# Woman cyclist killed in Victoria (tipper truck)



## vickster (19 Feb 2015)

Just on the news. RIP 

09:03: Cyclist killed in Victoria Street 
A cyclist has died after being involved in a collision with a tipper truck in central London this morning.
The Met Police and London Ambulance were called just before 08:00 to Victoria Street, near to Victoria Palace in Westminster, where they found an unresponsive woman in her 30s. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Local road closures are in place and motorists are being advised to find alternative routes.


----------



## MichaelO (19 Feb 2015)

I walked past the scene this morning - tipper truck parked up & surrounded by tenting. Terrible


----------



## Mile195 (19 Feb 2015)

Tipper truck. Always bloody tipper trucks. Is it not time they banned them from central london during morning and evening rush hours??


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2015)

Oh my god. Do stay well away from the tippers. I generally like to use main roads through London a lot. Often faster. May look for more back-streets.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2015)

Mile195 said:


> Tipper truck. Always bloody tipper trucks. Is it not time they banned them from central london during morning and evening rush hours??


May seem drastic but after all this I think there is now a serious case for this.

One problem is i suppose is that it would probably put more on the roads after dark.

Is there any form of trade body for operstors of these things?


----------



## vickster (19 Feb 2015)

Road haulage association? Seems like there is a clear case for both advanced driver training and licensing and also safety adaptations of the vehicles. No way I'm going to be commuting to London now by bike during busy periods, what with these death traps and homicidal cyclists!


----------



## Mile195 (19 Feb 2015)

Blue Hills said:


> May seem drastic but after all this I think there is now a serious case for this.
> 
> One problem is i suppose is that it would probably put more on the roads after dark.
> 
> Is there any form of trade body for operstors of these things?


I don't think that's a problem. The roads are so much quieter once rush hour has finished. Drivers of all vehicles aren't trying to fit in to spaces they shouldn't be in to get through traffic lights and that. 

London will only ever be half-finished. Building work will never stop, and buildings require delivery of heavy things, but I can't see why contractors can't schedule deliveries during daytimes between rush hours, and after 7pm. The nature of building these big office and apartment blocks means you know exactly when you need what materials, so it's not like a limited delivery period would be detrimental to the work if it were co-ordinated properly.


----------



## Keith Oates (19 Feb 2015)

Another terrible piece of news. It needs some good and experienced people to consider a way of reducing this type of problem and segregating streets could be one of them. !!!


----------



## Mile195 (19 Feb 2015)

User said:


> I would have thought building whole segregated lanes just for tipper trucks a bit overkill. Just banning them until the learn to play nicely should be sufficient.


I agree. At the moment building work is in victoria. Once that's finished it'll be somewhere else rendering any permanent road modifications a bit pointless. I suppose you could put traffic cones out to denote a temporary segregated cycle lane, but then we'd all be expected to ride in it even if you didn't want to, with nowhere to pass anyone going slower.
Roads are inherently dangerous places. there's no easy solution to these accidents unfortunately. If there was, there'd be no need for this section of the forum.


----------



## theclaud (19 Feb 2015)

Mile195 said:


> I agree. At the moment building work is in victoria. Once that's finished it'll be somewhere else rendering any permanent road modifications a bit pointless. I suppose you could put traffic cones out to denote a temporary segregated cycle lane, but then we'd all be expected to ride in it even if you didn't want to, with nowhere to pass anyone going slower.
> *Roads are inherently dangerous places.* there's no easy solution to these accidents unfortunately. If there was, there'd be no need for this section of the forum.



No - they're not. You can have picnics and play football in them. The sources of danger are identifiable and preventable.


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Feb 2015)

Tipper trucks again and again and again.
How can we make a change?
Where do we find the stats for starters?


----------



## DWiggy (19 Feb 2015)

A blanket rush hour ban on anything above 7.5 tonne should be the absolute minimum! People are being killed for god sake!!!!

Such a tragic loss!


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Feb 2015)

Fab Foodie said:


> Tipper trucks again and again and again.
> How can we make a change?
> Where do we find the stats for starters?


I'm sure someone will be along with some in a minute.

Starting by finding someone with the backbone and public exposure to shame the people that will be blaming the cyclist for this would be a good start. Someone will be finding fault with what she was doing, whether fault was there or not, and forgetting that nothing she could have been doing should have resulted in her dying. Repeatedly that bit gets forgotten.


----------



## vickster (19 Feb 2015)

Updated report here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31531120

That really is a shocking mess of a road right now for all road users (my brother works at JL's head office on the corner of Victoria Street opposite there and it takes an age just to get across from the station)


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'm sure someone will be along with some in a minute.
> 
> Starting by finding someone with the backbone and public exposure to shame the people that will be blaming the cyclist for this would be a good start. Someone will be finding fault with what she was doing, whether fault was there or not, and forgetting that nothing she could have been doing should have resulted in her dying. Repeatedly that bit gets forgotten.


We have Jon Snow BBC/CTC, Boris, Louise Minchin/BBC, Chris Boardman, Call me Dave, Davina McCall, at least cyclists with a profile ....
But somehow a campaign needs an organisation to kick this off ....

CTC
LCC
BC
CC


----------



## DWiggy (19 Feb 2015)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...spected-climate-change-scientist-8566867.html


----------



## Markymark (19 Feb 2015)

I think I'm alone in this but I dont want the lorries banned. We need them. We need them driven properly but that's different.

What we need in London is less traffic. Ban the countless single occupancy private cars. There's ni need for them. Central London mon-fri should be commercial, buses, taxis and cyclists. Either that or make the congestion charge £100 per day.

Ease the congestion, reduce the gridlock, traffic will flow and I belive there would be less conflict.

Secondly, zero tolerance on commercial infringements, eg instant ban for mobiles etc. The industry would soon shake itself up.


----------



## MichaelO (19 Feb 2015)

DWiggy said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...spected-climate-change-scientist-8566867.html


That's from a couple of years ago...


----------



## vickster (19 Feb 2015)

I'd ban taxis or at least reduce their numbers, completely unnecessary and often driven shockingly and with a sense of entitlement


----------



## Mile195 (19 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I think I'm alone in this but I dont want the lorries banned. We need them. We need them driven properly but that's different.
> 
> What we need in London is less traffic. Ban the countless single occupancy private cars. There's ni need for them. Central London mon-fri should be commercial, buses, taxis and cyclists. Either that or make the congestion charge £100 per day.
> 
> ...


There's the single occupancy cars... but I'm forever confused by the school run traffic. Day after day I pass what I'm sure are exactly the same cars with exactly the same parents taking their kids to school in. Why are they driving? All kids get free bus travel in London - why aren't they on school buses. Or walking - I imagine most kids are within walking distance of their school in inner london. Course this might be a sweeping generalisation - I'm not a parent, unless you count my dog (although he clearly does a lot more walking than some of the kids that I see on my commute).


----------



## vickster (19 Feb 2015)

My brother has just said that the tarpaulin covering the body is just below where his desk is ... horrible


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Feb 2015)

Blue Hills said:


> Do stay well away from the tippers.



Best advice until something meaningful is done about the problem, which may be never.

If the tipper is not near you, it cannot hurt or kill you.

It won't always be possible to steer clear of them, but if I see one coming up from behind I'm content to stop for a few seconds behind a parked car, or wherever, to let it pass.

If one is in front, I will hang back.

Easy advice for me to follow because I don't often cycle in London and don't come across many tippers where I do cycle.

London commuters are in a much more difficult position.


----------



## Twinks (19 Feb 2015)

My Husband is an HGV driver who has to deliver to building sites in central London on a fairly regular basis. He doesn't drive a tipper but an artic delivering insulation material to new builds. He is sent to almost impossible places to access and has everyone from his boss to the customer on his case if he is late. He hates it and is so stressed when he has a "London" . It's no wonder accidents of all kinds happen. A bad situation all round. RIP poor cyclist, very sad day.


----------



## si_c (19 Feb 2015)

User said:


> On a practical level you are not wrong. As a matter of principal it invites normalising the idea that it is the cyclist's duty to stay clear of the source of danger and not the other way around. All part of the creeping shift in responsibility from bringer of danger to victim of danger.



Unfortunately we are in the position whereby we must take responsibility for our own safety, absent a sea change in attitudes from politicians and road users generally. I find it truly astonishing that there is no form of vulnerable road users legislation in this country. Until this changes we are left with tragedies such as this on a regular basis.

Thoughts with the family and friends of those involved.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Feb 2015)

I'm tempted to tell @User to stop theorising and be practical.

But I just know, given the pressure of London life, I would find it hard to follow my own advice all the time if I lived in the capital.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Feb 2015)

*Ross Lydall* @RossLydall · 56m56 minutes ago
Case adjourned 2/3 months re death of cyclist Brian Holt. Jury hearing of today's cycle death involving same HGV firm may have been issue


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Feb 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> I'm tempted to tell @User to stop theorising and be practical.
> 
> But I just know, given the pressure of London life, I would find it hard to follow my own advice all the time if I lived in the capital.


Exactly, it would be fine if the cyclist was making all the choices but when you get a tipper deciding to come close beside you in the classic 'not quite overtaking because there's nowhere to go' manoeuvre it somewhat limits your options. You have to ride for yourself and your own safety, but sometimes (thankfully rarely, but I can think of one in the last fortnight) I'm acutely aware that the tipper driver has chosen to put me in to a position that is either in their blind spot, or very close to it. In this instance I gave a bang on his door to let him know I was there and while he was looking around in confusion filtered beyond him to safety.

The best option would be making sure the drivers knew about bicycles and they had the time and vision to be able to give them the attention they needed. But as people are dying while we wait for that to happen across the board, the next best option would be to keep one of the two out of rush hour traffic in London. As I'm pretty sure there are more bikes moving than tipper trucks at that point (and because this is cycle chat not truck twitter) I'd suggest the lorries. It's not like they are able to go anywhere fast for that 2 hours anyway.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It won't always be possible to steer clear of them, but if I see one coming up from behind I'm content to stop for a few seconds behind a parked car, or wherever, to let it pass.
> 
> If one is in front, I will hang back.
> 
> .



yes, I'm going to try and do this more - have done it in the past when I had a particular feeling about a driver.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2015)

Mile195 said:


> The roads are so much quieter once rush hour has finished. Drivers of all vehicles aren't trying to fit in to spaces they shouldn't be in to get through traffic lights and that.
> 
> .


Complicated issue I fear. Jammed traffic is often safer in my experience as there is sod-all space for the drivers to go/limited initiative possible. It's the main reason I in many ways prefer Tower Bridge to the other bridges. Quite narrow lanes, traffic moving relatively slowly so not likely to object too much if I hold the centre of the lane.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2015)

Lilmo said:


> My Husband is an HGV driver who has to deliver to building sites in central London on a fairly regular basis. He doesn't drive a tipper but an artic delivering insulation material to new builds. He is sent to almost impossible places to access and has everyone from his boss to the customer on his case if he is late. He hates it and is so stressed when he has a "London" . It's no wonder accidents of all kinds happen. A bad situation all round. RIP poor cyclist, very sad day.



Good post. I can well understand his stress. In my experience artics are driven pretty well. And you can't just chuck them around the way you can with a tipper. That's the danger. It seems they can be driven pretty much like a van, but way bigger and with plenty of room to go under them.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Feb 2015)

Blue Hills said:


> Jammed traffic is often safer in my experience as there is sod-all space for the drivers to go/limited initiative possible.



You got that right.

It's the main reason why I feel safer cycling in London than in the town where I live, which doesn't really have traffic jams.

Also London's slower moving traffic makes it easier for a slow cyclist like me to keep pace.

I'm less likely to frustrate a following driver when he can see I'm not holding him up.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Feb 2015)

The temporary road layout in that part of Victoria does no favours at all to any road users or pedestrians. It's absolutely atrocious.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Feb 2015)

I note from the website of the company logo visible in the press photos that the company has started giving their drivers cycle training (their *press release* does not give a date so I don't know how far along the line they are now) and has been working with cycletraininguk with the aim of getting all their drivers trained. Because they're involved in several TfL projects, they're clearly not a fly-by-night operation. 

Of course, I've no idea whether the driver involved had been trained yet but even when there's at least some investment in cycle awareness, it can't always be effective. I would argue that it's the truck design that's inherently dangerous - no matter how hard they polish them.

This hurts.


----------



## Arrowfoot (19 Feb 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Best advice until something meaningful is done about the problem, which may be never.
> 
> If the tipper is not near you, it cannot hurt or kill you.
> It won't always be possible to steer clear of them, but if I see one coming up from behind I'm content to stop for a few seconds behind a parked car, or wherever, to let it pass.
> ...



Makes perfect sense. My life is my responsibility and if that is not common sense I am not sure what is. It does not mean that we cannot actively campaign to make things safer or take those irresponsible ones to task. 

The last thing that is going is save my ***e is the knowledge that I know my rights in traffic.


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I would argue that it's the truck design that's inherently dangerous - no matter how hard they polish them.



I would suggest it's the nut holding the steering wheel that's the problem ....


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Feb 2015)

Fab Foodie said:


> I would suggest it's the nut holding the steering wheel that's the problem ....


It isn't the place to get into a detailed conversation about what kills so many on our roads, I'm afraid. I shouldn't have started on it here in the first place.


----------



## subaqua (19 Feb 2015)

Mile195 said:


> I don't think that's a problem. The roads are so much quieter once rush hour has finished. Drivers of all vehicles aren't trying to fit in to spaces they shouldn't be in to get through traffic lights and that.
> 
> London will only ever be half-finished. Building work will never stop, and buildings require delivery of heavy things, but I can't see why contractors can't schedule deliveries during daytimes between rush hours, and after 7pm. The nature of building these big office and apartment blocks means you *know exactly when you need what materials, so it's not like a limited delivery period would be detrimental to the work if it were co-ordinated properly*.



you should be on stage with comedy like that. do you know what it is like in construction. when the client screams he wants this now and the next job relies on the reports from the proffesional team on the last one. any idea how many die each week in construction , acute and Chronic - average is 1.3 people a week . mainly because too many companies take shortcuts . company I work for is lucky that we haven't had a site death for 2 years, but we have had deaths from chronic illnesses .

I would love to schedule all the deliveries to our sites between 09.30 and 03.30 but sadly we just couldnt get all the materials we need on site in that sort of timescale. 
somebosdy will be along shortly to suggest night time deliveries but everybody forgets that a huge amount of sites operate close to residential ( yes even in central London - last site i was full time on had a major problem with ANY out of hours works including the builders clean at the end. due to s.61 of the pollution act. and that includes noise dust light vibration . 

then you have the cost factor- human and financial- work nights costs more money for the employees and that comes from somewhere. pass it clients yeah? who are the clients- mainly large investment banks/insurance/assurance/pension companies but you still want a good return on your money don't you. 

I heard the news on twitter this morning and had a tear in my eye as another death has occured . But lets not knee jerk this and have some proper thought out solution yes?


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It isn't the place to get into a detailed conversation about what kills so many on our roads, I'm afraid. I shouldn't have started on it here in the first place.


Au contraire, it's exactly the place .... as we have yet another fatality caused by the same *whatever* that has killed many others.


----------



## subaqua (19 Feb 2015)

DWiggy said:


> A blanket rush hour ban on anything above 7.5 tonne should be the absolute minimum! People are being killed for god sake!!!!
> 
> Such a tragic loss!




lets ban big Vans then too and Boris bikes , based on the nutty stuff I saw today . which included a female on a boris bike trying to go down a gap that was not safe to go down. 

MINDSET.


----------



## Saluki (19 Feb 2015)

RIP Lady cyclist.

I heard on the BBC radio news that 'a cyclist had collided into a lorry'  Very sad news and very bad reporting from the BBC


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Feb 2015)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ry-in-collision-in-south-london-10048305.html

Left turning tipper. Just a different one.


----------



## rualexander (19 Feb 2015)

A brief witness account has been posted on the CTC forum.
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=94319


----------



## theclaud (19 Feb 2015)

rualexander said:


> A brief witness account has been posted on the CTC forum.
> http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=94319


Any chance you could quote it here, please? Link not working on phone.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> Any chance you could quote it here, please? Link not working on phone.


by *SteveHunter* » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:03 pm

Unfortunately yet another needless loss of life on Londons roads.

Also unfortunately I know the circumstances of todays incident, wrong place at wrong time, and certainly in this instance I don't think we can really lay the blame on the driver of the lorry.

The lorry was turning left and was indicating and had audible warnings. The lorry, which I was behind, was already manoeuvring when the cyclist passed me on the left and then tried to pass the lorry on the left hand side to either attempt to turn left or go straight ahead, unfortunately there wasn't room.

I see too many cyclists try and squeeze down the left hand side of lorries and buses at junctions when I'm riding in London, lorries do need to be safer but a lot of cyclists really do need to accept a bit more responsibility for the way they cut through traffic.



SteveHunter
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:02 pm
Location: Essex


----------



## rualexander (19 Feb 2015)




----------



## Arrowfoot (19 Feb 2015)

Looks like folks on CTC have the same issue - struggling to speak their mind.


----------



## subaqua (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Your industry has had more than long enough to come up with any number of solution to a problem for which it is responsible. How much longer do you need?




actually it is the road haulage industry that needs to sort it self out . Construction got it self sorted and reduced death rate from close to 100 a year to about half that.

if a car transporter kills a road user is it the motor manufacturer that is to blame? and as I said in my post above it is the client drive for lower prices for a better return that is the driver for low cost construction.

and why oh why do I see a silly number of road users ( mainly on 2 wheels of powered or pedal powered type still going into spaces that are closing up ? should we blame the NHS for allowing them to be born.

there is a collective responsibility. I look out for you , you look out for me .


as an aside and without any of the usual bollox of " its not down to me to tell you" what are the real solutions , ones that ensure the problem isn't moved to a different place.


if you can genuinely tell me how to get all the deliveries required into a town centre there will be people listening further up the tree. local authorities put restrictions on delivery times in the planning application. nothing before 08.00 or after 18.00 for most if not all. section 61 comes into play if we want to change this . we replaced a large transformer ,12 ton was the lowest weight we could get any section down to, ( that really wont fit on a Van and cannot be broken down any further without making the thing on site which means bigger machinery etc ) that involved a Friday Evening delivery to minimise disruption due to power down and road closures . the hoops CoL make you jump through to make things happen is absurd. 

there needs to be changes to huge amounts of legislation and yes it can be done easily if the sensibilities are there ( or not as in the case of Section 20 of the London act )

so is anybody lobbying MP , councillors etc or are they all sitting at a keyboard bemoaning things.
I am just dreading the first report of a cyclist killed along Aldgate -Bow improvements during the construction. I had a close shave this morning with pedestrians moving barriers into the road making a narrow lane even narrower .


----------



## subaqua (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Tipper trucks are clearly a visible part of the construction industry spilling out onto the roads. As such they should be governed by the same health and safety regulations on the road as on site.
> As for the how do we get the necessary deliveries bit, not my problem, other than the fact that the argument is used to force everyone to accept the problem on our roads. It should be down to the group with the vested interest to sort it.



we the consumers are the vested interest.

surely in the ivory towers they have heard of focus groups where some great ideas ( and some crap ones but hey rough and smooth) to sort things out can come out.

how far back do you want to take the regulations that cover construction ? to the African copper mine ? to the steel smelting plant , the quarry .

oh and the same regulations and laws do apply, a great piece of legislation that is just over 40 . HASAWetcA 1974 - even staff sat in an office are protected by this, as much as the public . I could if I could be bothered to open my copy give you the sections and wordings about protecting the public .


sadly the CPS don't wish to proceed with using this, for reasons beyond me . choosing to go for the lighter options of a motoring offence.

maybe there needs to be a stick, but the laws are there and available to use.


----------



## vickster (20 Feb 2015)

Sad


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2015)

I don't support the death penalty for cyclists who make mistakes, and I could do without gruesome details being posted as well, absolutely no need for that.


----------



## zimzum42 (20 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> This terrible story may not be proof for such a tough enforcement, but a tough enforcement is still needed.
> 
> A cyclists on the phone can be suicidal, a lorry driver on the phone can be homicidal. Only one of those needs resources and strict enforcement.


True


----------



## Phaeton (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> No one has. We are talking about the disproportionate level of danger these vehicles and operating practice's bring to our roads.


No we're not, well according to an eye witness we're not, or are you not interested in what actually happened & happy to live in your 'all tipper's are evil' world?


----------



## Markymark (20 Feb 2015)

Phaeton said:


> happy to live in your 'all tipper's are evil' world?


All tippers aren't evil, nobody is suggesting that.

All tippers have the potential to kill numerous people and thus all tippers should be driven with utmost care and utmost responsibility with the heaviest punishment for infringements.


----------



## Phaeton (20 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> All tippers aren't evil, nobody is suggesting that.
> All tippers have the potential to kill numerous people and thus all tippers should be driven with utmost care and utmost responsibility with the heaviest punishment for infringements.


How was this driver 'infringing' he was indicating left, he had an audible warning that he was turning left, he probably (yes I am hypothesising here) moved slightly right to be able to turn left, he probably (yes I am hypothesising here) slowed even further down, other cyclist say what was happening & held back, yet this unfortunate soul missed all the warning & continued on



User said:


> Go back and read the thread. We are discussing the disproportionate level of danger these vehicles bring to our roads. Using emotive words like evil in this context is just being silly.


I have & all you do is bleat on about how's it's everybody's elses other than the never making a mistake downtrodden cyclist fault no matter what the circumstances are,


----------



## Markymark (20 Feb 2015)

Phaeton said:


> How was this driver 'infringing' he was indicating left, he had an audible warning that he was turning left, he probably (yes I am hypothesising here) moved slightly right to be able to turn left, he probably (yes I am hypothesising here) slowed even further down, other cyclist say what was happening & held back, yet this unfortunate soul missed all the warning & continued on
> 
> 
> I have & all you do is bleat on about how's it's everybody's elses other than the never making a mistake downtrodden cyclist fault no matter what the circumstances are,


He (?) did nothing wrong. If the case, he will face no charges. The lawlessness amongst his colleagues is frightening and must be addressed.


----------



## zimzum42 (20 Feb 2015)

I think we have to accept that, whilst there is a disproportionate level of danger presented by these vehicles and they should be driven with the utmost care and face stiff penalties for any infringement, in this case, there is evidence to suggest the cyclist made a fatal error, especially if she was using a phone at the time...

I live in London (a lot), one of the world's greatest and busiest cities, and I accept that there is a danger to me as a cyclist on the roads here...


----------



## Phaeton (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> You appear to be reduced to just making stuff up and trying to make things a bit personal now.


HELLO who are you are what have you done with the real Adrian?


----------



## vickster (20 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> He (?) did nothing wrong. If the case, he will face no charges. The lawlessness amongst his colleagues is frightening and must be addressed.


But, if this is the case, he still needs to live with the fact that someone died under his wheels even though he did nothing wrong. He has to take responsibility for and live with the consequences of someone else's actions. That's a pretty sh*tty burden to have to bear when not at fault and he was just doing his job apparently responsibly. Could be tragic all round


----------



## mjr (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> I would have thought building whole segregated lanes just for tipper trucks a bit overkill. Just banning them until the learn to play nicely should be sufficient.


Indeed. Overkill describes the current situation, though.


subaqua said:


> lets ban big Vans then too and Boris bikes , based on the nutty stuff I saw today . which included a female on a boris bike trying to go down a gap that was not safe to go down.


And how many other people was the Boris biker likely to kill?


zimzum42 said:


> It's all too easy for contributors on a cycling forum to point all their ire at the trucker, but in this case it does look like this woman did herself no favours whatsoever...


Whether or not that's accurate, should the punishment for a mistaken overtake-on-left be death? In any case, the motorist should "be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side" (Highway Code Rule 151).


Phaeton said:


> he probably (yes I am hypothesising here) moved slightly right to be able to turn left, he probably (yes I am hypothesising here) slowed even further down, other cyclist say what was happening & held back


Aren't you hypothesising that other cyclists said what was happening to her? Shouldn't drivers stop as soon as they realise a collision is imminent?


----------



## ianrauk (20 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3546389, member: 9609"]

It was mentioned up thread about an audible warning sound as the truck was turning - can anyone elaborate on this I'm curious to what it is? is it like the reversing beep but a different sound that comes on with the indicators or steering position ?[/QUOTE]

Most of the trucks here in London have what I would describe as a white noise beeping sound with some also an audible warning of 'vehicle turning left'.


----------



## Dan B (20 Feb 2015)

It's a nice idea but there is no shortage of other noises in very busy town centres, and unless it's only audible to the people on the left side of the vehicle I fear it's just going to be another piece to add to the confusion. But maybe I'm being a bit pessimistic - have the TRL or anybody done studies?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (20 Feb 2015)

I thought some also played a warning of a voice saying 'warning turning left'. Also as it's triggered by the indicator, that has its own set of problems...

I still don't think we should be comfortable with undertaking on the left having the death penalty. Agreed, if all the conjecture is correct there wasn't much the lorry driver could do, but decent mirrors and using them isn't impossible, there's a big difference between 'not much' and 'nothing'.

I shoulder check when crossing the mouth of a junction to make sure nobody is about to left hook me, on the few times I've driven something Luton size of bigger I've been very wary of the inside of the vehicle when turning left. I guess it's possible familiarity takes away some of the fear that breeds that caution.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2015)

Two children have lost their mum

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...eroftwo-and-wife-of-energy-boss-10058945.html

The lorry in yesterday’s collision belonged to Crossrail contractor Gordon. A driver from the same firm, Anthony Howsego, will stand trial at Wood Green crown court on June 16 accused of causing the death by careless driving of hospital porter Brian Holt as he cycled home via a cycle superhighway at Mile End in November 2013.


----------



## vickster (20 Feb 2015)

Do we know the lorry wasn't already turning left when the cyclist went up the inside? In which case, presumably the driver would have been looking at the road into which he was turning rather than from where he was coming?


----------



## Dan B (20 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I still don't think we should be comfortable with undertaking on the left having the death penalty.


Exactly. Given that undertaking any other kind of vehicle on the left seems to be a much less risky endeavour, it seems that irrespective of "blame" or "responsibility", there should be things we could do to make tipper trucks or the way in which they are used more forgiving.


----------



## vickster (20 Feb 2015)

And better educate cyclists on the dangers somehow


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2015)

vickster said:


> And better educate cyclists on the dangers somehow



And stop declaring the driver innocent before the investigation has even started.


----------



## ianrauk (20 Feb 2015)

vickster said:


> And better educate cyclists on the dangers somehow




Sometimes some people don't want to be educated


----------



## w00hoo_kent (20 Feb 2015)

vickster said:


> Do we know the lorry wasn't already turning left when the cyclist went up the inside? In which case, presumably the driver would have been looking at the road into which he was turning rather than from where he was coming?


Lets face it, we know very little and are unlikely to be told much more, especially not quickly.


----------



## mjr (20 Feb 2015)

vickster said:


> Do we know the lorry wasn't already turning left when the cyclist went up the inside? In which case, presumably the driver would have been looking at the road into which he was turning rather than from where he was coming?


As far as I understand the reports and pictures, it was a left-turn-only filter lane (Bressenden Place into Victoria Street). Surely the driver should have been looking at their sides in a narrowed-by-construction street?


vickster said:


> And better educate cyclists on the dangers somehow


Yes but that will never reach 100%. Alongside reallocations of space for permanent street layouts, the Code of Practice on Safety at Street Works needs beefing up and giving teeth, to stop people pushing such a deadly mix of high volumes of traffic through bodged-up roads.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (20 Feb 2015)

ianrauk said:


> Sometimes some people don't want to be educated


And the lorry even had the big 'don't overtake on the left' sticker on it.

It will never stop being the case that 'some people are idiots, and some of them ride bicycles.'


----------



## Phaeton (20 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> It will never stop being the case that 'some people are idiots, and some of them ride bicycles.'


Harsh


----------



## mjr (20 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> And the lorry even had the big 'don't overtake on the left' sticker on it.


Sadly, I think that has been overused so much that it has become meaningless and is seen as just another offensive sticker, especially in London. It was never a great idea, what with cycleways generally being on the left of carriageways and overtaking on the left being fine in that situation.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (20 Feb 2015)

mjray said:


> Sadly, I think that has been overused so much that it has become meaningless and is seen as just another offensive sticker, especially in London. It was never a great idea, what with cycleways generally being on the left of carriageways and overtaking on the left being fine in that situation.


It's my belief that any vehicle that feels the need for a 'don't overtake on the left sticker' on the back should be forced to have a similarly sized one on the dash saying 'remember to look out for cycles & pedestrians'.


----------



## PK99 (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> We don't, hence the fact that discussing this specific sad case is not really very productive.



from the eyewitness report from another cyclist (CTC forum) : The lorry, which I was behind, was already manoeuvring when the cyclist passed me on the left and then tried to pass the lorry on the left hand side


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (20 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> It's my belief that any vehicle that feels the need for a 'don't overtake on the left sticker' on the back should be forced to have a similarly sized one on the dash saying 'remember to look out for cycles & pedestrians'.



I agree. Only this morning I saw a van left-hook a cyclist at Cambridge station with no warning/indication. He had a "Cyclists! Stay Back!" sticker on his back doors.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Feb 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> He was in one of the crews that responded to this incident and had to scrape this poor woman off the road.



Please remember the need for sensitivity in this section; victims' relatives have been known to post in here.

GC


----------



## Markymark (20 Feb 2015)

Well, if indicating right and turning right you'd still not pass it on the right. Which side you pass is immaterial if it's turning.


----------



## Markymark (20 Feb 2015)

Yes. Have you ever seen a lorry turning and think I'll overtake it because I'm on the correct side?


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2015)

There is footage of a (*Mod Edit*: different) lorry driver rear ending a cyclist, then getting out and shouting "I had stickers". That's the danger of those stickers, idiots reckon they constitute an absolution of responsibility.

The lorry driver killed the cyclist. At this stage that's all we know.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2015)

PK99 said:


> from the eyewitness report from another cyclist (CTC forum) : The lorry, which I was behind, was already manoeuvring when the cyclist passed me on the left and then tried to pass the lorry on the left hand side



We've had two "eye witness" claims which contradict each other.


----------



## Phaeton (20 Feb 2015)

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink milk, that makes as much sense as some of the comments in this thread by people who clearly know nothing about driving HGV's.


----------



## PK99 (20 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> We've had two "eye witness" claims which contradict each other.



I have not seen the other one, can you point me there?


----------



## Twinks (20 Feb 2015)

As @vickster said it is a tragedy all round. As I said earlier my husband is a trucker, yes I know not a tipper driver but still a professional driver, and if this was him I know his life would effectively be finished, blame or no blame. This whole thread has made me physically sick. Firstly because of the loss of the life of a young woman in such an horrific way and secondly hearing the way in which someone can be so vilified for doing a job of work regardless of any knowledge of his personal attitude to it or the full circumstances. Debating the laws of health and safety on the roads is one thing but to depersonalise the driver of a tipper truck or to assume his guilt because of a general assumption is unfair. Everyone who uses the road has a duty of care to themselves and everyone else, cyclists included.


----------



## Phaeton (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> And what has that to do with it?


Everything


----------



## PK99 (20 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The lorry driver killed the cyclist. *At this stage that's all we know*.



no we don't. We know that a cyclist died in collision with a lorry. We do not know that the lorry driver killed the cyclist.


----------



## PK99 (20 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Just as well that no one has done that then.



the driver was accused of killing the cyclist.


----------



## Moderators (20 Feb 2015)

The Cyclist Down forum is not really intended for arguments about the rights and wrongs of tipper trucks etc.

This thread is being locked.

It may be reopened if/when any specific, offiicial details of _this_ incident become known.


----------



## Shaun (21 Feb 2015)

Whilst I'm sure everyone's thoughts go out to the family and friends of the poor woman who has been killed, this thread has almost entirely been about tipper trucks so I've moved the thread from the Cyclist Down forum to here so that the discussion can continue - but please do so respectfully and with consideration for the fact that someone has been killed.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Boo (24 Feb 2015)

I came past the accident site just after it happened last week on my way into work. This morning, lots of Police / Community Support Officers are out grabbing cyclists who are breaking rules. Saw one guy on a Boris bike being reprimanded for going the wrong way down a one way street, and a little further on, another cyclist being hauled over for jumping a red light.


----------



## mjr (24 Feb 2015)

Boo said:


> I came past the accident site just after it happened last week on my way into work. This morning, lots of Police / Community Support Officers are out grabbing cyclists who are breaking rules. Saw one guy on a Boris bike being reprimanded for going the wrong way down a one way street, and a little further on, another cyclist being hauled over for jumping a red light.


Was there any suggestion that the casualty in this incident was going the wrong way or had jumped the red light? I think it would be a much better use of P/CSO time to reprimand some of the amazing number of red-light-jumping motorists and to haul over some trucks for safety checks. Heck, even dealing with some of the bad lane discipline (overtaking on left, overtaking without proper space, harassing slower vehicles in front) would make more sense than tackling contraflow cycling (should be allowed in most places anyway) or red-light jumping (should be early-start cycle greens on more London junctions anyway).


----------



## Boo (24 Feb 2015)

As far as I know, and have read, no, the cyclist wasn't going the wrong way, and hadn't jumped any red lights. There's a suggestion that she was using a phone at the time, and not demonstrating sensible roadcraft, *but I don't know*, so can't say for sure.

I can see that there will have been a meeting over the past few days, and the Police will have thought _'We need to be seen to be doing something_', but I completely agree - doing some spot checks on motorists wouldn't have gone amiss. Although you can't direct a tipper truck onto the pavement, and so difficult to do without causing disruption.


----------



## MichaelO (24 Feb 2015)

Boo said:


> I can see that there will have been a meeting over the past few days, and the Police will have thought _'We need to be seen to be doing something_',


The current extra policing at junctions & spot checks have been in place for a couple of weeks now - I don't think it's directly related to this incident. I definitely saw more police on junctions this morning though (Tooting as well as central London), and two tipper trucks being pulled in for checks.


----------



## mjr (24 Feb 2015)

Boo said:


> Although you can't direct a tipper truck onto the pavement, and so difficult to do without causing disruption.


Exactly. It's hard but it could be done if there was a will - the left-turning ones will be going along the rather wide Victoria Street where I'd expect space for spot-checks could be cleared. Instead, it sounds like they're doing something easy but useless. That's worse than a waste of resources: it's actively making things even slower for a mode of transport that government _claims_ to want to encourage.


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

MichaelO said:


> The current extra policing at junctions & spot checks have been in place for a couple of weeks now - I don't think it's directly related to this incident. I definitely saw more police on junctions this morning though (Tooting as well as central London), and two tipper trucks being pulled in for checks.



last time there was extra policing I got stopped and they had a chat , I hadn't done anything wrong but they were advising people on what had happened at similar junctions. they did pull a few for bad cycling and bad driving


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

subaqua said:


> last time there was extra policing I got stopped and they had a chat , I hadn't done anything wrong but they were advising people on what had happened at similar junctions. they did pull a few for bad cycling and bad driving


I could see this making me grumpy, if I'm cycling where this is likely to happen then I'm trying to get somewhere and probably care about the time I arrive. While I'd know it would be counter-productive, being asked to stop to talk about what I might have been doing wrong if I was riding differently could easily result in tetchiness.


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I could see this making me grumpy, if I'm cycling where this is likely to happen then I'm trying to get somewhere and probably care about the time I arrive. While I'd know it would be counter-productive, being asked to stop to talk about what I might have been doing wrong if I was riding differently could easily result in tetchiness.



I was in work so being paid to cycle between jobs. I was complimented on wearing bright clothes and having bright lights and a helmet, all I replied with is that none of that is a legal requirement , best to have a chek of some cars at random - like the one that went past me on Aldgate gyratory with the driver on the phone-


----------



## Roadrider48 (25 Feb 2015)

Whatever the circumstances it's a sad, terrible thing.
My thoughts go to the family of the deceased and the driver of the truck alike.


----------



## XRHYSX (25 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> And the lorry even had the big 'don't overtake on the left' sticker on it.
> 
> It will never stop being the case that 'some people are idiots, and some of them ride bicycles.'


And some of them drive tipper trucks, and sometimes the two meet, 
Whilst there are roads and whilst people operate machines (be it a push bike or anything bigger) there will always be room for human error


----------



## PK99 (26 Feb 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> And some of them drive tipper trucks, and sometimes the two meet,
> Whilst there are roads and whilst people operate machines (be it a push bike or anything bigger) there will always be room for human error




Sometimes there is error on both sides. Sometimes one sides only. sometimes the driver. Sometimes the cyclist.


----------



## zimzum42 (26 Feb 2015)

User said:


> But always one is big and dangerous and the other isn't. For that reason the big and dangerous party should have a correspondingly greater duty of care.


They do - they have to take a load of tests and there's a bunch of rules about what equipment the vehicle needs to have fitted. 
Cyclists can just jump on a bike and go.
That's the way it should be, and there will always be accidents. It's one of the prices we pay to have a thriving city that attracts people from all over the world.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Feb 2015)

If inexperienced cyclists is a factor in KSI stats it's curious that Boris bikes are safer than "normal" bikes. Mistakes, rash behaviour or illegal activities by cyclists are not a significant causal factor in ksi rtcs.


----------



## zimzum42 (26 Feb 2015)

So damn eristic...


----------



## Phaeton (26 Feb 2015)

User said:


> All well and good but that doesn't discharge the duty of care.


You clearly know rock all about this, but yet you bang the drum that all tipper drivers are killers, change the record it's getting boring.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Feb 2015)

Read the thread back through its what you have insinuated at every opportunity including to a lady who's husband drives one


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Feb 2015)

Guess what Ive been driving for a few weeks... a tipper truck 
Does that now make me a killer? If people stop needing houses then I wouldn't need to drive in and around in built up areas, if people are happy for building sites to operate thought the night we could drive at quite periods, as it is we can only work between 8am and 4pm and have to get a lot done in that time there is normally 4/5 tippers working on one, site running back and forth taking waste away and bring materials in,
just get off your high horse 
Yes lorrys are dangerous so keep well away and read your highway code


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Feb 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> Guess what Ive been driving for a few weeks... a tipper truck
> Does that now make me a killer? If people stop needing houses then I wouldn't need to drive in and around in built up areas, if people are happy for building sites to operate thought the night we could drive at quite periods, as it is we can only work between 8am and 4pm and have to get a lot done in that time there is normally 4/5 tippers working on one, site running back and forth taking waste away and bring materials in,
> just get off your high horse
> Yes lorrys are dangerous so keep well away and read your highway code


Are you saying you drive dangerous vehicles under time pressure on the public roads?


----------



## Markymark (26 Feb 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> Guess what Ive been driving for a few weeks... a tipper truck
> Does that now make me a killer? If people stop needing houses then I wouldn't need to drive in and around in built up areas, if people are happy for building sites to operate thought the night we could drive at quite periods, as it is we can only work between 8am and 4pm and have to get a lot done in that time there is normally 4/5 tippers working on one, site running back and forth taking waste away and bring materials in,
> just get off your high horse
> Yes lorrys are dangerous so keep well away and read your highway code


If you think you're dangerous maybe you should get someone to drive it properly that isn't so dangerous. I've seen it done well so maybe you could ask a better driver to teach you how.


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Feb 2015)

I drive as safely as I can at legal speeds (subject to weather/road conditions) just waiting for one of these ninja cyclists to appear under my wheels lol


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Are you saying you drive dangerous vehicles under time pressure on the public roads?


Yes it's called a job


----------



## Glow worm (26 Feb 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> I drive as safely as I can at legal speeds (subject to weather/road conditions) just waiting for one of these ninja cyclists to appear under my wheels lol



You do realise that this thread stems from a tragedy from which someone died and whose family/ friends could be reading? I suggest you put the keyboard down and have a little think about that before posting vile comments.


----------



## Shaun (27 Feb 2015)

Please give the tit-for-tat word twisting a rest. No one here has done anything wrong, regardless of the vehicle they travel to work on or use for their day job.

Driving a large vehicle for a living doesn't automatically make someone a reckless or dangerous person or endanger the lives of others, in the same way that using a bike to get around doesn't make you a red light jumping, headphone wearing, pavement riding, no-road-sense, helmetless, hazardous, traffic slowing, ninja.


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Feb 2015)

Having watched a recent clip on this forum of cyclist riding up the Inside of a tipper lorry. It is clear both lorry drivers and cyclists need educating about the dangers

I believe it is time the government started releasing public information films on the Tv as they did in the past.

Not all cyclists access cycling sites or probably pay much attention to accidents reported in the papers. There certainly is a case for restricting the hours tipper trucks use City centres and for having safety equipment installer.


----------



## XRHYSX (27 Feb 2015)

Look, all I'm trying to say is the world is a dangerous place,
people need to get some self preservation,
stairs are dangerous, should we ban them?
People get killed everyday by silly accidents and human error, 
but if we were to ban everything that causes harm to anyone, 
the world would be a very boring place 

Personally I take great care around cyclists, being one myself, I give them as much room as possible, and hang back if a safe passing place is not available, but I also expect the same back when I'm making a turn.
we need to just get along, not just ban everything


----------



## Twinks (27 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Are you saying you drive dangerous vehicles under time pressure on the public roads?



I would think that a lot of cyclists are under time pressure on public roads too. Especially ones who commute and especially ones who commute in busy cities. That's life!

A tipper lorry is dangerous if you get too close to it, it is very large and mobile, that doesn't make the driver a criminal. There's lots of danger on public roads.

We live in a world with these pressures. If you think a debate on a cycling forum is going to change it you're mistaken. So take care around HGVs, drop the attitude that it's them and us - lorry drivers want to go home to their families without having killed a cyclist - and stay safe.

You can blame Beeching for the vast amount of freight on the road but unless you reinstate the railways or persuade the entire population to do without the goods they desire it's here to stay.


----------



## theclaud (27 Feb 2015)

Lilmo said:


> So take care around HGVs, drop the attitude that it's them and us -* lorry drivers want to go home to their families without having killed a cyclist* - and stay safe.



Yes - we know that, because they keep popping up to tell us so. What's odd is that, having said so, they then (almost to a man) fail to back our efforts to reduce the chances of them doing so, and are indeed almost universally hostile to the measures suggested. The industry is aware of the pressure upon it as it claims the lives of more and more pedestrians and cyclists. In response it has decided on a gamble - that instead of changing its practices to operate safely at all times in the urban environment and bearing the costs of doing so, it will avoid killing people by simply scaring them out of its way. The problem for the industry is that to pull this off_ it has had to acknowledge the extraordinary danger it presents to others_. There is nothing reciprocal about this danger - it is all entirely one-way. Yet we have to endure, time and time again, drivers colluding with the industry that puts them in this traumatic position and arguing on behalf of the people who put them under pressure with inadequate pay and staffing, impossible schedules and vehicles unfit for purpose. It may be on the parallel thread that someone actually types, apparently with a straight face, that he wouldn't fancy having someone else in the cab (a childishly simple way to monitor nearside clearance, which also brings additional benefits when it comes to rest, loading and complex manoeuvres) because it would intrude on his me-time. It beggars belief.

There's another thing - the inevitable correlate of calling for 'better education' for cyclists (although, oddly, not pedestrians, who also get killed by lorries) serves the handy dual function of transferring responsibility onto the threatened parties and transforming the streets from a public realm into a professionalized environment where no one any longer has a right to be. Not only is shouting 'keep away from lorries - they are dangerous!' useless advice, because people are more often endangered by driver error or recklessness than their own; it is also not really education at all, but one big simplistic soundbite designed to prevent people using their own judgement, developing their skills and becoming authors of their own urban journeys. No-one who is serious about making towns and cities places for people could possibly advocate a road environment where one needs 'training' to stay alive, or where one cannot exploit the advantages of human-powered transport because our movements are proscribed by fear. However advanced we imagine our own roadcraft, we should not only allow for errors but welcome novices, bimblers, youngsters who imagine themselves indestructible, and harmlessly clueless dabblers. There is no endpoint at which vulnerability is eliminated - we need to make our roads safe for everyone.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (27 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> However advanced we imagine our own roadcraft, we should not only allow for errors but welcome novices, bimblers, youngsters who imagine themselves indestructible, and harmlessly clueless dabblers. There is no endpoint at which vulnerability is eliminated - we need to make our roads safe for everyone.


Good way of putting it, but imo it's not going to happen in our lifetime in this country.
This not in the government plans, not what the general public sets its priorities on.
Pat 5mph sprinting at the lights, keeping up with traffic a' la Cyclecraft text book of national cycling standard is not compatible, even impossible to achieve.
Heck, the likes of me are harassed by other, faster cyclist, never mind motorized traffic.
Separate infrastructures would help to no end, but the faster cyclists (not as fast as cars though, so are getting harassed in their cycling too) don't want these infrastructures.
The government does not want to spend money on them either, nay, let's rather equip the cyclists to go into daily battle with motorized traffic, get them some training, drivers will understand why that cyclist rides in the middle of the road.
Meanwhile, the general public, cyclists (me too!) included, expect their Tesco, Amazon, Parcelforce deliveries to arrive promptly and cheaply.
The reality is what it is, us less skilled cyclist must, in the current state of affairs, stay clear of large vehicles and avoid fast flowing traffic.
A bit ot, not relevant to tipper trucks: I believe that aggressive driving could be curbed by social awareness, it should be made unacceptable, like drink driving.


----------



## theclaud (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Good way of putting it, but imo it's not going to happen in our lifetime in this country.
> This not in the government plans, not what the general public sets its priorities on.
> Pat 5mph sprinting at the lights, keeping up with traffic a' la Cyclecraft text book of national cycling standard is not compatible, even impossible to achieve.
> Heck, the likes of me are harassed by other, faster cyclist, never mind motorized traffic.
> ...



I could repeat @User's oft-mentioned point - the way things are is not the way they have to be.

The tensions you identify are real, but the gamble I described above presents us with an opportunity. _The industry is going out of its way to demonstrate that its vehicles are extraordinarily dangerous_. They are doing half of our work for us. The task is to seize the rhetorical moment, and expose the assumptions beneath.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (28 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> The task is to seize the rhetorical moment, and expose the assumptions beneath.


Yes, but do you agree that we must also take care?
Sadly human error on both sides is costing cyclist lives.
In London it seems to be tipper trucks, here is more buses, taxis and fast delivery haulage vehicles. The roads are less congested, cars are faster.
For us here is relatively easy to avoid large vehicles, not so easy to avoid the speeding wvm.
Let's do both: tipper trucks and the likes take extra safety measures, cyclist avoid taking unnecessary risks.
Btw, have recently had many cycling fatalities on our rural roads, but that's for another thread.


----------



## Twinks (28 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> It may be on the parallel thread that someone actually types, apparently with a straight face, that he wouldn't fancy having someone else in the cab (a childishly simple way to monitor nearside clearance, which also brings additional benefits when it comes to rest, loading and complex manoeuvres) because it would intrude on his me-time. It beggars belief.





theclaud said:


> However advanced we imagine our own roadcraft, we should not only allow for errors but welcome novices, bimblers, youngsters who imagine themselves indestructible, and harmlessly clueless dabblers. There is no endpoint at which vulnerability is eliminated - we need to make our roads safe for everyone.



And horseriders too, I'd like to ride my horse through Manchester City centre safely! C'mon lets get real eh?

Our society depends upon Goods vehicles ( a society in which cyclists are a minority and we are a democracy). Change to that, if it were to happen, would be a long time coming so we have to deal with it in the present. Hopefully lessons will be learned and changes implemented but they will have to be within the bounds of what is financially viable (sorry but that's just so, please don't shout at me about the value of a cyclists life - you don't need to convince ME) and double manning HGVs just isn't. Cameras and sensors maybe.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3562279, member: 9609"]is that not just a little bit OTT[/QUOTE]

The link to the truckers' forum included the suggestion that lorries bear a sticker that says 

*"If you overtake this vehicle and anything happens I am not responsible".*


----------



## glenn forger (28 Feb 2015)

Lilmo said:


> Our society depends upon Goods vehicles



Half of them in London are empty. Thirty different recycling firms service Regent Street alone. A number of HGV vehicle journeys are completely pointless and their record of flouting safety regulations is appalling.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Feb 2015)

How about leaving the subject alone? Somebody was killed. None of us know the details. Blaming people at this early stage seems pretty tasteless. The road layout is dreadful, but none of us know what happened there.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Feb 2015)

The biggest threat to cyclists is from the road user most likely to break the law. Worth discussing.


----------



## theclaud (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Yes, but do you agree that we must also take care?



Yeah, we should take care on the roads. We should also eat our greens, practice safe sex, and wear a woolly scarf when it's cold. What's it all got to do with the absolute responsibility we all have not to kill and maim others?


----------



## theclaud (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3562279, member: 9609"]is that not just a little bit OTT[/QUOTE]

No (and it was more fun before you edited it). Look at the messages the haulage industry and its drivers are putting out, some deliberately by way of so-called exchange initiatives and the like, some unofficially and informally in places like the present forum:

Our vehicles have huge blind spots.

Even a very careful driver acting responsibly cannot be sure he will not crush anyone with his manoeuvre.

Time and financial pressures make it impossible for drivers to exercise maximum care.

We will rule out measures that involve unpalatable costs to the industry, and support any measure designed to regulate the behaviours of cyclists or highlight their responsibility to stay out of the way.

Despite the fact that few people are prepared to state outright that killing vulnerable road users is a price they are prepared to pay for keeping costs down,it is taken for granted that everyone accepts this. See Lilmo's post above about the value of a cyclist's life and the bounds of financial viability.

Drivers are very worried about killing people, but they overwhelmingly identify their interests as being aligned with those that are putting them under such pressures, often for inadequate pay and under poor conditions. They do not often identify with those that are arguing to reduce this pressure, and therefore the danger to others, by improving pay and working conditions. This kind of third-way mindset is not exclusive to lorry drivers, of course - it's a product of wider socio-economic conditions and decades of profit-driven policy. If we need someone to blame, then let's go for Tony Blair. A little more blood on his hands isn't going to cost him any more shut-eye...


----------



## subaqua (28 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Half of them in London are empty. Thirty different recycling firms service Regent Street alone. A number of HGV vehicle journeys are completely pointless and their record of flouting safety regulations is appalling.



lets blame the tories then. they were the ones that opened the free market up and took the refuse services out of local authority control. 

not that will do anything as we have 3 large vehicles up our road for recycling refuse and composting waste. all from the same local authority . 

I suppose the broken record of 

"its not my responsibility to sort it" will be trotted out again when we ask for real workable solutions . 

somebody posted earlier about only being allowed to deliver between 8am and 4 pm. one building i have the pleasure of visiting close to the Barbican ( we have a rented office there) has a strict sign up stating no deliveries BEFORE 08.00 or AFTER 12 noon. so that leaves 4 HOURS FOR ALL ITS DELIVERIES - this is in a Multi tenanted building with 2 food retail units and a restaurant in it. 

care to suggest how that can be done or is the broken record coming out again.

another building ( again close to residential ) allows 08.00 to 16.00 for deliveries, as it needs to comply with the pollution act and cannot deliver at night as it disrupts sleep etc. 

which puts another negative in that night shift workers are far more likely to have health issues http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25812422 than day shift workers. and remember that it isn't just the driving, its the unloading and storing of the materials for building sites. and beleive me there is not a lot of storage space on sites.



but hey lets bang out a failed argument and keep on about night time, not rush hour , not ...... 

oh and reducing hours available for deliveries is going to do what . oh yes thats right put MORE TIME PRESSURE on people , something we really don't want. 


lower smaller cabs, yes great idea and could work for in the city , but a lot of stuff comes long distance and i can't see the smaller lower cabs working on motorways ( which is where lorries really do belong) so the argument could be for marshalling yards where the long distance big trucks get off loaded onto smaller ones , but is there the space around london ( and all major cites in all honesty ) for this ? No there isn't, and again the costs rise and these get passed on to ?? 

there is also the drip down effect in that big firms will get the smaller cabs but smaller firms who can't afford to replace a fleet will take a while to get to smaller cabs as they come from the larger companies . so it isn't going to happen over 12 months, 18 months, or even 2 years. maybe 5 to 10 years. 

in the mean time lets all have a little think about our own riding and some education and most importantly ENFORCEMENT for all road users who break the law. 

ironically this morning it wasn't a tipper that nearly offed me, it was the tw@ in the renault Kangoo. who thought he would pass close enough for me to touch the panels . the tipper driver had given me a mahoosive amount of room . Gordens BTW


----------



## glenn forger (28 Feb 2015)

There are quite a few cities that strictly control the ingress of HGVs. The denizens are not starving to death. The shops are stocked. The city functions. People don't get killed by lorry drivers. It's really quite simple.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (28 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> Yeah, we should take care on the roads. We should also eat our greens, practice safe sex, and wear a woolly scarf when it's cold. What's it all got to do with the absolute responsibility we all have not to kill and maim others?


The way you're putting this comes across (correct me if I'm wrong) as if our (the cyclists) responsibility of taking care is just something that could or could not happen, as if an afterthought.
I disagree. If you ride in heavy traffic, be it by choice or by necessity, you must get some road sense. I'm not saying all cyclists should get training because one could ride every day without ever needing to go on roads.
Yes to more safety measures in vehicles with restricted views, but also more awareness from cyclists of the prospective dangers of riding close to a lorry.
You also said:


theclaud said:


> Drivers are very worried about killing people, but they overwhelmingly identify their interests as being aligned with those that are putting them under such pressures, often for inadequate pay and under poor conditions. They do not often identify with those that are arguing to reduce this pressure, and therefore the danger to others, by improving pay and working conditions. This kind of third-way mindset is not exclusive to lorry drivers, of course - it's a product of wider socio-economic conditions and decades of profit-driven policy.


Spot on here, it's folks wanting to keep their jobs.
They are in a catch 22 situation. If they kill a cyclist or a pedestrian because they are in a hurry or tired, surely the event will scar them forever, nobody turns their engine on intending to run us over.
If they speak out about their concerns they might not have a job tomorrow.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> If they kill a cyclist or a pedestrian because they are in a hurry or tired, surely the event will scar them forever



A proportion of killer drivers try to blame the person they killed for a perceived failure. Beth Mackie tried to blame the cyclist she killed, Joseph Reed tried to blame other drivers, the lorry driver who left a cyclist in a wheelchair tried to blame the cyclist, Timothy John McLoughlin was so upset after killing a cyclist he fled and went on holiday. Dr Helen Measures tried to blame the cyclist she killed for..being there. The killer of Eilidh Cairns was so upset he didn't even bother to get glasses and killed again.. This idea that all killer drivers are wracked by guilt is a crock, they do any and everything to get off.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3562273, member: 9609"]I feel you are wrong to say drivers are colluding with the industry - I can assure you they would welcome less pressure and an easier job, and there will be many in horrible pressurised driving jobs where given an opportunity to tell the boss to sod off and walk into a better job would be a dream come true - there is some half decent jobs in driving, but you will never aspire to them if you tell your current boss to sod off. [/QUOTE]

But is there no governing body, or failing that your local MP that you can complain about the conditions to? Have you ever heard of drivers actually highlighting the problems, even anonymously? Because working in a flawed system without making any attempt to change it is colluding.



Lilmo said:


> Our society depends upon Goods vehicles ( a society in which cyclists are a minority and we are a democracy).



Of course pedestrians are also being killed, we are just highlighting cyclists. Pretty much everyone is a pedestrian, I'd make that the majority interest. The problem is that perpetuating the belief that nothing will work isn't going to get anything fixed.


----------



## subaqua (28 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> But is there no governing body, or failing that your local MP that you can complain about the conditions to? Have you ever heard of drivers actually highlighting the problems, even anonymously? Because working in a flawed system without making any attempt to change it is colluding.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course pedestrians are also being killed, we are just highlighting cyclists. Pretty much everyone is a pedestrian, I'd make that the majority interest. The problem is that perpetuating the belief that nothing will work isn't going to get anything fixed.




there are solutions, but they cost more than anybody is willing to pay out sadly. the easiest solution is enforcment of the laws we have. if the driver is at work then use the HASAWA etc to prosecute the employer. push for the highest offences and get the evidence. this benefits EVERYBODY . and we can all help in making this happen by writing to our MPs our councilors ( county, Borough , ward, whatever ). 
by talking to our employers and getting them to make small changes , i have , rather than groaning about the same things and doing feck all about it.


----------



## theclaud (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> The way you're putting this comes across (correct me if I'm wrong) as if our (the cyclists) responsibility of taking care is just something that could or could not happen, as if an afterthought.



All I'm saying is that the responsibility not to kill and maim is absolute. It is a measure of how badly we have gone wrong when this is controversial. So it's all very well (although as often as not misguided, insulting and simplistic) profferring advice or guidance for particular circumstances, but it is really neither here nor there unless we can oblige those who are doing the killing to take responsibility for it. It's worth remembering that all advice is contingent, and the thing that it's contingent upon here is the normalization of large motor vehicles dominating public space, and the impunity with which they are able to kill and maim vulnerable road users.

I quite agree that drivers who speak out against the crimes of the industry are courting unpopularity and taking a risk. That, unfortunately, is where we are politically. The consolation is they will find allies both in the same position and elsewhere, and the incentive is that if they continue as they are, backing their paymasters, things can only get worse for them, because the industry's gamble is not going to work and we are not going to surrender our right to the road.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Feb 2015)

subaqua said:


> there are solutions, but they cost more than anybody is willing to pay out sadly.



Each road death = £1m.

The mirrors that many lorry drivers refuse to fit that remove blind spots cost £30.


----------



## Dan B (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3562279, member: 9609"]is that not just a little bit OTT[/QUOTE]
I passed a vehicle the otehr day that had a sticker on it saying something to teh effect of "pedestrians, do not approach this vehicle at any time". How is that anything other than an admission it's dangerous?


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3563353, member: 9609"]Out of curiosity, your post appeared about 5 hours after you sent it - I have noticed this before with your posts they can often arrive quite some time latter, is it a mobile phone thing ?[/QUOTE]
It means his posts are moderated - he's Spindrift, a previously banned member, and he has form for being unnecessarily offensive...


----------



## theclaud (28 Feb 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> It means his posts are moderated - he's Spindrift, a previously banned member, and he has form for being unnecessarily offensive...


As opposed to form for backseat moderating, childishly repetitious wind-uppery, and having a permanent strop with imaginary Lefties, you mean? He also upholds the memory of cyclists killed on the roads.


----------



## fimm (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Good way of putting it, but imo it's not going to happen in our lifetime in this country.
> This not in the government plans, not what the general public sets its priorities on.
> Pat 5mph sprinting at the lights, keeping up with traffic a' la Cyclecraft text book of national cycling standard is not compatible, even impossible to achieve.
> Heck, the likes of me are harassed by other, faster cyclist, never mind motorized traffic.
> ...


Pat, that's one of the best summaries of the tensions and complexities of the situation we have now I've ever read here or anywhere else.


----------



## Origamist (28 Feb 2015)

subaqua said:


> lower smaller cabs, yes great idea and could work for in the city , but a lot of stuff comes long distance and i can't see the smaller lower cabs working on motorways ( which is where lorries really do belong) so the argument could be for marshalling yards where the long distance big trucks get off loaded onto smaller ones , but is there the space around london ( and all major cites in all honesty ) for this ? No there isn't, and again the costs rise and these get passed on to ??
> 
> there is also the drip down effect in that big firms will get the smaller cabs but smaller firms who can't afford to replace a fleet will take a while to get to smaller cabs as they come from the larger companies . so it isn't going to happen over 12 months, 18 months, or even 2 years. maybe 5 to 10 years.



The EU were planning on allowing new HGV cab designs in 2017/18, but France and Sweden (read Renault and Volvo) objected on competition and life-cycle grounds. This has meant that the regulations governing cab length and, by extension, improved safety, will not now be brought in to 2022. This is unfortunate to say the least.

As I understand it, the issue of visibility and a lower seat height for HGVs using major roads is not a vexatious issue.


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> As opposed to form for backseat moderating, childishly repetitious wind-uppery, and having a permanent strop with imaginary Lefties, you mean? He also upholds the memory of cyclists killed on the roads.


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Your standard admission of having run out of argument.



What's the point of arguing with people who seem to think that not adhering to their views on transport policy equates to dishonouring a victim of a road collision.
I don't happen to think that we should all have free, unfettered access to the road on a bike, but that makes me an antichrist on a forum like this, and it'll be the same if I express an opinion on this specific case again (There's a lot of factors that point to it being the cyclist's fault).
We've been over this before, but these threads would be pointless if it were just a long list of condolences, but if we actually try to discuss the thing it gets locked because we're being disrespectful.
FWIW, I think that we have to accept that things like this will happen in London, we ought to do what we can to prevent such things, but there's a limit to what can be done if we are to maintain a city like this. That makes some people get upset with me, but that's not too steep a price to pay


----------



## theclaud (28 Feb 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> I don't happen to think that we should all have free, unfettered access to the road on a bike, but that makes me an antichrist on a forum like this,



Actually it makes you entirely conventional. Sorry to disappoint the requirements of your self-image.


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> Actually it makes you entirely conventional. Sorry to disappoint the requirements of your self-image.


I should have added 'in the eyes of some'...

I'll flog myself, no need to send Patrick...


----------



## Origamist (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3563476, member: 9609"]*Low truck cabs could cause other problems, big lorries need to plan along way ahead*.

I would stop productivity payments, drivers should be paid on time worked and not how much they shift - it is supposed to be illegal to structure pay that would encourage faster driving, but for reasons beyond me it would appear that load bonuses are common. On top of that start enforcing the road laws we currently have, and I think those two measures would calm things down a lot - certainly push up prices, but that would be a price worth paying.

@XRHYSX I'm sure you said recently you were on tippers at the moment - how is your pay structured?[/QUOTE]

This is not a serious issue - the problem is that there is a strict limit on cab lengths in the EU and this has meant that the driver in most European HGVs is above the engine, meaning visibility is deeply compromised. It is not a sick joke, but the shape of the current cab (cab over engine) is often referred to as a "flying coffin"

Furthermore, have you ever seen convoys of HGVs on the M6 tail-gating one another - how are they planning ahead from their lofty position?


----------



## Pale Rider (28 Feb 2015)

Origamist said:


> This is not a serious issue - the problem is that there is a strict limit on cab lengths in the EU and this has meant that the driver in most European HGVs is above the engine, meaning visibility is deeply compromised. It is not a sick joke, but the shape of the current cab (cab over engine) is often referred to as a "flying coffin"



Strictly, the limit is on the overall length of the lorry.

But the point is well made, the lorry operators want to use every foot of their allowed length as space for the load, so designing a cab to give good visibility takes a back seat - or it would if there was any room for one.


----------



## srw (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Good way of putting it, but imo it's not going to happen in our lifetime in this country.


Yes it is - it's already happening. Go around central London keeping off the main roads (hell, go on many of the main roads if you want) and it's exactly like that. The pedestrian is king, closely followed by the bike rider. Everyone else defers to us.


----------



## Origamist (28 Feb 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Strictly, the limit is on the overall length of the lorry.
> 
> But the point is well made, the lorry operators want to use every foot of their allowed length as space for the load, so designing a cab to give good visibility takes a back seat - or it would if there was any room for one.



I didn't realise myself until recently, but the cab length limit is 2.35m.


----------



## Pale Rider (28 Feb 2015)

Origamist said:


> I didn't realise myself until recently, but the cab length limit is 2.35m.



Interesting.

There are some lorries on our roads with long bonnet cabs/tractor units.

I'm sure I've seen rigid heavy duty recovery vehicles with long bonnets, and I've certainly seen artic tractor units of that type.

Edit: Perhaps the bonnet doesn't count as cab length.

Here's a couple of recovery vehicles operating in the south of England.

http://www.sanddcommercials.co.uk/fleet.php


----------



## Origamist (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3563548, member: 9609"]I think you would find most drivers would get into all manner of problems navigating a 60' truck through a town centre with the visibility from car height
its overall vehicle length not cab length
never heard of flying coffin before
Tailgating is dreadful driving and it is a complete puzzle to me why some drivers do it.[/QUOTE]

No one is suggesting that the seat height should be on par with a Ford Fiesta...


----------



## Origamist (28 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3563582, member: 9609"]that is the MINIMUM cab length[/QUOTE]

No, it's an indirect limit based on the overall regulated dimensions of HGVs. That's why they are so squeezed and brick shaped.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (28 Feb 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> I don't happen to think that we should all have free, unfettered access to the road on a bike, but that makes me an antichrist on a forum like this,


No worries, I'm of the same opinion, we can be flamed together 
Joking aside, I never did give this a thought until I did my own training, and I only did the cycle training because it was offered free in conjunction with another topics I wanted to learn.
It certainly was an eyeopener: I did jump on a bso one day, determined to ride to work. I was a confident rider, of course I didn't know I was doing it all wrong!
PS: please stop the bickering, it spoils this interesting thread.



srw said:


> Yes it is - it's already happening. Go around central London keeping off the main roads (hell, go on many of the main roads if you want) and it's exactly like that. The pedestrian is king, closely followed by the bike rider. Everyone else defers to us.


Why are we having this discussion, then? Are the incidents happening on the outskirts of London?
Btw, I'm not familiar with London.


----------



## Mugshot (28 Feb 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> It means his posts are moderated - he's Spindrift, a previously banned member, and he has form for being unnecessarily offensive...


That explains things which I was finding most confusing, thank you.


----------



## subaqua (28 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Each road death = £1m.
> 
> The mirrors that many lorry drivers refuse to fit that remove blind spots cost £30.


Change your broken record.


----------



## subaqua (28 Feb 2015)

Origamist said:


> The EU were planning on allowing new HGV cab designs in 2017/18, but France and Sweden (read Renault and Volvo) objected on competition and life-cycle grounds. This has meant that the regulations governing cab length and, by extension, improved safety, will not now be brought in to 2022. This is unfortunate to say the least.
> 
> As I understand it, the issue of visibility and a lower seat height for HGVs using major roads is not a vexatious issue.


Do you drive one for a living? Can you elaborate on why it is not a vexatious issue , or are you just posting an argument that will fold easily ?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Feb 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Why are we having this discussion, then? Are the incidents happening on the outskirts of London?
> Btw, I'm not familiar with London.


Victoria is definitely not on the outskirts, it's very much a transport hub - in fact the tipper was probably there, and the road is narrowed, as part of a major rail project. When trucks are helping build railways, bikes are obviously the wrong transport.... 

It is actually possible to do a very good proportion of cycling journeys on quiet routes across London. But knowing the quieter routes takes a lot of research - there's meant to be a series of ''quietways'' set up across the capital, which should make this easier, but for the moment it takes a real local knowledge - and in addition to the time taken to find the route, they often cost time to ride and are longer. And they always involved crossing major routes even when you avoid riding along them. Personally, I really don't like noise, so I'll happily drop a couple of miles an hour to get where I'm going, and I'll cycle a bit further (12 miles of peaceful pleasure is better than 10 miles of direct hustle and bustle for me). But I'm in an unusual position in having ridden _every_ road between here and Victoria so the back routes are far easier for me. And in the rare event that I'm under time pressure, I'll take the quickest route. This will nearly involve the busiest routes. I've no idea whether young Hitier-Abadie could have found a quieter route - I've no idea about routes from west to Victoria.


----------



## srw (28 Feb 2015)

The roads around Victoria are one of the few places I've been in central London where it hasn't felt as if the bike is king. Unfortunately we're squeezing modern HGVs into roads built to transport royalty by horse and carriage between Whitehall, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament. There are too many through routes and not enough back streets - partly because there are a lot of royal parks and palaces, and the royals don't tend to like opening up their parks and palaces to hoi polloi on two wheels.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Feb 2015)

In the case of that temporary road system in Victoria, it's worse than that. Some traffic planner came up with a road layout that was surrounded by construction sites. He/she must have known that tippers, skips and mixer trucks were going to use them regularly, and also that they don't have a good safety record. To come up with that lethal alley is plain incompetence.


----------



## Origamist (1 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> Do you drive one for a living? Can you elaborate on why it is not a vexatious issue , or are you just posting an argument that will fold easily ?



Mercedes Benz, Volvo, DAF, Scania etc are all working on the redesign of cabs in order to improve visibility, make the cab safer for the driver/other road users and improve fuel efficiency as the EU regulations are changing in 2022. It might be happening slowly, but I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to understand that this is taking place.

There are issues that need to be overcome, but they are far from insurmountable.

The increased dimension directive will help to change the conservative freight/construction industry for the better.


----------



## Origamist (1 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Interesting.
> 
> There are some lorries on our roads with long bonnet cabs/tractor units.
> 
> ...



I should have been clearer, apologies - it's more of a de facto reality than a limit. The cab can be longer or shorter than 2.35m, but this is the approx size of the vast majority of COE HGVs due to EU regs on overall dimensions (meaning visibility is intrinsically compromised as a matter of course in order to maximise the payload space).


----------



## XRHYSX (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3563476, member: 9609"]

@XRHYSX I'm sure you said recently you were on tippers at the moment - how is your pay structured?[/QUOTE]

I'm payed per hour,
but there is an expected number of loads per day, depending on how far your run is,
the drivers who used to be payed per load still have that minded set..
I'm about one load behind,
I'm only doing this job for another two weeks,
I really don't like the stigma associated with it, people look at you like your the scum of the earth,
people who live on unfinished housing estates really don't like you driving through...

I will be going back to night trunking soon, all on major A roads and motoways


----------



## subaqua (1 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Mercedes Benz, Volvo, DAF, Scania etc are all working on the redesign of cabs in order to improve visibility, make the cab safer for the driver/other road users and improve fuel efficiency as the EU regulations are changing in 2022. It might be happening slowly, but I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to understand that this is taking place.
> 
> The changes will help to change the conservative freight/construction industry for the better.


did you read my earlier post. they may well be available early, but the smaller companies ( apparently the ones who are more liekly to break the law according to one on here) will not be using them immediately. there will be a longer trickle down. 
when the changes to the LEZ came into force i know of several smaller operators ( 10 lorries ) who rather than change the Vehicle did the modifications as it was more cost effective than buying a new fleet .even taking better fuel efficiency into account . 

couple of other thing though. how does better visibilty stop people riding up the inside when they shouldnt ?
can you see 360 degrees around you at all times without moving your head ?

what will people start saying when a new modern cab is involved in a fatality ? 


and you didn't answer the question I asked directly .


----------



## Origamist (1 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> did you read my earlier post. they may well be available early, but the smaller companies ( apparently the ones who are more liekly to break the law according to one on here) will not be using them immediately. there will be a longer trickle down.
> when the changes to the LEZ came into force i know of several smaller operators ( 10 lorries ) who rather than change the Vehicle did the modifications as it was more cost effective than buying a new fleet .even taking better fuel efficiency into account .
> 
> couple of other thing though. how does better visibilty stop people riding up the inside when they shouldnt ?
> ...



Agreed, it will not be quick process, but over time TFL will only allow safer designs into London, for example.

No one is suggesting that improving visibility from the cab will eradicate fatalities involving HGVs, but it will ameliorate the situation significantly.

I don't drive a HGV for a living - is that the question you are referring to?


----------



## glenn forger (1 Mar 2015)

It's clear the road layout was a factor, what process was followed to get the lane pinched with hoardings like that?


----------



## glenn forger (1 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> can you see 360 degrees around you at all times without moving your head ?



i would expect people operating the most lethal vehicles to at least move their head while they drive. Blimey, it's a trifling imposition.


----------



## subaqua (1 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> i would expect people operating the most lethal vehicles to at least move their head while they drive. Blimey, it's a trifling imposition.


Ok so I move my head 90 degrees to the left can I see 180 degrees from my eyes ?


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Has anyone defined when this is?


Going up the inside of a vehicle that is already indicating to turn left would be a good start, doesn't matter if it's a car or a truck.

This is one of my big beefs with the people who think cycle lanes are a good idea, gives people the idea that bikes should filter on the left, much safer on the right...


----------



## theclaud (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3564846, member: 9609"]I would guess the driver would not only be moving his head but also very active on the seat in studying his mirrors, trouble is bikes move very fast and even if the driver is exploring his mirrors every 5 seconds there is still time for a cyclist to move into an inappropriate place and not be seen.[/QUOTE]
Is it time to mention double manning again?


----------



## subaqua (1 Mar 2015)

User said:


> I reckon I can both move my head more than 90° and see more than 180°.


Ok smarty pants look left and can you see what is 180 degrees behind you . In fact do it looking left. Unless you are an owl ( I wouldn't put it past some people  ) unlikely . Point is that it isn't just mirrors, cab design, road design, it is where we as cyclists put ourselves and enforcement . 

Nothing to do with being right or wrong but being sensible. If I hang back and it slows me by 3 seconds or even 30 seconds is that such a problem? And yes just for Glenn/ spindrift that means drivers ( and a massive majority do ) . 

I know what I am worth to my company per hour . I know that isn't what I am worth to my family . Hence I ride, and live life accordingly. 99.99999% of other road users are the same. It's that tiny percent of a percent that needs to be dealt with, via existing laws .


----------



## Phaeton (1 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Why inappropriate?


Seriously?


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Mar 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Seriously?


Probably, after all, blind people should be free to ride bikes on the North Circular too...


----------



## glenn forger (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3564846, member: 9609"] there is still time for a cyclist to move into an inappropriate place and not be seen.[/QUOTE]

I think it's extremely dangerous to talk about "inappropriate" places for a cyclist to be around hgvs. In two cyclist fatalities the lorry was waiting at the lights and not indicating. The lorry drivers set off and immediately turned left, causing a death. In one case, Daniel Cox's, the driver was actually indicating in the opposite way to where he turned! In all three cases the cyclist did nothing wrong, in all three cases they were caught on the near side of the hgv. That's why it's dangerous to refer to "inappropriate" positioning-it presupposes a mistake which the rider may very well not have made.


----------



## PK99 (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3564846, member: 9609"]I would guess the driver would not only be moving his head but also very active on the seat in studying his mirrors, trouble is bikes move very fast and even if the driver is exploring his mirrors every 5 seconds there is still time for a cyclist to move into an inappropriate place and not be seen.[/QUOTE]


When turning left where should the diver be looking?

Scenario:
He did not pass a cyclist on the way to the junction.
He has checked his mirrors while stopped and no cyclist has appeared on his LHS.
Lights change.
He moves forward: should he be looking forward, ie where he is going or should he be driving on his LH rearview mirrors to check for the sort of cyclist shown in Gaz's video who whips up the inside at the last minute?


----------



## swansonj (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3565109, member: 9609"]
Again ludicrously expensive and all these costs would need to be passed on to the general public in higher costs for goods. I just don't see the general public supporting such inflation to accommodate care free cycling. I agree something needs to be done, no one should be dying on our roads, cyclists need more respect, a lot more respect from other road users. But I think the double manning or specialised escorts is never going to be given the time of day, so lets try to think of something a little more do-abble.[/QUOTE]
There are multiple instances, from the fields of transport, construction, energy, and no doubt many others, where higher costs are imposed on the public because safety measures cost extra money. I don't see the public complaining very much.


----------



## swansonj (1 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> Nothing to do with being right or wrong but being sensible.


Seems to me you conflate two different things:
- what is sensible in the prevailing circumstances
- whether those prevailing circumstances are right or wrong.

If the guy in the house down the road periodically fires his gun out of his window without being able to see where he's firing it, I sure as heck would keep out of the danger zone, but I wouldn't describe that situation as "right"


----------



## theclaud (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3565109, member: 9609"] I just don't see the general public supporting such inflation to accommodate care free cycling. I agree something needs to be done, no one should be dying on our roads, cyclists need more respect, a lot more respect from other road users. But I think the double manning or specialised escorts is never going to be given the time of day, so lets try to think of something a little more do-abble.[/QUOTE]



swansonj said:


> There are multiple instances, from the fields of transport, construction, energy, and no doubt many others, where higher costs are imposed on the public because safety measures cost extra money. I don't see the public complaining very much.



Wot @swansonj said. There's an odd rhetorical strategy, which I have noticed amongst those who have an interest in perpetuating the status quo, which involves displacing the speaker's own resistance to change by invoking an imaginary constituency that the speaker somehow magically represents. I was at a meeting about our High Street where members of the public, and people who work in the street or have an interest in improving it would suggest changes that would make the space better for people and slow down or take space away from vehicles. A senior Highways representative would repeatedly affect to be personally in favour of such changes, and then add 'unfortunately, people will complain if...' or 'it sounds great, but people won't accept...' I don't buy this - I think the interests ranged against changed are narrow but determined, and that they speak only for themselves. What the haulage industry needs is a sort of Michael O'Leary figure, who makes no pretence of considering what is best for anything other than his own interests. Then we can stop tip-toeing around and get to what we are talking about, which is that the industry wants everyone else to shoulder the costs of the dangers it presents.


----------



## subaqua (1 Mar 2015)

swansonj said:


> Seems to me you conflate two different things:
> - what is sensible in the prevailing circumstances
> - whether those prevailing circumstances are right or wrong.
> 
> If the guy in the house down the road periodically fires his gun out of his window without being able to see where he's firing it, I sure as heck would keep out of the danger zone, but I wouldn't describe that situation as "right"


i wouldnt describe that as legal . if the projectile leaves his land.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3565320, member: 9609"]I am not wishing to preserve the status quo, not at all, I hate about every aspect of our roads, the total disrespect of road laws, the acceptance of the massive death and serious injured toll that as a society we weirdly seem to accept! even the massive destruction of our wildlife, people go out and feed the birds then drive along a country road at 60mph with the dam things stotting of the windscreen, the whole thing about motorised transport is just odd, and it all needs a complete redesign.
I don't think your idea for someone helping with observation is that bad of an idea, but I doubt any government would touch it with a barge poll, it won't happen, we need to lower our aim to something a little more achievable.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Mar 2015)

When it's indicating left and is about to start the manoeuvre, or has actually begun it?


----------



## Phaeton (1 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Its OK Zimmers, we know your answer already.


Clearly this is aimed at me, but I've re-read your posts several times & I'm still confused, you appear to be saying that if a lorry/car in front is indicating that it is going to turn left it is still a good idea to try to go up the inside. If that is the case then I'm sorry but you are wrong & you are advising people to put themselves in potentially dangerous positions, which may have no escape route, by all means do this yourself if you are foolish enough but I would suggest against advocating it for others.


----------



## srw (1 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> i wouldnt describe that as legal . if the projectile leaves his land.


QED. Some things (shooting) are heavily regulated and even made illegal because of the danger they pose to the general public. But other things (unsafe lorries) aren't.

I don't have the figues to hand, but I'd hazard a guess that the operators of (legal) lorries have been responsible for more deaths and serious injuries over the last few years than the operators of (legal and illegal) firearms.


----------



## Phaeton (1 Mar 2015)

In post #212 you clearly ask why it is inappropriate for a cyclist to go up the inside of a vehicle that is indicating left. It is also clear you are deliberately trying to be argumentative or just bored & have nothing better to do. I am personally fed up of your childish attitude so don't expect any further replies from me until you grow up.


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> QED. Some things (shooting) are heavily regulated and even made illegal because of the danger they pose to the general public. *But other things (unsafe lorries) aren't*.
> 
> I don't have the figues to hand, but I'd hazard a guess that the operators of (legal) lorries have been responsible for more deaths and serious injuries over the last few years than the operators of (legal and illegal) firearms.


You really think lorries aren't regulated?


----------



## theclaud (1 Mar 2015)

Phaeton said:


> I am personally fed up of your childish attitude so don't expect any further replies from me until you grow up.


----------



## theclaud (1 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3565320, member: 9609"]*I am not wishing to preserve the status quo, not at all,* I hate about every aspect of our roads, the total disrespect of road laws, the acceptance of the massive death and serious injured toll that as a society we weirdly seem to accept! even the massive destruction of our wildlife, people go out and feed the birds then drive along a country road at 60mph with the dam things stotting of the windscreen, the whole thing about motorised transport is just odd, and it all needs a complete redesign.
I don't think your idea for someone helping with observation is that bad of an idea, but I doubt any government would touch it with a barge poll, it won't happen, we need to lower our aim to something a little more achievable.[/QUOTE]

Sorry User9609 - that probably seemed more specifically aimed at you than intended. Your post just reminded me of something else. All the same, we cannot afford to approach the argument through the lens of what is already palatable to government/haulage/construction/motoring, because we need a fundamental shift in power relations on the roads. Lorries are not going to become safer unless we _oblige _them to be so.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3565816, member: 9609"]It would be really interesting to see some statistics showing accident rates between drivers on piece work and drivers on set income. Some different suggestions on this thread how things could be improved, for me I would make any sort of bonuses related to work done in haulage illegal, nothing wrong with overtime but not pay per load - productivity would fall, but that doesn't matter if it is the same for all companies, they will just have to charge more.[/QUOTE]
What about taxi drivers? Less lethal than a tipper truck, still a menace on our roads.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Mar 2015)

Have been wondering recently if the Knowledge process is part of what makes cabbies the main danger on London's roads - I'm not sure that 2-3 years spent on a scooter looking sideways is the best training scheme for someone looking to drive a big car for money...


----------



## srw (2 Mar 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> Have been wondering recently if the Knowledge process is part of what makes cabbies the main danger on London's roads - I'm not sure that 2-3 years spent on a scooter looking sideways is the best training scheme for someone looking to drive a big car for money...


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In general "black" cab drivers are pretty good - a bit lairy and prone to take more calculated risks than most drivers perhaps, but generally very safe to be around. The nightmare drivers are minicab drivers, especially now they all seem to be on self-employed contracts to Addison Lee.


----------



## srw (2 Mar 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> You really think lorries aren't regulated?


They're not regulated in the same way or to the same extent as guns. The opposite of "heavily regulated and made illegal" is not "not regulated" it's "not heavily regulated and made illegal".


----------



## srw (2 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Read this
> 
> Follow where it takes you. You will see that you are arguing against something you imagine that I am saying not that which I am actually saying.


To coin a phrase - some people read what they want to read, not what they're actually reading.

(I should trademark that.)


----------



## Origamist (2 Mar 2015)

New safer HGV cabs showcased

"The new vehicles on show today, with massively reduced blind-spots, show what can be done if people join together for a common good to solve a simple problem. We will continue our work to improve freight road safety in all aspects, be it collaboration, regulation, enforcement and lobbying, to create a Capital fit for freight, and freight fit for the Capital"
Sir Peter Hendy CBE
London's Transport Commissioner

More info:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/february/new-safer-hgv-cabs-showcased

Did anyone attend this event last week?


----------



## theclaud (2 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> New safer HGV cabs showcased
> 
> "The new vehicles on show today, with massively reduced blind-spots, show what can be done if people join together for a common good to solve a simple problem. We will continue our work to improve freight road safety in all aspects, be it collaboration, regulation, enforcement and lobbying, to create a Capital fit for freight, and freight fit for the Capital"
> Sir Peter Hendy CBE
> ...



Encouraging slogan, at least!


----------



## Origamist (2 Mar 2015)

theclaud said:


> Encouraging slogan, at least!


 
Good find - I'll do some googling myself!

In the above image, if you look at the edge of the passenger door - it appears to be glazed at the bottom to give better visibility on the nearside.


----------



## theclaud (2 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Good find - I'll *do some googling myself!*
> 
> In the above image, if you look at the edge of the passenger door - it appears to be glazed at the bottom to give better visibility on the nearside.



I did a Twitter search for #clocs. There are some good images.


----------



## srw (2 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Good find - I'll do some googling myself!
> 
> In the above image, if you look at the edge of the passenger door - it appears to be glazed at the bottom to give better visibility on the nearside.


Although to make the most of it you need someone in the passenger seat...


----------



## XRHYSX (2 Mar 2015)

theclaud said:


> Encouraging slogan, at least!


That's all well and good till they go off-road and get bent, then they'll be sticking out with possible sharp edges


----------



## theclaud (2 Mar 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> That's all well and good till they go off-road and get bent, then they'll be sticking out with possible sharp edges


Er... if I understand correctly it's a piece of correx board that is being used to highlight a key danger area of the vehicle. It's attached to sideguards which are presumably of conventional construction, but are positioned lower. They are trialling the new vehicles - as Adrian says, it's astonishing that such small improvements meet with such bloody-minded resistance.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Mar 2015)

Those mobile cranes that they use to erect the metal cranes that erect the blocks of boxes that investors want to pay for don't have high clearances and they also have long wheelbases, from what I remember. How comes they don't get grounded on every construction site in London? Because they're expensive, the constructors set up flat access for quick in and out installation. It can be done - it has been done - flat surfaces, obstacle free approaches. If one of those can get on and off a construction site, so can a lower lorry.


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Those mobile cranes that they use to erect the metal cranes that erect the blocks of boxes that investors want to pay for don't have high clearances and they also have long wheelbases, from what I remember. How comes they don't get grounded on every construction site in London? Because they're expensive, the constructors set up flat access for quick in and out installation. It can be done - it has been done - flat surfaces, obstacle free approaches. If one of those can get on and off a construction site, so can a lower lorry.


They also have low cabs with very limited sideways visibility. Often have a police escort due to poor driver visibilty. 
All down to the way they're constructed.


----------



## Shaun (3 Mar 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> That's all well and good till they go off-road and get bent, then they'll be sticking out with possible sharp edges



It looks to me to be just a promotional board (as is the skip on the back) - the truck appears to be indoors, perhaps at an exhibition / event to promote CLOCS? Correct me though if anyone has seen the vehicles out in public with this livery.

Interesting video on their *homepage*:


----------



## theclaud (3 Mar 2015)

Shaun said:


> It looks to me to be just a promotional board (as is the skip on the back) - the truck appears to be indoors, perhaps at an exhibition / event to promote CLOCS?



Is it insubordination if I claim a TMN from the boss?


----------



## subaqua (3 Mar 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Those mobile cranes that they use to erect the metal cranes that erect the blocks of boxes that investors want to pay for don't have high clearances and they also have long wheelbases, from what I remember. How comes they don't get grounded on every construction site in London? Because they're expensive, the constructors set up flat access for quick in and out installation. It can be done - it has been done - flat surfaces, obstacle free approaches. If one of those can get on and off a construction site, so can a lower lorry.




do they really ? And how do we excavate down to basement and provide level flat access ? It's about approach and departure angles and the lower the front the shallower the angles. Now out in the suburbs where it is a lovely large site there may be the luxury of a long shallow haul road, indeed on the M25 project that's what was in place. In town on projects like Bloomberg ( the mcalpine job in the city) which is fairly large in comparison to others the haul ramp was almost 45 degrees just to enable the demolition/ excavation to take place. 
Also mobile cranes generally used to erect from the road , hence all those PITA closures I have to arrange. 
Last one we had on site to erect was done before we dug out to 3rd basement level. So was the existing floor slab . 

Once the cab is on the tower crane can self erect . 

I thought that there were new designs. The ones shown look like the bin lorries ( that spinners hates as much) we have had since the 80s . That have dire visibility. 

Out of pure self indulgence I showed the pics to my dad. Thinks they would work in towns but he would hate to be driving one on a motorway. 

I also asked him what he felt safer in a cabover ( sat on engine) or a conventional ( engine in front) cabover won from the sheer visibility point. 

Still what does he know , he only drove them for a living and nearly died in one when a " more vulnerable road user" thought it would be great to pull out and stop in front of him. The police investigators were astounded that he didn't kill the nobber. ( the forum would change to flowery daffodil if I posted the real words uttered) and some skilful avoidance ensured

All for safer designs but it has to be the correct balance of practicality and safety. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record ALL ROAD USERS working together from pedestrians looking before they step into the road, to hauliers ( note hauliers) ensuring they don't put pressure on people to bend the rules past breaking point. 
It isn't down to one specific group as you can put the safest vehicle Ever on the road with the safest operator and all it takes is one vulnerable user to think they don't have to look after their own safety as well and it all falls down. 

Control measures are about time cost benefit and effort to achieve. Any of them get too big and it is not going to happen , as it is not reasonably practicable. Looking out for yourself is one of the easiest to implement .


----------



## glenn forger (3 Mar 2015)

Shaun said:


> It looks to me to be just a promotional board (as is the skip on the back) - the truck appears to be indoors, perhaps at an exhibition / event to promote CLOCS? Correct me though if anyone has seen the vehicles out in public with this livery.
> 
> Interesting video on their *homepage*:




that clip's a lot better than I thought it would be. Of course, in referring to the lack of a industry-wide safety policy it would have been better to include the fact that the RHA opposes any such measure.


----------



## summerdays (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> Looking out for yourself is one of the easiest to implement .


But we can't just go by that approach, what about a 10 year old on their way to school? It takes time to build up that experience and understanding of the road and you make mistakes along the way. We can't just say look after yourself and we have to expect that people aren't perfect and we watch out for other people making mistakes. You can't predict all mistakes but you can see the situation where you know that it is possible for that mistake to occur - so on a bike passing a side road you look to see if the driver has seen you, so in a lorry with cyclists around..... you need to be looking out for them making a mistake.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> do they really ? And how do we excavate down to basement and provide level flat access ? It's about approach and departure angles and the lower the front the shallower the angles. Now out in the suburbs where it is a lovely large site there may be the luxury of a long shallow haul road, indeed on the M25 project that's what was in place. In town on projects like Bloomberg ( the mcalpine job in the city) which is fairly large in comparison to others the haul ramp was almost 45 degrees just to enable the demolition/ excavation to take place.
> Also mobile cranes generally used to erect from the road , hence all those PITA closures I have to arrange.
> Last one we had on site to erect was done before we dug out to 3rd basement level. So was the existing floor slab .
> 
> ...


It seems to me that the mobile cranes around here (largely riverside developments so hardly luxurious, spacious suburbia) have used a mixture of on and off road sites. 

Where muck is being lifted in constricted space you could use either high clearance vehicles or, like deep mines or riverside aggregate barge loaders, use conveyor belts. If you restrict the general use of high vehicles, I suspect constructors would use conveyor belts a fair bit more. 

If an inexperienced or careless vulnerable user comes along and gets killed by a security-conscious company vehicle, the whole thing does not fall down. All the safety stuff does is decrease the likelihood of such deaths occurring and give the operator a chance of reducing fatalities to the level incurred by general motor traffic. This thread is here not because there's been a tipper truck fatality, it's here because it's _yet another _tipper truck fatality. We're nowhere near talking about safe vehicles, we're talking about safer vehicles and concentrating on the ones with the most disproportionate kills-per-mile record. And that prized elevated driving position is clearly not making vulnerable road users any more visible.


----------



## subaqua (3 Mar 2015)

Even a 10 yr old knows what's dangerous - I certainly did at 10 . if you saw a tractor going along the road( I grew up in the country where there are far more things that will kill you) you knew to keep well away from it and not go up the inside or ride in the centre of the lane till it was safe to move across to a gate or passing place.

there has to be personal responsibility from ALL parties.


----------



## Origamist (3 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3567937, member: 9609"]I do think more could be done to provide level hard standing for loading unloading for inner city sites, obviously some specilised vehicles would need to be brought in to create that, but all standard tippers etc should have better side protection.

I think your dads right, lower driving position may have some benefits within cities, but out in the countryside they would be more dangerous, a high driving position is an all important safty feature in a big truck - you have to plan so far ahead.

*As for the new designs - they're going to allow manufactures to add 80cm to the front in 7 years time to provide better visibility, safty and aerodynamics. hmmm don't think it is worth getting very excited about*.[/QUOTE]

Often small changes can make a big difference. The extra 80cm length that has been mooted allows for a rounded nose with deflection capabilities. In tests with this new frontal shape overruns were entirely avoided in the crash simulations. It also acts as a crumple zone which affords the HGV driver greater protection. Improvements to direct vision will also be incorporated into the design and, the height of the driving position will not compromise driving along major roads as it is not significantly lower.

It’s worth repeating that current brick shape cab designs are not built in order to maximize the safety of road users, but to maximize the payload. This is fundamentally wrong and I’m glad it is being belatedly addressed.


----------



## summerdays (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> Even a 10 yr old knows what's dangerous - I certainly did at 10 . if you saw a tractor going along the road( I grew up in the country where there are far more things that will kill you) you knew to keep well away from it and not go up the inside or ride in the centre of the lane till it was safe to move across to a gate or passing place.
> 
> there has to be personal responsibility from ALL parties.


Not every 10 year old can make those decisions, and some parents don't know what their kids can or can't do as they always ferry them around in a vehicle so not enabling them to learn by experience with a sensible adult (though that didn't make a difference with my middle child who was mid teens before they were able to safely cross a road). I'm not saying they don't know that a lorry is dangerous, I mean they can't always predict their speed/the other vehicle speed reliably and react by putting themselves into danger spots rather than away from them (thinking themselves safe at the side of a road in the gutter for example).


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> That's all well and good till they go off-road and get bent, then they'll be sticking out with possible sharp edges





User said:


> Oh well, another promising idea ruled out. It really does appear that, as far as the industry is concerned, there is nothing to be done.





theclaud said:


> Er... if I understand correctly it's a piece of correx board that is being used to highlight a key danger area of the vehicle. It's attached to sideguards which are presumably of conventional construction, but are positioned lower. They are trialling the new vehicles - as Adrian says, it's astonishing that such small improvements meet with such bloody-minded resistance.



What a joke some of you are, somebody puts a practical point that, if as shown the tipper goes off road, they will bottom out & get bent, so you throw your dummies out of the pram saying there's nothing to be done & the industry doesn't care, seriously guys grow up a bit.

It isn't/wasn't a case of *there is nothing to be done.* or* bloody-minded resistance *it's a fact, it will get damaged & possibly be more dangerous if it went out onto the road.

I will honestly say I don't know what the answer is, I believe there are faults on both sides, there are some drivers/firms cutting corners to save time/money, but there are some very ill educated cyclists/car drivers out there putting themselves into dangerous places they shouldn't be. I've not driven HGV's for a few years, but I suspect the issues are the same/worse now, I've had cyclists/cars trying to come up the inside when I've had to go right to swing into a left turn. 

Never worked for a company always agency as it was only a supplement job when my other was slow, but was asked a couple of times why it took me longer to get somewhere or the round took longer, I had a stock reply, it's my license, it's my life, I won't break speed limits or restrictions for anyone, never had an accident & don't intend to, if you don't like it then ask the agency not to send me again, exactly the opposite happened, several companies used to ask for me by name if they could have me if I was working.

I think the number of 'bad' firms/drivers is small, but the consequence of their actions can be great.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2015)

No! move on


----------



## Origamist (3 Mar 2015)

Phaeton said:


> What a joke some of you are, somebody puts a practical point that, if as shown the tipper goes off road, they will bottom out & get bent, so you throw your dummies out of the pram saying there's nothing to be done & the industry doesn't care, seriously guys grow up a bit.
> 
> It isn't/wasn't a case of *there is nothing to be done.* or* bloody-minded resistance *it's a fact, it will get damaged & possibly be more dangerous if it went out onto the road.
> 
> I will honestly say I don't know what the answer is, I believe there are faults on both sides, there are some drivers/firms cutting corners to save time/money, but there are some very ill educated cyclists/car drivers out there putting themselves into dangerous places they shouldn't be. I've not driven HGV's for a few years, but I suspect the issues are the same/worse now, I've had cyclists/cars trying to come up the inside when I've had to go right to swing into a left turn.



A lot of companies have fitted side-guards to tippers in their fleet: Cemex, Sita UK, Conway, etc.

Whilst it is true that vehicles going off road in more demanding situations may be more likely to incur damage to side-guards, it is possible to overcome this with the fitment of detachable or retractable side-guards. The main reason these are not used by the construction industry is cited as cost...


----------



## Wobblers (3 Mar 2015)

Phaeton said:


> No! move on



So remind me about how you were insisting "what a joke some people are about here"?

From here it merely looks like you're being disingenuously defeatist. And that's being generous. It might help if you made some effort to thinking about solutions rather than calling those who have names?


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

Those companies that are in the industry must be hoping like hell that Labour won't keep promises they made, should they win in May.
It'll cost em a fortune.


----------



## subaqua (3 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> So remind me about how you were insisting "what a joke some people are about here"?
> 
> From here it merely looks like you're being disingenuously defeatist. And that's being generous.* It might help if you made some effort to thinking about solutions rather than calling those who have names*?




that is a two way street too.


----------



## subaqua (3 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> A lot of companies have fitted side-guards to tippers in their fleet: Cemex, Sita UK, Conway, etc.
> 
> Whilst it is true that vehicles going off road in more demanding situations may be more likely to incur damage to side-guards, it is possible to overcome this with the fitment of detachable or retractable side-guards. The main reason these are not used by the construction ROAD HAULAGE industry is cited as cost...



please stop confusing construction and Road Haulage. 

construction builds things , haulage carries things .

otherwise using the same logic BMW are in the drug dealing business .


----------



## Wobblers (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> that is a two way street too.



I've already argued on the unwisdom of squeezing down the inside of tipper trucks on the other thread. Here though, all I'm seeing are evasions and excuses. The haulage industry has a deliberate policy of externalising the risks of its industry onto all other road users, for their own convenience. And has been ably demonstrated in this thread, there is endless resistance to any measure that may increase safety. Put simply, that is inexcusable.

Your distinction between construction and haulage is quite frankly, artificial. Construction vehicles are designed the way they are for the benefit of the construction industry - and again the risks are externalised onto other (especially vulnerable) road users. That also is inexcusable. Why, for instance, is a vehicle that requires a banksman on a building site allowed without any safety precautions onto the public highway?


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Mar 2015)

Hyperbole again. There are safety precautions that affect such vehicles. You're as hysterical as the people you're upset with...


----------



## Origamist (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> please stop confusing construction and Road Haulage.
> 
> construction builds things , haulage carries things .
> 
> otherwise using the same logic BMW are in the drug dealing business .



I'm not going to debate the overlapping worlds of construction and haulage.

It's a shame that you once again choose to ignore the substantive issue in my post.


----------



## subaqua (3 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> I've already argued on the unwisdom of squeezing down the inside of tipper trucks on the other thread. Here though, all I'm seeing are evasions and excuses. The haulage industry has a deliberate policy of externalising the risks of its industry onto all other road users, for the sake of saving some money. And has been ably demonstrated in this thread, there is endless resistance to any measure that may increase safety. Put simply, that is inexcusable.
> 
> Your distinction between construction and haulage is quite frankly, artificial. *Construction vehicles are designed the way they are for the benefit of the construction industry *- and again the risks are externalised onto other (especially vulnerable) road users. That also is inexcusable. Why, for instance, is a vehicle that requires a banksman on a building site allowed without any safety precautions onto the public highway?



no they are not . look at any rigid chassis lorry. same design for a box on the back for parcels , or a tipper body . or as a container lorry. so there's no legs in that argument.

as for the cost one on retractable guards , ok say they cost a grand each , and you have a fleet of 100 vehicles , fitting them overnight ( like some hint at here) is not only impossible physically but also financially . or should we just shut everything down ? thats reasonably practicable isn't it !

lets get a man with a flag then . 

and banksman is for one reason. stopping the lorry going down the hole, tipping over on the bank of earth etc . the people protection is a secondary role as much as we hate it that way. 

lower vehicles would suit me on site , mainly for the offloading as the distance to fall is smaller , and whilst any height is still WAH , the control measures are easier to implement on a smaller height.


----------



## subaqua (3 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> I'm not going to debate the overlapping worlds of construction and haulage.
> 
> It's a shame that you once again to choose to ignore the substantive issue in my post.




what like you also ignore the practicalities . 

you must be awfully fit with all that jumping to conclusions and knee jerking.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> or should we just shut everything down ? thats reasonably practicable isn't it !
> 
> .



That's just being hysterical and obstructive.

Between addressing the lawlessness and lethality of drivers and "shutting evrything down" there's room for nuance. You do yourself no favours with this hysteria.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> please stop confusing construction and Road Haulage.
> 
> construction builds things , haulage carries things .
> 
> otherwise using the same logic BMW are in the drug dealing business .



Lorries are used in construction. Tipper lorries carry rubble. The police and cycling organisations refer to "construction vehicles", it's a common term.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Mar 2015)

XRHYSX said:


> I'm only doing this job for another two weeks,
> I really don't like the stigma associated with it, people look at you like your the scum of the earth,
> people who live on unfinished housing estates really don't like you driving through...
> 
> I will be going back to night trunking soon, all on major A roads and motoways



Before taking your current job, what industry-recognised cycle training had you undergone?


----------



## Origamist (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> what like you also ignore the practicalities .
> 
> you must be awfully fit with all that jumping to conclusions and knee jerking.



Err, I just responded to a post about the practical implementation of side-guards. Lots of companies have fitted side guards and the oft repeated reason why most others wouldn't fit them was cost, not practical issues!


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> Those companies that are in the industry must be hoping like hell that Labour won't keep promises they made, should they win in May.
> It'll cost em a fortune.


When you say "a fortune" do you mean a fortune, or do you mean "a relatively modest one-off cost when compared with their annual profits, and when compared with the societal cost of killing and injuring too many vulnerable road users"?


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> When you say "a fortune" do you mean a fortune, or do you mean "a relatively modest one-off cost when compared with their annual profits, and when compared with the societal cost of killing and injuring too many vulnerable road users"?


It may be a one off cost, but it will be across their entire fleets. Presumably this cost will then be spread over the lifetime of the vehicles. Large and small companies, right down to owner operators.


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> It may be a one off cost, but it will be across their entire fleets. Presumably this cost will then be spread over the lifetime of the vehicles. Large and small companies, right down to owner operators.


How much?


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> How much?


Will it cost? Depends on the vehicle. Then there's the time they're not actually in use to be factored in. Standing idle they're losing money. Cost of fitting replacements as stuff wears out, new equipment bought which then has to have it fitted to it.

Whole thing went on here about a year ago, giving a cost breakdown. But didn't include time lost. Only difference is now they say all.


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> Will it cost? Depends on the vehicle. Then there's the time they're not actually in use to be factored in. Standing idle they're losing money. Cost of fitting replacements as stuff wears out, new equipment bought which then has to have it fitted to it.
> 
> Whole thing went on here about a year ago, giving a cost breakdown. But didn't include time lost. Only difference is now they say all.


Give us a ball-park estimate.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> It may be a one off cost, but it will be across their entire fleets. Presumably this cost will then be spread over the lifetime of the vehicles.



Construction companies use road freight and haulage because it's so cheap. It's so cheap because the entire road haulage industry enjoys gigantic subsidies, without even including the foreign truckers who don't even fuel up in this country, so their direct fiscal burden, bearing in mind they're the most dangerous vehicles, is zero.


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> Give us a ball-park estimate.


I've already posted the information, including cost(now out of date), and got shouted down for posting it. 
There's a saying for this "Seek and ye shall find".


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> I've already posted the information, including cost(now out of date), and got shouted down for posting it.
> There's a saying for this "Seek and ye shall find".


Frankly it would have been quicker for you to find it, since you knew what you were looking for, than it was to moan about it.

Here it is


classic33 said:


> Rough cost for the equipment to become compulsory if Labour win the next General Election.
> Figures given for typical 18-tonner.
> Reversing Alarm: £130.
> Rear-view Camera: £450.
> ...


That's £2,200 per lorry, except for ...errr... all those lorries that already have them (which, for many of those items, seems to be most of them). The local rental place would clear that inside 3 weeks of renting each lorry - except that in practice it would probably just put up prices by a percent or two to pay for it over two or three years, just like it does with every cost.

Or, to put it another way, £2,200 is roughly the cost of diesel for driving one of these lorries about 6,000 miles. Which is probably 2% of the mileage expected out of an engine.

If any business can't cope with an increase in input costs of 1% to 2%, then it's probably going to fail anyway.


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> Frankly it would have been quicker for you to find it, since you knew what you were looking for, than it was to moan about it.
> 
> Here it is
> 
> ...


Suggest you actually read the figures given.


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> Suggest you actually read the figures given.


£2,200 per lorry is your number, not mine. Which bit of my analysis is wrong?


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> £2,200 per lorry is your number, not mine. Which bit of my analysis is wrong?


Read it all, then give the figure.


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> Read it all, then give the figure.


If you really can't be bothered, I shall have to assume that you don't have an answer.


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> If you really can't be bothered, I shall have to assume that you don't have an answer.


Part of the thread title is a clue, the rest is there for all to read.


----------



## theclaud (3 Mar 2015)

classic33 said:


> Part of the thread title is a clue, the rest is there for all to read.


Any chance of leaving the weird riddle stuff in the Cafe where it belongs?


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

theclaud said:


> Any chance of leaving the weird riddle stuff in the Cafe where it belongs?


Simple then.
Read what was posted. Its there in plain sight.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Oh well, suit yourself. If you have no interest in thinking about how these things work in anything other than black and white terms, then you probably have nothing to offer of any use anyway.





srw said:


> If you really can't be bothered, I shall have to assume that you don't have an answer.



ROFL, Put down the keyboard & walk away from the computer, there is just no way of having a proper discussion with you guys, you make me chuckle you does.


----------



## Wobblers (3 Mar 2015)

subaqua said:


> no they are not . look at any rigid chassis lorry. same design for a box on the back for parcels , or a tipper body . or as a container lorry. so there's no legs in that argument.



The standard lorry body plan then - which reduces costs, and maximises the load carrying capacity - which also reduces costs. Reducing costs is definitely to the construction industry's benefit.



> and banksman is for one reason. stopping the lorry going down the hole, tipping over on the bank of earth etc . the people protection is a secondary role as much as we hate it that way.



If a lorry were to cause a fatal accident on site the result would be that the HSE close the site down and investigate with a view to prosecution. That has absolutely nothing to do with it?



> as for the cost one on retractable guards , ok say they cost a grand each , and you have a fleet of 100 vehicles , fitting them overnight ( like some hint at here) is not only impossible physically but also financially . or should we just shut everything down ? thats reasonably practicable isn't it !



My apologies for so wilfully dismembering your post, but I've left this to last because it so perfectly illustrates my point (and theClaud's, and Adrian's, and Origamist's, and...) Your objections boil down to one thing, and one thing only: cost. You are saying that it is too expensive to fit even these most basic of safety measures. In other words, we should all have to put up with more dangerous roads just so your industry can enjoy marginally better profits.


----------



## srw (3 Mar 2015)

Phaeton said:


> ROFL, Put down the keyboard & walk away from the computer, there is just no way of having a proper discussion with you guys, you make me chuckle you does.


Yes there is - and it's what I was trying. But it takes two to tango. @classic33 wasn't playing.


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2015)

srw said:


> Yes there is - and it's what I was trying. But it takes two to tango. @classic33 wasn't playing.


Selective reading by you does not mean a mistake by me.

You were told to read what you posted, but chose to stop, when it suited you. 
How would me reposting it make it any clearer to see?


----------



## slowmotion (4 Mar 2015)

I don't understand why side guards are put forward as a major expense. What does a "dogs danglies" sheet of 18mm Finnish Birch ply cost these days? £100? You probably only need one sheet cut lengthwise to cover both sides of a tipper truck. Fixing the sheets is the work of about 45 minutes to a motivated Polish builder with an 18 volt drill and a pocketful of long self-tapping screws. It really isn't a big deal. If it grounds on a construction site and gets bashed up, stick on another.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Mar 2015)

Boris Johnson's party benefits from large donations from the road freight and construction injuries. The last time there was a spate od cyclists' deaths involving lorries Boris decried the cyclists' habit of wearing earphones, despite earphones not being implicated in a single death. Now, after some reflection, he has a new idea. Wave your arms like Simon Rattle:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-london-mayor-boris-johnson#comment-48351231

That's Boris's idea to save cyclists. He can't bring himself to even mention his own evidence of the rampant lawlessness among hauliers.

Mary Bowers was in an ASL box, waiting at the lights, where she was supposed to be. The lorry driver behind her failed to notice and rolled over her effectively ending her life:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 631594.ece

It was the same with Sebastien Lukomski, waiting at the lights, doing nothing wrong, killed by a tipper driver who failed to notice him:

http://ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/seb.html



Both cyclists doing NOTHING wrong, yet were killed by lorry drivers who weren't paying attention. Don't forget to wave your arms.


----------



## Origamist (4 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3569182, member: 9609"]Sadly I doubt any of those changes will make any notable differences to the current unacceptable cyclist / lorry situation. And I will be surprised if any regular driver thinks otherwise. But I do hope you are right. Sad so little is being done so far in the future.[/QUOTE]

I think you are underestimating the benefits of greatly improved “direct vision” from the cab – this is a major change in HGV design as it provides much better visibility to the front and front left (or right in Europe) of the cab. This is where the majority of cyclist/HGV fatalities occur. What’s more, it’s not just about cyclists – these changes will benefit pedestrians, motorcyclists, and drivers. Road danger from HGVs will be reduced, but certainly not eliminated.


----------



## Origamist (4 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3569681, member: 9609"]I am sure we are both speaking from great experience in driving such vehicles, I hope you're right and I hope I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

That's hardly likely as the new "direct vision" designs are still some way off, unfortunately.


----------



## Origamist (4 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3569710, member: 9609"]Obviously - but that is not what I meant. how much experience do you have of driving the current vehicles ?[/QUOTE]

As previously mentioned up thread: none whatsoever, but we're discussing future developments, not the current state of poor direct visibility and compromised cab shape.

I'm struggling to understand why you believe the improved cab design will not, 'notably' help the driver and save lives as a result? Could you elaborate?


----------



## benb (4 Mar 2015)

Does any evidence exist showing how many of these sorts of incidents are caused by the cyclist going up the inside of a left turning vehicle, and how many caused by a driver left hookng the cyclist?

I see a lot of comments about how it's the cyclist's fault for putting themselves in that position, but very little evidence to show how frequently that is the case.

Given that we already know that overall the motorist is solely to blame in the majority of cyclist-motorist collisions, I simply find it hard to accept that there is something about HGVs that means cyclists have an uncontrollable urge to throw themselves under the wheels.

In any case, even if it usually the fault of the cyclist, that doesn't mean we should shy away from real safety improvements, which could come from road design, physical separation at junctions, better vehicle design, cyclist and motorist training and information campaigns, etc.


----------



## jarlrmai (4 Mar 2015)

CCTV might show it.


----------



## gavintc (4 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I don't understand why side guards are put forward as a major expense. What does a "dogs danglies" sheet of 18mm Finnish Birch ply cost these days? £100? You probably only need one sheet cut lengthwise to cover both sides of a tipper truck. Fixing the sheets is the work of about 45 minutes to a motivated Polish builder with an 18 volt drill and a pocketful of long self-tapping screws. It really isn't a big deal. If it grounds on a construction site and gets bashed up, stick on another.


With that engineering insight, you will be snapped by VOSA.


----------



## zimzum42 (4 Mar 2015)

They're covering this on the C4 news right now - where do they find these people who talk on behalf of cyclists????


----------



## Origamist (4 Mar 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> They're covering this on the C4 news right now - where do they find these people who talk on behalf of cyclists????



They are hand-picked from contributors with 10000 or more posts CC's Society, Culture and Politics sub forum...


----------



## theclaud (4 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> They are hand-picked from contributors with 10000 or more posts CC's Society, Culture and Politics sub forum...



 Quite right, too.


----------



## benb (5 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3570257, member: 45"]https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/independent-front-page-story-on-cycle-deaths.74982/page-3[/QUOTE]

Great, thanks


----------



## 4F (6 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3569193, member: 9609"]As for the side underun protection, the solution is really simple - make it a condition of the planning consent for any project that all vehicles entering must be fitted with them, the builders and the hauliers will soon come up with a solution no matter what the cost.[/QUOTE]

That system is already in place, FORS registration which comes in 3 categories (Gold, Silver and Bronze) which many building sites now insist hauliers must be part of so more and more haulage companies are becoming registered.

I am in the industry and it was refreshing that in the tender stage of a quote that we did this week not only was FORS bronze a minimum requirement, but also that all drivers must have attended a cycle awareness course before they would be allowed on site..


----------



## glenn forger (6 Mar 2015)

The poster who claimed to have witnessed the whole thing and blamed the cyclist has disappeared and has ignored police requests to contact them:



> 'SteveHunter' replied 'Noted, will contact you.'
> 
> Sadly SteveHunter has not contacted me, or any of my team investigating this sad incident.
> 
> ...



http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=94319&start=225


----------



## glenn forger (6 Mar 2015)

PK99 said:


> from the eyewitness report from another cyclist (CTC forum) : The lorry, which I was behind, was already manoeuvring when the cyclist passed me on the left and then tried to pass the lorry on the left hand side



It seems he wasn't an eyewitness at all.


----------



## Origamist (6 Mar 2015)

HGV and cyclist collisions discussed in the House of Lords:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-03-05a.414.0


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2015)

zimzum42 said:


> They're covering this on the C4 news right now - where do they find these people who talk on behalf of cyclists????


You could do it too. All you need to do is lead a protest disorganisation of 3000 or so people taking direct action, marching through the streets and lying in the road in central London a few times a year.

Come on, didn't you love the some-riders-are-as-bad-as-ISIS cab driver speaking against her?


----------



## zimzum42 (9 Mar 2015)

It was a pretty jolly session, indeed. Plus Snow pretending to be impartial...


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Mar 2015)

Not sure if this has been covered already, but i understand that TFL are introducing a Safer Lorries Scheme from September 2015.

Highlights are:


> Under the scheme, vehicles over 3.5 tonnes that are currently exempt will be required to:
> 
> 
> Be fitted with Class V and Class VI mirrors giving the driver a better view of cyclists and pedestrians around their vehicles
> ...


More details here


----------



## Dan B (8 Oct 2015)

http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-summonsed-to-court-re-fatal-collision-sw1-132249

The lorry driver has now been summonsed for causing death by careless driving


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> As I said in the other thread about this, I hope those on here who prejudged the cyclist as being stupid and careless and therefore to blame will think carefully about what that says about them.



If people have been saying that - then it is inexcusable, however perhaps they were suggesting correct defensive riding techniques to lessen the likelihood of this happening rather than saying she got what she deserved?


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> If people have been saying that - then it is inexcusable, however perhaps they were suggesting correct defensive riding techniques to lessen the likelihood of this happening rather than saying she got what she deserved?


A lot was ambiguous but, in this context, making statements like "this unfortunate soul missed all the warning & continued on" or calling to " better educate cyclists on the dangers somehow" seemed clearly to be blaming the deceased.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> A lot was ambiguous but, in this context, making statements like "this unfortunate soul missed all the warning & continued on" or calling to " better educate cyclists on the dangers somehow" seemed clearly to be blaming the deceased.



Being a pragmatist I believe that better cycling education and awareness of danger is a brilliant thing to aim for - I certainly would recommend it to everyone. However, I don't think it is victim blaming after all the onus is on driver not to hit the cyclist as much as it is for the cyclist to adhere to the rules of the road.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> as much as it is for the cyclist to adhere to the rules of the road


 We don't know if the cyclist here failed to "adhere to the rules of the road" and even filtering on the left would still be adherent, so I feel that's another odd thing to say in the context.

Good cycling education is great but we're never going to cover 100%, there shouldn't be a death penalty for a cyclist even if someone screws up and this all seems rather off-topic here.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> We don't know if the cyclist here failed to "adhere to the rules of the road" and even filtering on the left would still be adherent, so I feel that's another odd thing to say in the context.
> 
> Good cycling education is great but we're never going to cover 100%, there shouldn't be a death penalty for a cyclist even if someone screws up and this all seems rather off-topic here.



As you well know it is not really been fully proven that filtering (especially at junctions) is legal http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling
I was not trying to suggest that the cyclist was in fact breaking any law, but was trying to say that any cyclist obeying the law should expect to be safe. I 100% agree that a death penalty for a mistake on either side is not appropriate but I do think that the cyclist has a role to play in minimising the chance of that death. Also I agree that I have taken the conversation off topic.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2015)

I disagree, suggest cyclelaw has an interest in suggesting there's uncertainty that needs to be settled in court and leave this here so we can await further developments on the main topic.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> As you well know it is not really been fully proven that filtering (especially at junctions) is legal http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling



Filtering is entirely legal. There is no doubt whatsoever.


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> As you well know it is not really been fully proven that filtering (especially at junctions) is legal http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling
> .....


Try reading your own source - "*Although it is legal to filter on a bicycle*, it can be inferred from the motorcyclist cases that where cyclists are found to have been filtering in a way deemed to be ‘bad practice’ when a collision takes place, there is strong chance of a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist." (My bold.)


----------



## Shaun (9 Oct 2015)

Please be considerate of the fact that this thread is about a specific (and ongoing) case. If you want to discuss filtering, roadcraft (or the lack thereof), dirver and cyclist responsibility, etc. in more general terms then please start a new thread.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Origamist (20 Apr 2016)

"Alan Warwick, 61, of Rayleigh, Essex, admitted causing Hitier-Abadie’s death by careless driving at Southwark Crown Court last month. The cyclist was killed while riding a Boris Bike when Warwick, whose vehicle was involved in Crossrail works near Victoria Station, struck her during morning rush hour. Witnesses at the time reported seeing the bike crushed beneath the truck's wheels. The court that Hitier-Abadie had died instantly.

Warwick was busy tidying his cab at the time of the collision and had failed to indicate left at the junction of Bressenden Place and Victoria Street.

Sentence: community order of 160 hours’ unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 12 months...

http://road.cc/content/news/186812-...list-spared-jail-after-victims-husband-pleads


----------



## benb (20 Apr 2016)

Pretty pathetic.
I could accept the lack of a custodial sentence if the disqualification was a meaningful length, but the judge has gone for the minimum level of disqualification allowed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> Sentence: community order of 160 hours’ unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 12 months...



Yeah, that'll teach him and any other careless truck drivers out there.

GC


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Apr 2016)

User said:


> I know - pitiful.
> 
> I'm going to drop a line to the CPS to see if they'll appeal the undue leniency.



You could, but as death by careless is an either way offence - triable at magistrates or crown court - it is not possible for the CPS to appeal an unduly lenient sentence.

Although there's never any harm in demonstrating public disquiet about a sentence.


----------



## Blue Hills (20 Apr 2016)

yes, I seem to recall that.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> I wonder what happened to that witness, the one who saw her ignore the left-indicating warning because she was on her phone?



I think he deleted much of his eye witness post on another forum, and didn't respond to what appeared to be a genuine request from the officer in charge of the investigation to get in touch.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Apr 2016)

User said:


> As the case was heard at the Crown Court then Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies and the case can be appealed by the CPS.



Part IV of CJA 1988 gives a list of offences which can be referred, many sexual and drugs related, but death by careless is not among them.

Otherwise, it's indictable only offences - ones which can only be tried in the crown court.

Death by careless can be heard in magistrates.

This one wasn't, but that's irrelevant for this purpose.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/unduly_lenient_sentences/


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Apr 2016)

The CPS guidance is quite clear 'indictable only', which I think is what they will rely on.

If you can steer them in another direction, all well and good - and it would be a good achievement as well.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Apr 2016)

User said:


> Quite right, the judge appears to have been unduly influenced by the plea from the widower and extended that from custodial sentence to meaningful sentence whatsoever.



My reading of his reported comments is that he'd already decided on a lenient penalty and the widower's plea for leniency confirmed his judgement.


GC


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4244990, member: 9609"]you would think that snippet would guarantee a custodial sentence! driving a 32t truck in heavy traffic amongst roadworks in a built up area and he was 'tidying his cab'?.

Prosecutor Ian Paton said: "She was visible and obvious, her coat was billowing behind her as she moved, *she was bare-legged*. She was manifestly visible. It seems he does now accept that he was tidying his cab and not focussing as he should have been on the surrounding conditions."

and what exactly has 'bare-legged' got to do with anything.

was this actually a real court ?[/QUOTE]

When a case is opened, there will be some descriptive passages.

For example, I recall a murder in which a husband did his wife with a hammer as she was sitting on the sofa.

The prosecutor said: "He brought the hammer down with such force that pieces of unfortunate victim's skull were later found embedded in the ceiling."

One could ask: "What's bits of her skull got to do with it?"

But the alternative: "He used a hammer to cause a fatal head injury" is flat and dull in comparison, particularly when you are trying to hold the attention of a jury.


----------



## Blue Hills (20 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> Never underestimate the mad things trolls will say to make themselves feel important.


????


----------



## Blue Hills (20 Apr 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> I think he deleted much of his eye witness post on another forum, and didn't respond to what appeared to be a genuine request from the officer in charge of the investigation to get in touch.


Ah, this rings a bell, eventually.i seem to remember seeing the post, and a police officer coming onto whatever forum it was asking for more info.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Apr 2016)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recr...-courts-so-soft-on-drivers-who-kill-cyclists/


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Apr 2016)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recr...-courts-so-soft-on-drivers-who-kill-cyclists/




Some sentences are perverse. Can you imagine a driver getting a 3 month prison sentence for a non-contact, no injury SMIDSY on a cyclist? Not farkin' likely.. but do that to another car driver...


GC


----------

