit and wait and let it go. I'm worried about the ones that come up behind me:


Catriona Patel, a 39-year-old public relations executive, was in training to ride L’Etape du Tour with her husband Asish when she was killed after a lorry driven by Dennis Putz, 51, from Monkton Hadley, Hertfordshire, turned left across her path on Kennington Park Road, near Oval Tube Station. "Dennis Putz started driving a large tipper truck that day still 1.5 times the legal drink drive limit. He was also using a mobile telephone as he hit Catriona.






TV producer Eilidh Cairns, aged 30, died after she ended up under the wheels of the vehicle after coming off her bike while traveling to work in Notting Hill Gate on February 5 last year. On Friday, the trial opened at Kingston Magistrates’ Court of lorry driver Joao Lopes, aged 53, who was charged with driving while his eyesight was such that he could not comply with requirements of a prescribed eye test..




Maria Fernandez, 24, died from head injuries sustained following the crash at Holborn Circus. A bin lorry had crept into the green 'bike box' zone at the lights then turned left, dragging the student under its wheels.


A staggering 83 per cent of lorries are driven at speeds in excess of the 50mph speed limit on dual carriageways in non-built up areas, and 69 per cent on similarly designated single carriageway roads, where a 40mph limit applies, according to new data from the Department for Transport (DfT).


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

stowie said:


> The title of SMIDSY enshrined in law may be somewhat hyperbolic, but there seems to be a number of cases where mitigation was concerning "not seeing" the cyclist. In my opinion, if blind spots are so problematic (and they appear to be) on lorries then having HGVs with these blind spots in our cities needs to be carefully reviewed. Especially since there are cheap and easy things that can be done to help with the situation (as easy as, say Fresnel lenses, or a full compliment of correctly aligned mirrors). And judging from the number "sun-in-eyes" causing accidents one might be inclined to believe that only driving at night would be the solution!


 
I agree with that, though I'm not sure that "the sun in my eyes" explanations were treated as mitigating circumstances. My reading those reports is that it was the excuse/explanation offered by the drivers, but they were still found guilty. I.e. it wasn't accepted.

Nevertheless, more needs to be done but, from the HGV comments made in #114 it is possible that mirrors alone will not be enough. I also believe that cyclists can do more to protect themselves and that, as we are likely to come off worse from an argument with 40 tons of steel, it is sensible for us to take great care.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jan/27/hgv-cyclists-safety-bike-blog
> 
> What, exactly, were you referring to when you used the word "laughable"? I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question. Something in the Huffington link?


 
I've explained it several times already. I haven't ignored it at all. Your argument (as in "stance" "position" "hypotheseis") is laughable. You have built it on sand rather than properly argued and supported foundations.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

1883801 said:


> For someone who registered yesterday you have picked up an awful lot of history very quickly.


 
He said earlier that he has been lurking for sometime. Nothing wrong with that is there?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Your argument (as in "stance" "position" "hypotheseis") is laughable. You have built it on sand rather than properly argued and supported foundations.


 
I know. You keep saying that. I keep asking which part. You keep ignoring the question. It's like saying "That's rubbish" over and over again without saying why. You refuse to explain what you mean. But you're not a troll.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> That's not what I did.


 
In that case I have no idea what you are trying to say. I simply read the title of this thread which is there for us all to see.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> I know. You keep saying that. I keep asking which part. You keep ignoring the question. It's like saying "That's rubbish" over and over again without saying why. You refuse to explain what you mean. But you're not a troll.


 
I'm sorry, but I have explained it many times already and I'm sure that others can understand what I am saying.
Please desist from the "troll" accusation and other petty insults. They are both untrue and unhelpful in this discussion.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> Would it not be theoretically possible to have mirrors on HGV's that auto-readjust according to the angle of the cab with the trailer? All you need is the optimum mirror position when the cab and trailer are in a straight line, and the angle of cab to trailer when making a turn, and it should be possible to calculate a new mirror position which has the field of vision remaining down to the back of the trailer, not at the trailer. Do such mirrors exist?


 
Perhaps a convex mirror similar to security mirrors which we see in shops would do the job? Effectively a "wide angle" mirror.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Which part of the argument is laughable, something Ross Lydall said? The Huff Post link?



> Specifically, British Cycling is asking for the following issues to be addressed:​
> _A comprehensive review of the way that the police, coroners investigate these cases. Crash investigation processes vary from force to force and coroners’ evaluation of evidence is inconsistent across the country. Victim and their families frequently find they have little or no information on how the case is proceeding and what, if any, charges are being considered and why._
> 
> _Review of the CPS charging standards and legal guidance to properly deal with the seriousness of incidents where road users are killed or injured. It often appears that the CPS chooses to go for inappropriately lighter charges or no charge at all._
> ...


 
ibid. Think of it in purely financial terms, every road death costs £1.6m, a full cctv rig to eliminate blind spots costs £450, more than I thought, but not a huge amount. What's laughable about comparing the figures?


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> A staggering 83 per cent of lorries are driven at speeds in excess of the 50mph speed limit on dual carriageways in non-built up areas, and 69 per cent on similarly designated single carriageway roads, where a 40mph limit applies, according to new data from the Department for Transport (DfT).


 
It hardly comes as a surprise to hear that drivers speed on the road and I can confidently predict that other road users do so as well. Car drivers, motorcyclists and vans speed; probably more so than lorries.

I can also confidently predict that cyclists RLJ, ride on pavements, don't use lights at night and go the wrong way down one-way streets.

I really don't know why you are making such an issue about lorries. You are more likely to be hit by a car, but you seem to ignore that.


----------



## Recycler (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> You could answer the question, then nobody would think you're trolling.


 
It's only you that seems to think I am trolling.
I have answered the question...several times. You may want to refuse to accept my answer but it is time for you to move on. Just read what I have already said.....several times.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> Would it not be theoretically possible to have mirrors on HGV's that auto-readjust according to the angle of the cab with the trailer? All you need is the optimum mirror position when the cab and trailer are in a straight line, and the angle of cab to trailer when making a turn, and it should be possible to calculate a new mirror position which has the field of vision remaining down to the back of the trailer, not at the trailer. Do such mirrors exist?


 

There is already such a thing on the cab which is a wide angle mirror of which you can see the trailer make when you make a turn.

If properly adjusted it gives a wide view and you can still see the trailer as you make the turn.

Ultimately though, the mirros would be checked prior to moving off.

The mirror signal maneuver is further broken down to position, speed, look.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> It hardly comes as a surprise to hear that drivers speed on the road and I can confidently predict that other road users do so as well. Car drivers, motorcyclists and vans speed; probably more so than lorries.
> 
> I can also confidently predict that cyclists RLJ, ride on pavements, don't use lights at night and go the wrong way down one-way streets.
> 
> I really don't know why you are making such an issue about lorries. You are more likely to be hit by a car, but you seem to ignore that.


 
Indeed, it would be interesting see the amount of cyclist deaths caused by road users as a % then compare these to HGV's.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> Indeed, it would be interesting see the amount of cyclist deaths caused by road users as a % then compare these to HGV's.


 




> Experts are calling for a ban on heavy goods vehicles in Britain's cities after a study found that despite making only 4% of road trips they were involved in 43% ofLondon'scyclingdeaths.
> 
> Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) analysedpolice road casualty data over a 15-year period from 1992 to 2006. During that period there were 242 deaths in London, or an average of 16 a year. Heavy goods vehicles were involved in 103 out of 242 of these incidents.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/18/hgv-city-ban-to-protect-cyclists


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Why hasn't someone done that?
> 
> Oh:
> 
> ...


 
You're cherry picking - again. Compare this with the rest of the country?


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> You're cherry picking - again. Compare this with the rest of the country?


 
You see, that's recycler's tactic of shrieking "That's rubbish" and then refusing to explain why.


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> You see, that's recycler's tactic of shrieking "That's rubbish" and then refusing to explain why.


 
LOL, I gonna give you one last go. Show me the stats that cover the entire country and show cyclist deaths in accordance to what they were hit by thus being a KSI as a %.

Because I'm willing to bet a penny to a pound that the figures even themselves out.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jun 2012)

Best use of "LOL" whilst demanding to know cyclist's deaths ever. 



> HGVs make up 5 per cent of traffic, but are responsible for 19 per cent of the deaths of cyclists on Britain’s roads.​


 
http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association


----------



## sandman (9 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Best use of "LOL" whilst demanding to know cyclist's deaths ever.
> 
> 
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association


 
Cheers for that, so they make up only 19% of cyclists deaths on the road. Which is an increase of only 3% outside of London. Not a lot to it really.


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> Indeed, it would be interesting see the amount of cyclist deaths caused by road users as a % then compare these to HGV's.


 
Those figures are given in the "Reported Road Casualties: Great Britain 2008" which I mentioned earlier.
Table 23c towards the end refers.

Total cycle accidents. approx 17,000.
Those involving cars approx 14,000
Those involving HGVs 271

It puts some of the ranting that we've seen here in its true perspective, but why let the truth get in the way of anything?

There is a lot of information in that report, but it is hardly bedtime reading!
Sorry, I don't have a link as I keep a full copy of the report on my computer. but dear Mr Google will get it for you if you really want.


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

*1. HGVs are allowed to drive around densely populated areas with significant blind spots.*​*2. HGVs are the heaviest vehicles on the road and when they collide with people, those people are likely to die.*​*3. You would therefore expect HGVs to kill or seriously injure the highest number of people/km, and they do .*​​From the 2008 goverment factsheet entitled "Goods Vehicle Accidents and Casualties Road Accident & Road Freight Statistics Factsheet No. 1 – 2008"
​*factsheet said:*
In 2007 the rate of fatal accidents was higher for HGVs (1.6 per 100 million vkm) than for all motor vehicles (0.9 per 100 million vkm)
Basically what it's saying is that per km travelled, HGVs cause almost twice as many fatal accidents as other vehicles.​


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

Oh. Perhaps it's best to simply stick to the subject of the thread?
I'll just steer away from the unpleasantness that some seem to wish for.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

1884026 said:


> I don't know, nor do much care. The point is that Sandman wouldn't know, unless he is not what he portrayed himself as.


 
It's not hard if you go search the past threads in commuting to see what is what over the last couple of years.

As I've said I've been lurking for quite some time, and have seen commuting descend into a farce that it now is. At least when the previously mentioned were here there was some reasoned debate.

Now it would appear that commuting is mostly populated by 'hardened' cyclists. By hardened I mean hold cycling as the one and only mode of transport far discounted other road users and their means.

I joined because because for me this was one motorist bashing thread too much - passing judgement on a HGV driver on the basis of a newspaper report and by no means accepting any other persons point of view. And any change of point being made is met by Dawesome and his warped sense of debating.

As mentioned, use the 'search' function, you never know what you might find.


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> I mean hold cycling as the one and only mode of transport far discounted other road users and their means.


 
I agree so much with that.

Frankly, I don't really care what people think, but I am convinced that viewing other road users as the "enemy" and ranting about them at every opportunity is counter productive. All it does is alienates them and makes them less considerate. Beat people with a stick all the time and they bite back.

SMIDSY's, left hooks, overtaking too close, etc etc are mostly the result of a combination of innattention and/or lack of consideration. However, continually attacking or demonising people for their ways will do nothing to improve things.

Yes, these things are annoying at best, lethal at worst, and I'll freely admit to yelling at idiots at times. However, as a group, if we are generally seen as lycra louts who jump red lights, ride on pavements, ride around without lights, and generally don't care, then the very people we need to win over will simply feel justified in making life difficult for us.

There must be a better way of making things better for ourselves.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

I don't think we need to win over anyone, nor do I really care for any stereotypical view of cyclists such lycra louts, riding without lights etc. Because for every one of these cyclists there are ten car drivers that will routinely break the law in some way. This view will always exist no matter what imo.

What does annoy me, is bad cycling as a result of poor awareness and anticpation and the fact that people use the fact that they are vulnerable road users as an excuse for poor cycling and then have a pop at others.

As you mentioned not only does this further alinate ourselves from other road users but cyclists neglect the fact to look at their own riding, even if the other person is 100% at fault. Only after analysis of an incident and after you have looked at the other person and what they've done and what you did, should you or can you come to this conclusion.

Cycling is one of the safest things to do if carried out correctly. And it is extremely simple the basic checks that you can carry out in order that you ride in a defensive manner:-

Check every time you change speed or direction.

Check what the traffic around you is doing at all times.

It's very simple to do in terms of basic skills needed. It's just unfortunate that the above is not carried out effectively. As a result you get a cyclist changing lanes to overtake a bus without checking and as a result almost gets run over by a car, who then turns around and has a go at the car driver ''Because you should have looked out for me.'' Just one incident of poor riding that I see almost every day. The result?

Going on what the cyclist said you'd presume that they would not look at what has just happened and maybe ask themesleves the question that they should really check before changing lanes.

With this mindset cycling will never advance, people will ride a bike without the skills needed and will only further the them and us attitude.


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

Nobody was attacked, nobody was bashed, that’s the two trolls arguing with the voices in their heads again. In my opinion taking a vehicle on the road when you know you have a blind spot, indicating one way then turning the other when you know you can’t see down the near side, and getting charged with precisely nothing is very wrong, otherwise why have part of the driving test covering use of indicators and the safety of the vehicle. Someone’s died and the legal system has just shrugged, I feel that’s wrong, if you disagree say why, but don’t make up arguments nobody’s made.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Nobody was attacked, nobody was bashed, that’s the two trolls arguing with the voices in their heads again. In my opinion taking a vehicle on the road when you know you have a blind spot, indicating one way then turning the other when you know you can’t see down the near side, and getting charged with precisely nothing is very wrong, otherwise why have part of the driving test covering use of indicators and the safety of the vehicle. Someone’s died and the legal system has just shrugged, I feel that’s wrong, if you disagree say why, but don’t make up arguments nobody’s made.


 
I suggest you:

Get your facts straight regarding the mirror.

The indication given.

Blind spots.


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> What does annoy me, is bad cycling as a result of poor awareness and anticpation and the fact that people use the fact that they are vulnerable road users as an excuse for poor cycling and then have a pop at others.
> 
> .


 

Once again,nobody has done this, you're arguing against points you're making up.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Once again,nobody has done this, you're arguing against points you're making up.


 
No, I'm giving my opinion based on what Recycler posted.


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> I suggest you:
> 
> Get your facts straight regarding the mirror.
> 
> ...


 
Eh? What are you disputing? Thuis is your old tactic of saying "Rubbish" without saying why


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2012)

The opposite problem is when you try and distinguish "Cyclists" from "People on bikes"

One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!

Do we need training courses - perhaps we do but that is another argument.

What we do need to do though is to get away from the simplistic "sticking plasters" that are the usual answers to road safety when involving cyclist safety..

Cyclists being cut up and SMIDSY - wear HiViz and ignore the root cause of the problem
Cyclist suffering injuries - wear a helmet and ignore the root cause of the problem.
Cyclist being killed by HGVs - put the responsibility on cyclists and again ignore the root cause of the problem

Dismiss it as "motorist bashing" if you like, but sooner or later it comes down to the fact that as road users we all have to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. ..... and in this case driving an unroadworthy and faulty vehicle is unequivocally a contributory factor.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Eh? What are you disputing? Thuis is your old tactic of saying "Rubbish" without saying why


 
<Sighs>

You say the driver knows he had a blind spot?

How does he, have you seen the vehicle that he was driving and can confirm?

You say that he indicated one way and turned the other, can you point to where this is an established fact?

You say that he cannot see down the n/s. From what I've read one n/s mirror was missing - not both. So the driver can see down the n/s.

As I said - get your facts straight.

Nobody was attacked, nobody was bashed, that’s the two trolls arguing with the voices in their heads again. In my opinion taking a vehicle on the road when *you know you have a blind spot, indicating one way then turning the other* *when you know you can’t see down the near side,* and getting charged with precisely nothing is very wrong, otherwise why have part of the driving test covering use of indicators and the safety of the vehicle. Someone’s died and the legal system has just shrugged, I feel that’s wrong, if you disagree say why, but don’t make up arguments nobody’s made.


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

sandman,would you like to read the thread? Everything you've just claimed has already been posted.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The opposite problem is when you try and distinguish "Cyclists" from "People on bikes"
> 
> One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!
> 
> ...


 

That's good post and I agree with what you say, and if this was the OP then this thread would have turned out different. But unfortunately it was started by someone who could not take on board any other persons POV which is quite sad.


----------



## sandman (10 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> sandman,would you like to read the thread? Everything you've just claimed has already been posted.


 
Right, which is being contradicted by yourself by saying that the driver could not see down the n/s.

This is incorrect, only one of the mirrors were missing not both. If you want to make a post based on established facts and not opinion then at least get it right.


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> I don't think we need to win over anyone, nor do I really care for any stereotypical view of cyclists such lycra louts, riding without lights etc. Because for every one of these cyclists there are ten car drivers that will routinely break the law in some way. This view will always exist no matter what imo.
> 
> clip clip clip
> 
> With this mindset cycling will never advance, people will ride a bike without the skills needed and will only further the them and us attitude.


 
I agree with all of that except the first sentence!
It really does seem to me that, in trying to be more understanding of drivers, we stand more chance of getting them to understand our problems.

As simple case. If we adopt primary position many drivers think that we are unecessarily and selfishly blocking the road. If we can get them to understand what is happening then they (or some at least!) are more likely to be patient rather than going into "you pay no road tax" mode.

Another thought. If drivers were routinely given a "thank you" acknowledgement when they are considerate to us then that will probably be better than if they simply get a two fingure gesture when they are not considerate..............but perhaps I live in an ideal world. 

But you are certainly right that drivers also routinely break the law!


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

sandman said:


> Right, which is being contradicted by yourself by saying that the driver could not see down the n/s.
> 
> This is incorrect, only one of the mirrors were missing not both. If you want to make a post based on established facts and not opinion then at least get it right.


 
You got a source for that?


----------



## dawesome (10 Jun 2012)

> The driver of a lorry involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist has become the second in months to escape prosecution.
> Prosecutors dropped the case against Simon Weatherley after accepting he could not have seen cyclist Daniel Cox because of a “blind spot” in his view from the driver’s cab.
> The same defence was used when charges were not pursued against Olympics delivery driver Gurpreet Shergill, who drove the HGV that killed cyclist Svitlana Tereschenko at Bow roundabout last November.
> Mr Weatherley, 52, of Bromley, had a charge of causing death by dangerous driving dropped days before he was due to stand trial at Snaresbrook crown court in March.
> ...


 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...-in-months-to-escape-prosecution-7831128.html


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The opposite problem is when you try and distinguish "Cyclists" from "People on bikes"
> 
> One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!
> 
> ...


 
I agree with much of that (though you know that, for different reasons, I have a different take on Hi Viz!).

We certainly need to see an improvement in how drivers interact with cyclists, but I'm not sure that separating riders into "cyclists" and "people on bikes" will get us very far. I imagine that most drivers simply see one bike as much the same as another.


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

1884423 said:


> You are so right, smiling indulgently the way you would at a naughty puppy is going to cure all that so much more effectively.


 
I hadn't thought of it in quite that way but you could be right. It's putting it into practice that is difficult.
I must practice my indulgent smile a bit more!


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2012)

There is a difference between a "Cyclist" who is aware of their surroundings, and who rides defensively using primary and secondary position, and the "Person on a bike" who would shoot down th inside lane in their car, so does the same thing on a bike.

Which again proves why "sticking plasters" such as HiViz and Helmets are an issue....

The evidence is overwhelming in that training is as efficient as any of these "remedies"

The bonus is that it also addresses more than one issue so is in fact more effective than either of the "plasters" in isolation.

Helmets don't increase visibility, HiViz doesn't reduce head injury - training has been shown to do both.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2012)

There is a difference between a "Cyclist" who is aware of their surroundings, and who rides defensively using primary and secondary position, and the "Person on a bike" who would shoot down th inside lane in their car, so does the same thing on a bike.

Which again proves why "sticking plasters" such as HiViz and Helmets are an issue....

The evidence is overwhelming in that training is as efficient as any of these "remedies"

The bonus is that it also addresses more than one issue so is in fact more effective than either of the "plasters" in isolation.

Helmets don't increase visibility, HiViz doesn't reduce head injury - training has been shown to do both.

... and then we have the added bonus of reducing the other incidents due to poor road positioning, poor maintenance and all the other factors.


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> There is a difference between a "Cyclist" who is aware of their surroundings, and who rides defensively using primary and secondary position, and the "Person on a bike" who would shoot down th inside lane in their car, so does the same thing on a bike.
> 
> Which again proves why "sticking plasters" such as HiViz and Helmets are an issue....
> 
> ...


 
I don't know what the evidence is that you are talking about, but we've had this discussion already and there is little point in going through it all over again. It's the world beyond this forum that needs to change, not your or my view.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2012)

The evidence is that trained cyclists have less accidents. ... and that has not been discussed here before.

If you can show me the thread where we have discusses the comparison between the overall reduction in accidents between trained and untrained cyclists compared with a single intervention, then I would be very interested to read it.

RoSPA reports that in Worcester children in the control group were three to four times more likely to suffer an accident than those who had undergone training. Similar results have been shown by independent research in Oxford.

The evidence is unequivocal that more experienced cyclists and those who are trained have less accidents than those who are inexperienced or untrained.

Of course if it is uncomfortable to recognise the benefits and importance of training, or how it contibutes massively to overall safety improvements and the decrease in accidents.....then by all means refuse to discuss the contribution.

However the importance of training should not be summarily dismissed, as it is the real key to improving the safety and behaviour of road users as a whole and improve the road user's experience.


----------



## Recycler (10 Jun 2012)

I've seen no evidence which shows that training is generally more effective than Hi Viz or Helmets but I'm sure you'll come up with something. I suspect that, in reality, most training programs would recomend the use of helmets and Hi Viz.
AFAIK all three have a part to play in improving safety. RoSPA certainly recomends all three.


----------



## Scoosh (10 Jun 2012)

Many of the posts in this thread have been removed, as they were either 'Irrelevant to OP' or 'Abusive', often closely linked.

Enough is enough.

This thread has run its course and is now being locked.


----------

