# Should truck drivers have their licences suspended for using mobile phones?‏



## classic33 (8 May 2014)

From Commercial Motor
_"The Traffic Commissioners believe truck drivers should have their licences automatically suspended for three weeks if caught using mobile phones at the wheel: is this the right course of action?
Tell us your views in May’s Trucking Britain survey."_

Results to be revealed in the 5th June issue of Commercial Motor.


----------



## ColinJ (8 May 2014)

My sister phoned me yesterday on her way back from work. I asked her if she was driving and she said yes, she was on the M1.

I suggested that it wasn't a brilliant idea (or legal!) to be phoning while driving. She replied that it was ok, she had got a new bluetooth headset so it was a hands-free call.

I was just about to point out that the biggest problem is the distraction caused by using phones when driving, not the act of holding them, when she suddenly exclaimed ... "_Damn - I have just driven straight past my turn off and it is miles to the next junction!_"

QED!


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 May 2014)

Yes. 

Add Taxi drivers to the list to. And hell, to be fair, police, Ambo and fire too if you want.


----------



## classic33 (8 May 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> Yes.
> 
> Add Taxi drivers to the list to. And hell, to be fair, police, Ambo and fire too if you want.


 Thats whats coming up on trucknet, along with bus drivers, van drivers, car drivers.


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 May 2014)

The interesting question would be, if any of the chosen groups were off duty, driving their private cars on a shopping trip to tesco and we're caught, do people think the same penalty should apply?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (8 May 2014)

ColinJ said:


> My sister phoned me yesterday on her way back from work. I asked her if she was driving and she said yes, she was on the M1.
> 
> I suggested that it wasn't a brilliant idea (or legal!) to be phoning while driving. She replied that it was ok, she had got a new bluetooth headset so it was a hands-free call.
> 
> ...


 
In that case i best remove all my passenger seats.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 May 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> The interesting question would be, if any of the chosen groups were off duty, driving their private cars on a shopping trip to tesco and we're caught, do people think the same penalty should apply?


 

I don't think it matters what the occupation of the offender is, the punishment should be the same across the board and I'd welcome the courts imposing a three-week ban on _anyone_ caught using the phone.

That said, the deterrent effect of such a policy is directly related to the likelihood of being caught; we need more police out there.

GC


----------



## classic33 (8 May 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> The interesting question would be, if any of the chosen groups were off duty, driving their private cars on a shopping trip to tesco and we're caught, do people think the same penalty should apply?


Yes


----------



## stowie (8 May 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I don't think it matters what the occupation of the offender is, the punishment should be the same across the board and I'd welcome the courts imposing a three-week ban on _anyone_ caught using the phone.
> 
> That said, the deterrent effect of such a policy is directly related to the likelihood of being caught; we need more police out there.
> 
> GC



HGVs are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. They are operating a vehicle which is huge and has problems with blind spots as it is, without the added distraction of mucking around with a mobile. Bluetooth headsets are as cheap as £20 or so, no excuse for not using one if they need to operate a phone in the cab. Because they are operating such dangerous machinery with limited visibility, I think it is proper that the penalty for using a mobile phone (or speeding or that matter) should be greater than someone in a car for instance. And the police realistically won't be everywhere, I would impose much stricter penalties for this law breaking to act as a real deterrent, if the driver realised that they wouldn't be working for a few months if caught they may decide against it.

On a related note, going through London the use of mobile phones by vehicle users of all types is staggering. I have frequently been behind car drivers who are stationary at a green light because they are busy on the phone and then suddenly realise and shoot forward with no glance around them. On tailbacks on the mile end road I reckon I often see well over 25% of drivers fiddling with mobiles. Closest I have been to being knocked off on the bike have all involved car drivers on mobiles who clearly haven't looked before setting off.


----------



## Tyke (9 May 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> The interesting question would be, if any of the chosen groups were off duty, driving their private cars on a shopping trip to tesco and we're caught, do people think the same penalty should apply?


Yes and I also agree with your other post adding the police ect, nice to hear that from a PC but it only works for those stopped. My local By Pass is used for police training on a regular basis with a small group usually there all day stopping people for speeding, but if you stand there for more than a few minutes you can see many people using phones driving by unnoticed.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 May 2014)

I get the impression many of the worst killers on London's roads use mobiles. Worse, I think that often the drivers are being treated as available to talk by the companies they work for. The pressure of constant availability comes from above. Phone offences should be enforced at the level of operator licences.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2014)

Apologies for going slightly OT here but I'd also like to see an end to the common practice of television presenters doing pieces to on-board camera while driving. For some reason the camera is commonly placed on the passenger seat, requiring the presenter to frequently take his eyes off the road for long periods as he does his spiel. 

Ironically, this is often done while reporting on bad driving habits.


GC


----------



## martint235 (9 May 2014)

In a completely unscientific survey (ie counting on my way home from work) I find that the closer a car is to the right hand side of the lane, the more likely the driver is on a mobile phone. I would have expected them to be closer to the left hand side as I'm guessing they know they are doing wrong and would therefore over compensate to get them out of harm's way.

Off course you do get the odd twunt who is bang on the lane divider just to stop bikes filtering past.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (9 May 2014)

User13710 said:


> Not a valid comparison I'm afraid. A passenger is sharing the experience of being in the car, whereas a conversation with someone who is absent has different effects on the driver who is taking part in the conversation. There is research about this if you look for it.


 
Ahh, you haven’t met my passengers.


----------



## sidevalve (9 May 2014)

The problem is not punishment but enforcement of existing laws HOWEVER [OK a tiny bit OT here] I do have one question IF a cyclist is stopped fpr [for example] jumping a red light should they be banned too ? Now don't kick off without thinking here it's not the damage YOU may do but the accident you may cause by someone having to dodge you. For one group to bang on and on about everybody else being punished for breaking the law and basically have no fears themselves is just a tiny bit hippocritical. Do I agree phone users should be punished - of course. Do I think cyclists should act as some sort of secret police [and in 99% of cases have no fear of any retribution if THEY do anything wrong, and please don't try to mention the almost non existant fines for dangerous cycling or whatever] well no too.


----------



## martint235 (9 May 2014)

sidevalve said:


> The problem is not punishment but enforcement of existing laws HOWEVER [OK a tiny bit OT here] I do have one question IF a cyclist is stopped fpr [for example] jumping a red light should they be banned too ? Now don't kick off without thinking here it's not the damage YOU may do but the accident you may cause by someone having to dodge you. For one group to bang on and on about everybody else being punished for breaking the law and basically have no fears themselves is just a tiny bit hippocritical. Do I agree phone users should be punished - of course. Do I think cyclists should act as some sort of secret police [and in 99% of cases have no fear of any retribution if THEY do anything wrong, and please don't try to mention the almost non existant fines for dangerous cycling or whatever] well no too.


I think there should be a period of zero tolerance. 

In summer, the police could recruit all those people who take short term jobs over Xmas with the Royal Mail and have a 6 week crack down on all traffic offences: RLJ by motor or bike; mobile phone use by driver or cyclist; riding on pavements; parking on pavements etc. Unfortunately there's probably a legal hurdle to this but hey ho.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (9 May 2014)

It has a to take shock tactics to start people obeying laws. Yes, 6 month ban, no leniency.


----------



## numbnuts (9 May 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> It has a to take shock tactics to start people obeying laws. Yes, 6 month ban, no leniency.


....and their phoned crushed


----------



## Accy cyclist (22 May 2014)

Add to the list tractor drivers! I live in a semi rural area and during the spring and summer these things don't half hold up the traffic,having conveys of vehicles following them. If you manage to eventually overtake them you'll find many of them are blabbing away on their phones. The trailers they pull are wider than the vehicle they're supposed to be in charge of but these dimwhits are more likely to be telling their country bumpkin mates how many sheep they've sh.gg.d rather than watching out for that trailer wiping out a cyclist!


----------



## marknotgeorge (22 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3070801, member: 9609"]...and there should be no leniency if your job depends on your licence.[/QUOTE]

There shouldn't be any leniency at all, for anyone. If your job, or your wellbeing (or that of anyone else in your care) depends on having a driving licence, sodding well drive properly.


----------



## Trevor_P (22 May 2014)

Speaking as an lgv driver with 30 years under my belt, the traffic commissioner has held the right to revoke vocational licences for a few years now. There is no need to make it mandatory, rather invest the effort in proper policing so that common sense can be used. 

Regarding the disproportionate number of pedestrian and cyclist deaths involving lgvs, there were 14 cyclists killed in London last year, of which 9 involved lgvs. How many drivers were charged? None. 

Driving in London on a regular basis, I probably have a couple of near misses every year. And I am a courteous professional driver who tries to do things the right way. I see cyclists who are tired and exhausted failing to think about what they are doing, putting themselves in harms way. Many not even realising they are doing it. The same goes for pedestrians and other drivers. 

Anything that takes your mind off of the task that is driving, be it mobile phones, iPhones, chatty passengers, eating, the radio etc should be avoided.

Forward thinking is vital, but many don't even know what it is let alone practice it.


----------



## TheDoctor (22 May 2014)

Difference is, if I as a cyclist don't concentrate, I get hurt.
If a lorry driver doesn't concentrate, I die. And we see it all too often.


----------



## TheDoctor (22 May 2014)

Peter Armstrong said:


> In that case i best remove all my passenger seats.


Oh, don't be a dick. If your driving has deteriorated that much since you passed your test, then just stop driving!


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

TheDoctor said:


> Difference is, if I as a cyclist don't concentrate, I get hurt.
> If a lorry driver doesn't concentrate, I die. And we see it all too often.


The point is that often the cyclist or pedestrian doesn't concentrate, gets in a position where the lgv driver cannot see them, with the inevitable terrible consequences. Cyclists and pedestrians in general need to be more aware of the blind spots associated with lgv's and STAY out of them, no matter how much of a hurry they are in or how safe they perceive their actions to be.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (23 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> The point is that often the cyclist or pedestrian doesn't concentrate, gets in a position where the lgv driver cannot see them, with the inevitable terrible consequences. Cyclists and pedestrians in general need to be more aware of the blind spots associated with lgv's and STAY out of them, no matter how much of a hurry they are in or how safe they perceive their actions to be.


 I agree entirely with the sentiment but in practice how do you propose to educate every, even once in a blue moon, cyclist as to where the blind spots are. It is obvious to you and fellow LGV drivers where the weaknesses of lorry design and visibility are, but not to the likes of me who has never sat in one. I tend to go for the keep well out of the way and don't filter strategy to stay safe but every single day in all modes of transport from walking to the biggest of trucks I see selfish, me first behaviour that makes me cringe in fear for the worst case scenario. It includes trucks bullying their way through against their right of way vs smaller vehicles or seeming to assume because I'm on a bike there will be room for us both at the same time & they don't need to wait for me to clear a narrow / obstruction point.

people are unaware, some are selfish d**kheads who will always go 'me first' regardless, but without showing someone, how can you expect them to understand the problems they cause you or the peril they put themselves in. To do what you want without hearts and minds requires either total segregation (not going to happen) or the banning / draconian legal enforcement of one type of vehicle 'supremecy' over others and imposition of first and second class citizens on the roads.

Also though as much as educating people about the troubles of poor visibility from a high cab, there should be quid pro quo of having drivers of such vehicles forced to be on a bike within a foot or so of a moving wheel nearly as tall as they are to understand what it feels like to have something bearing down on you with no intention of waiting or slowing when you're already quite rightly mid manoeuvre or traversing a line of parked cars, delivery truck etc.


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

The problem for the LGV driver with regard to visibility is that Blind spots are EXACTLY that. People who don't drive just don't understand or those who don't care. It's when the truck is stationary or slow moving that the problem becomes worse. LGV's may appear to take up strange positions at some junctions, even 50 yards away from the junction. They are not doing it to be awkward or to bully. They are doing it for safety, to PREVENT other road users from putting themselves in a vulnerable position, and to take the optimum route through the junction, roundabout or whatever the obstacle ahead is. In most cabs there are six mirrors for the driver, but you can only look at one at a time. The dangerous places to be are either side of the cab, close in front of the cab, and right behind the trailer. The number of times I've gone to pull away at traffic lights only to see a cyclist who has crept up the nearside and is sitting directly in the nearside blind spot; pull away in front of me is frightening. Knowing the width of the truck, and observing the mirrors for hazards whilst stationary, you still miss the odd one or two every year. A slipped gear, a pedal clipped kerb and the cyclist would be off and under the truck without the driver even knowing about it.

I understand that there are impatient truck drivers out there too, but they are the exception and need reporting. They are idiots that shouldn't be on the road. And there are more of them than many care to admit. 

I'll take some photo's of the visibility from a typical cab so you get some idea. In the meantime, next time you see a truck, and you even have to think whether or not its OK to squeeze alongside, Don't. Just wait behind for your own safety.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> Cyclists and pedestrians in general need to be more aware of the blind spots associated with lgv's and STAY out of them, no matter how much of a hurry they are in or how safe they perceive their actions to be.


 
It's not the responsibility of pedestrians and others to make up for a vehicle's blind spots, that's the responsibility of the driver.

I have blind spots in my car and it's up to me to make sure before, for example, changing lanes, that there isn't another vehicle in my blind spot. I don't put the onus on others to keep out of that zone.

GC


----------



## theclaud (23 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> The problem for the LGV driver with regard to visibility is that Blind spots are EXACTLY that. People who don't drive just don't understand or those who don't care. It's when the truck is stationary or slow moving that the problem becomes worse. LGV's may appear to take up strange positions at some junctions, even 50 yards away from the junction. They are not doing it to be awkward or to bully. They are doing it for safety, to PREVENT other road users from putting themselves in a vulnerable position, and to take the optimum route through the junction, roundabout or whatever the obstacle ahead is. In most cabs there are six mirrors for the driver, but you can only look at one at a time. The dangerous places to be are either side of the cab, close in front of the cab, and right behind the trailer. The number of times I've gone to pull away at traffic lights only to see a cyclist who has crept up the nearside and is sitting directly in the nearside blind spot; pull away in front of me is frightening. Knowing the width of the truck, and observing the mirrors for hazards whilst stationary, you still miss the odd one or two every year. A slipped gear, a pedal clipped kerb and the cyclist would be off and under the truck without the driver even knowing about it.
> 
> I understand that there are impatient truck drivers out there too, but they are the exception and need reporting. They are idiots that shouldn't be on the road. And there are more of them than many care to admit.
> 
> I'll take some photo's of the visibility from a typical cab so you get some idea. In the meantime, next time you see a truck, and you even have to think whether or not its OK to squeeze alongside, Don't. Just wait behind for your own safety.



_Trans:_ These vehicles are unfit to share our roads, so we expect more vulnerable road users (ie everybody) to simply stay out of the way.


----------



## stuee147 (23 May 2014)

i think yes and also i agree with others that it should be the same for all no exceptions.
i do think phones are a big distraction but the so can a radio or cd if your singing along your obviously not fully concentrating on the road and its not that uncommon for an accident to be caused by someone looking for a song or a radio station or even a dvd. maybe we should be aloud to use stuff in our vehicles but if we cause an accident due to lack of concentration you should get your licence taken away for a set time maybe that would make folk think more about what they are doing


----------



## stuee147 (23 May 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's not the responsibility of pedestrians and others to make up for a vehicle's blind spots, that's the responsibility of the driver.
> 
> I have blind spots in my car and it's up to me to make sure before, for example, changing lanes, that there isn't another vehicle in my blind spot. I don't put the onus on others to keep out of that zone.
> 
> GC


 
in a way i have to agree it is mainly the responsibility of the driver but on the other hand i have driven lorry's and trying to compare the blind spots on a car to that of a lorry is silly. in a car you dont really have any blind spots if you move your head and neck. yet in a lorry the only possible way to see all the area is to climb out of the driving seat and lean out of the windows even then you wont be able to see behind you, not only that but the blind spot in a car might hide a bike but the only real way you wouldn't see another car is if you had a neck brace on and couldn't turn your head in which case you shouldn't be driving, yet in a lorry you can very very easily lose sight of a car and even a small van can be hidden. so unless you would expect a lorry driver to keep getting out of his seat and climbing over to the passengers side to hang out the window then i think it is the responsibility of all road users to think about not just what they are doing and where they are but also consider what other folk are doing and how there vehicles are going to move. its called common Curtsey and it makes the difference between a selfish twit on the road who is only concerned about themselves and there own journey and a happy road with folk thinking about others.

stuee


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 May 2014)

stuee147 said:


> in a way i have to agree it is mainly the responsibility of the driver but on the other hand i have driven lorry's and trying to compare the blind spots on a car to that of a lorry is silly.


 
I wasn't comparing the blind spots, I was highlighting the fact that the responsibility for not hitting anyone in that blind spot is the driver's.

GC


----------



## stuee147 (23 May 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I wasn't comparing the blind spots, I was highlighting the fact that the responsibility for not hitting anyone in that blind spot is the driver's.
> 
> GC


but if you was to stand in the inside blindspot or behind a bus or lorry and it was to hit you is that still the drivers fault even though the only way the driver can possibly see that area is for them to get out of there seat and getting out and having a look ???? 
i think if you are using a public highway regardless if your on foot or in a lorry it is YOUR responsibility to watch where you are and where others are. its not just the responsibility of others to watch for you, you have to watch for yourself. 
its like the thread on here about someone seeing a car reversing but still carried on putting full responsibility on the car to stop which it didnt yes it was the drivers fault for not looking but at the same time the cyclist knew what the car was doing so should of made allowances for the car. i dont drive towards a brick wall hoping that the wall will move for me i have to take some responsibility for myself.
personally i think the biggest problem is if you haven't driven a lorry you dont realise just how much room you need to swing round corners ect and you dont realise just how big the blind spots are.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 May 2014)

stuee147 said:


> but if you was to stand in the inside blindspot or behind a bus or lorry


 
How many variants of LGV/PSV are there on our roads? How is everyone supposed know the position and extent all of the blind spots of each of these?



> ...and it was to hit you is that still the drivers fault even though the only way the driver can possibly see that area is for them to get out of there seat and getting out and having a look ????


 
Yes.

Why on earth would a driver move his vehicle into an area where he couldn't see it to be clear? Is he doing this just with his fingers crossed that there's no-one in the way?

GC


----------



## Archie_tect (23 May 2014)

While a lorry driver has to take due care and be alert to those around him, everyone else has a responsibility to not place themselves in a vulnerable place near an articulated lorry or trailer lorry/ caravan/ bendy bus. it's just common sense which people learn by being taught, through experience or by default. Those that don't know this are the vulnerable ones but Darwin had a theory about that.

However! There are some drivers who don't drive cautiously and they are the ones that overtake/ cut up/ turn left in heavy traffic without due care or attention and that is when things get dangerous....taking their driving licence away makes the roads safer.


----------



## stuee147 (23 May 2014)

its easy to know if your in a blind spot if you cant see the driver in his mirrors then he cant see you in them either common sense surely. 
and a driver wouldn't move a vehicle into a bad position but its not uncommon for cars, bikes and i even seen pedestrians seeing a gap just big enough to fit and away they go now if the driver is looking into the other mirror or looking ahead (bear in mind its not like a car where you can see the mirrors in your peripheral vision ) in the second or 2 it takes for someone to slip into that gap in a busy town/city it can be a real nightmare trying to watch everywhere and people do put themselves into sill positions. 
im not trying to say its not the drivers fault all im saying is that its everyone's responsibility to think and consider others and what they can and cant see. 

like it says on the back of a lot of large vehicles, "If you cant see my mirrors i cant see you "

stuee


----------



## Archie_tect (23 May 2014)

GC, the only way to know a driver has seen you is to look at him/her... if you can't see him or her, don't get in the way, or, have a contingency plan to get out of the way if you need to.

The other advantage with seeing the driver of any vehicle is that you can anticipate what they are about to do by the way they are leaning, where they are looking and where their hands are placed on the steering wheel. If you can't see them, never assume it's safe.


----------



## Markymark (23 May 2014)

The fact that it is allowed that a 3 tonne lorry can drive through the narrow streets of London without being able to see directly in front or directly to the side of it shows just how ludicrous the system is.

As it stands, of course the cyclist should be aware and not do these things. What should be happening though is that laws are brought in to ensure lorries CAN see all around it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 May 2014)

Archie_tect said:


> GC, the only way to know a driver has seen you is to look at him/her... if you can't see him or her, don't get in the way, or, have a contingency plan to get out of the way if you need to.


 
This takes us back to TC's point in post #31.

GC


----------



## Archie_tect (23 May 2014)

Certainly applies to the ones with any sense...


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

A 'three tonne lorry,' is in fact a van. Lorries, these days start at 7.5 tonnes. Two axle rigid lorries can gross up to 18 tonnes with four axle artics typically 32 tonnes and six axle artics 44 tonnes. 

Yes they do drive around London at these weights.

I'm giving those who care to read, a heads up regarding safety around these vehicles. I'm certainly not the best driver in the world, but I take my profession seriously. If people choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore sensible advice, that's their choice. 

Saying 'it should be the drivers responsibility' won't do you any good when you are the one laying squashed in the road. Will it? 

For once, listen to the other side and take some notice, because as you point out, there plenty of drivers of there who don't try and drive the right way.


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

Btw the extra long vehicle trials generally don't go into London, as the trailers are up to two meters longer than normal.

Look out for driverless convoy trials on our motorways soon.....


----------



## theclaud (23 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> I'm giving those who care to read, a heads up regarding safety around these vehicles.way.



Thanks, but we've heard it all before. Why don't you try giving the "heads up" to the drivers and companies who are presenting the danger, and ask them what they are going to do about it?


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Thanks, but we've heard it all before. Why don't you try giving the "heads up" to the drivers and companies who are presenting the danger, and ask them what they are going to do about it?



Your choice, your loss.


----------



## theclaud (23 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> Your choice, your loss.


What is my choice? Sharing the roads with unacceptably dangerous vehicles whose operators refuse to take responsibility for them? I don't think so. Besides, your advice is useless - following it won't stop people being killed, because the people doing the killing are refusing to change their behaviour.


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> _Trans:_ These vehicles are unfit to share OUR roads, so we expect more vulnerable road users (ie everybody) to simply stay out of the way.


It's the old argument. In order to get the goods to the shops in town, do you want one LGor twenty transit sized vans? That's twenty for every truck. 
With the associated congestion, pollutio and hand gestures that accompany these.


----------



## Trevor_P (23 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> What is my choice? Sharing the roads with unacceptably dangerous vehicles whose operators refuse to take responsibility for them? I don't think so. Besides, your advice is useless - following it won't stop people being killed, because the people doing the killing are refusing to change their behaviour.


How do you suggest I modify my driving then? Based on what experience?


----------



## theclaud (23 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> It's the old argument. In order to get the goods to the shops in town, do you want one LGor twenty transit sized vans? That's twenty for every truck.
> With the associated congestion, pollutio and hand gestures that accompany these.



It's a false dichotomy, even before you get to macro-economic questions about levels of consumption. If a driver alone can't operate a vehicle safely, it ought to be manned by two people. Construction vehicles take great care not to kill people on site, and then go off and kill people on the roads with impunity. Oh, and truck operators might stop fighting simple demands to make their lorries safer by design. And drivers and operators might stop trying to abdicate their responsibility on cycling forums and elsewhere. Is that enough for you to be going on with?


----------



## Shadowfax (23 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> _Trans:_ These vehicles are unfit to share our roads, so we expect more vulnerable road users (ie everybody) to simply stay out of the way.


I think you are getting the idea.... its known as common sense ...locally !


----------



## theclaud (23 May 2014)

Shadowfax said:


> I think you are getting the idea.... its known as common sense ...locally !


Ah... "common sense". For when thinking seems too much like hard work.


----------



## Shadowfax (23 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Ah... "common sense". For when thinking seems too much like hard work.


Thinking is overated, have you learnt nothing ?


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2014)

Some of the points have already been raised
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/were-at-fault-on-the-roads-over-deaths-involving-hgvs.147255/
Here and on trucknet.


----------



## Trevor_P (24 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's a false dichotomy, even before you get to macro-economic questions about levels of consumption. If a driver alone can't operate a vehicle safely, it ought to be manned by two people. Construction vehicles take great care not to kill people on site, and then go off and kill people on the roads with impunity. Oh, and truck operators might stop fighting simple demands to make their lorries safer by design. And drivers and operators might stop trying to abdicate their responsibility on cycling forums and elsewhere. Is that enough for you to be going on with?



I'm not aware of any operator that doesn't want safer trucks. Nor am I aware of any driver that intentionally goes out to kill people on a daily basis. Improved design has to be usable though. Sticking cameras all over a truck will be useful in preventing damage or injury whilst manoeuvring in tight spaces at delivery points, but their use in everyday driving situations is limited. The time taken to observe and act upon so much info would mean that whatever mirror or camera was looked at first would be rendered or of date by the time the driver decided it was OK to proceed. The six mirrors we have now are right on the limit for providing useful up to date information.

As for abdication of responsibility, surely it makes far more sense for the road user who is ultimately at most risk to get as much education on the topic as they reasonably can in order to avoid the risk?

Simple common sense and not using words that the layman might need a dictionary for.


----------



## Trevor_P (24 May 2014)

As for the suggestion that trucks be double manned, it happens already. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, the drivers are far more likely to be talking about what is going on in their lives than constantly on the look out for obstacles, pedestrians or cyclists.

This would in fact increase the risk to other road users by providing a distraction. Another idea that has not been thought through properly.


----------



## theclaud (24 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> As for the suggestion that trucks be double manned, it happens already. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, the drivers are far more likely to be talking about what is going on in their lives than constantly on the look out for obstacles, pedestrians or cyclists.
> 
> This would in fact increase the risk to other road users by providing a distraction. Another idea that has not been thought through properly.



The suggestion is not about providing companionship for the driver - it's about employing someone whose explicit function is to prevent the vehicle endangering vulnerable road users - most importantly by monitoring the nearside and acting as a banksman when necessary. It's also not a suggestion plucked at random but _a specific response to the complaints of truck drivers_ that it is not possible for a driver alone to monitor all his blind spots and be absolutely sure he is not killing someone. That the same people refuse to take the suggestion seriously suggests, like almost everything else they utter on the subject, that the "it worries us as much as it worries you" line is horse sh*t, and that they would rather continue to transfer the responsibility for the danger they present on to those they endanger.


----------



## Trevor_P (24 May 2014)

Like I said, human nature being what it is....


----------



## theclaud (24 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> Like I said, human nature being what it is....


Whatever you imagine you're on about, it's irrelevant. If someone has (for example) a clear and designated responsibility for ensuring the nearside is clear when turning left, we know who is responsible when a lorry turns left across a cyclist or pedestrian. No arguments. If the company fails to employ such a person so that the driver is unable to monitor the vehicle, the company becomes responsible. If the driver kills someone as a result of disregarding the instructions of such a person, the driver is responsible. If your objection is that people are incapable of doing such a job properly, then firstly I think that's nonsense, and secondly it's another argument that such vehicles operated by such people should not be sharing public roads.


----------



## ColinJ (24 May 2014)

I got held up at a level crossing in Coventry last week and watched a freight train go through. There must have been about 30 or 40 wagons and it struck me that every single one of those was replacing a large truck.



Trevor_P said:


> It's the old argument. In order to get the goods to the shops in town, do you want one LGor twenty transit sized vans? That's twenty for every truck.
> With the associated congestion, pollutio and hand gestures that accompany these.


What I want is 1/20th of a freight train for 90% of the journey, and small electric vehicles (where possible) for the other 10%!

Oh, and use the canal system to transport anything which is not time-critical!


----------



## theclaud (24 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3098310, member: 9609"]*I don't think you have any concept of how important the lorry is within our society,* if we went to some system of a man at walking at every corner of every truck waving a red flag our entire economy would collapse.

I agree much could be done on behalf of the haulage industry to improve safety, but equally other road users need to look after themselves much better than they are currently doing when around these large vehicles.[/QUOTE]

You're entirely wrong. I am quite conscious of the fact that we have created an economy which requires us to move things around a lot, and a very long way. A lot of the moving around of things is utterly pointless except insofar as it sustains the economy that makes it necessary, some of the moving around of things is critical, and some of it is perfectly reasonable but not inherently urgent. Much of it might be done in other ways, as @ColinJ suggests above. No one has suggested the red flag thing, so there's no need to be hysterical. I'd give these sort of arguments more time if people were typically killed by drivers rushing an organ for transplant to a dying child, instead of by people who have just dropped a skip off and are checking their text messages whilst nursing their hangovers, or by people whose bosses demand that they fit in three more loads during a shift in order to maximise their financial advantages at the expense of everyone else's safety.


----------



## Trevor_P (24 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Whatever you imagine you're on about, it's irrelevant. If someone has (for example) a clear and designated responsibility for ensuring the nearside is clear when turning left, we know who is responsible when a lorry turns left across a cyclist or pedestrian. No arguments. If the company fails to employ such a person so that the driver is unable to monitor the vehicle, the company becomes responsible. If the driver kills someone as a result of disregarding the instructions of such a person, the driver is responsible. If your objection is that people are incapable of doing such a job properly, then firstly I think that's nonsense, and secondly it's another argument that such vehicles operated by such people should not be sharing public roads.


The suggestion sounds good at first glance, the problem is that the driver doesn't spend all day turning left where cyclists or pedestrians might be. Having a passenger is a distraction that could cause other incidents to occur. It's like talking on the phone or listening to the radio. 

Not only that, but when the designated person forgets is their responsibility and someone dies as a result, yes there is someone to blame, but it still doesn't help the dead person. 

Personally I believe of you take the responsibility away from the driver, the situation would be worse, nor better.


----------



## Mugshot (24 May 2014)

stuee147 said:


> but if you was to stand in the inside blindspot or behind a bus or lorry and it was to hit you is that still the drivers fault even though the only way the driver can possibly see that area is for them to get out of there seat and getting out and having a look ????
> i think if you are using a public highway regardless if your on foot or in a lorry it is YOUR responsibility to watch where you are and where others are. its not just the responsibility of others to watch for you, you have to watch for yourself.


Many years ago I worked for a national DIY company, one of the stores I worked in had the goods in on the front of the store which meant lorries having to negotiate the car park. Although there was some segregation and plenty of room the fact remained that the public could be in the general vicinity of large delivery vehicles.
One day there was an artic delivering that having got himself organised proceeded to reverse to the warehouse doors. The vehicle had one of those vehicle reversing beeping gizmos. Unfortunately the elderly gentleman that was walking behind the lorry was not only slow but also deaf. He was run over and crushed, I have heard he was decapitated. Following on from this incident, all warehouse managers within the company received banksman training, and drivers of vehicles over a particular size had to report in store before making their final approach to the back door in certain stores which had a similar back door configuration to the store where the incident occurred.
I'm not sure I could blame the elderly gentleman that was killed as you seem to want to, I feel quite sure that had the driver considered what turned out to be the very real consequences of reversing without knowing what was behind him, the elderly gentleman would have been far less likely to have died on the car park of a DIY store.
I have heard that general banksman training is not necessarily a good idea as different operators use different signals and unfamiliar signs can be confusing and dangerous. @theclaud suggestion of a drivers mate seems rather sensible to me for many scenarios.
I am glad that I had already moved on from the branch before the incident occured, I would not have wanted to have been witness to it.


----------



## theclaud (24 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> The suggestion sounds good at first glance, the problem is that the driver doesn't spend all day turning left where cyclists or pedestrians might be. Having a passenger is a distraction that could cause other incidents to occur. It's like talking on the phone or listening to the radio.
> 
> Not only that, but when the designated person forgets is their responsibility and someone dies as a result, yes there is someone to blame, but it still doesn't help the dead person.
> 
> Personally I believe of you take the responsibility away from the driver, the situation would be worse, nor better.



It isn't like talking on the phone, acksherly - there have been studies on the effects on driver concentration of different kinds of possible distraction. And the thing about forgetting is addressed by changing the work culture and obliging people to take responsibility. At the moment nothing much happens to drivers who kill people, or to the companies on whose behalf they are killing, because it isn't seen as their responsibility. If you oblige them to take responsibility and face the consequences, they will stop doing it, and your hypothetical dead person won't need helping, because she'll still be alive. Safety on construction sites has improved beyond measure because it is now taken seriously - presumably whatever you mean by "human nature" doesn't apply there...


----------



## Trevor_P (24 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> It isn't like talking on the phone, acksherly - there have been studies on the effects on driver concentration of different kinds of possible distraction. And the thing about forgetting is addressed by changing the work culture and obliging people to take responsibility. At the moment nothing much happens to drivers who kill people, or to the companies on whose behalf they are killing, because it isn't seen as their responsibility. If you oblige them to take responsibility and face the consequences, they will stop doing it, and your hypothetical dead person won't need helping, because she'll still be alive. Safety on construction sites has improved beyond measure because it is now taken seriously - presumably whatever you mean by "human nature" doesn't apply there...


Construction sites are not a like for like comparison because the construction site is closed to the public. Removing people who don't know what the risks are from the equation. Yet still in 2013 there were 39 fatalities in the UK and 1913 serious injuries. The totals are an improvement over the previous years and an ever decreasing trend.

I'm finished flogging the horse for now.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (24 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> Like I said, human nature being what it is....


 .....paid professionals with a job of work and specific responsibilities will abdicate them in favour of a chat about Corrie or last nights match.

You've got a terribly low opinion of everybody not you haven't you.

you don't think that even for a few moments at each junction a driver and 'spotter' can they be trusted to put aside petty distractions and do what they are paid to do? That says FAR FAR FAR more about the average truck driver (from a fellow drivers view) than it does about the average anybody else.


----------



## Trevor_P (24 May 2014)

It's not when they are at the junction with the cyclist, It's the distraction that will occur at other times that is the problem. They will be together for up to 15 hours (22 if they use double manning under EU regs.) and you seriously expect them not to chat for any of that time? Get real. I've double manned in London plenty of times and I prefer not to do it for my own safety. That's real world experience for you and not some classroom theory.


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 May 2014)

Get them and ban them for the little things to stop them doing the bigger things


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> *Construction sites are not a like for like comparison because the construction site is closed to the public. Removing people who don't know what the risks are from the equation.* Yet still in 2013 there were 39 fatalities in the UK and 1913 serious injuries. The totals are an improvement over the previous years and an ever decreasing trend.
> 
> I'm finished flogging the horse for now.



It's amazing how you can sail so close to The Point and still not get it.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3099202, member: 9609"]*Nothing much happens to any class of driver for killing or maiming on the road, it seems to be some sort of parallel universe where the courts are concerned. So I think you are being unfair to single out truck drivers.*

We do need a change in society that brings the same level of seriousness to our roads as we have on our rails - when someone dies that road should be closed until after the public enquiry, and we don't need sally traffic on radio 2 going giggle giggle there's going to be some chaos there for a few hours. Jeez, some poor sod dies on the roads and the radio reports the delay! That's what is really wrong, not some trucker working hard for a pittance.

I think you are so wrong and unfair to lorry drivers, it is not always the trucker to blame, you would be surprised at how many are super careful in what they do, Yes there could be improvements but also some cyclists need to understand the dangers of big vehicles and stop putting themselves in such stupid places.[/QUOTE]

They are _especially _dangerous, because they are driving a truck. I am not terribly indulgent of motorists as a group, but this thread is about trucks. There's a chain of responsibility of which the driver is an important part. It's also a simple fact that a high proportion of cyclist deaths caused by lorries are due to drivers overtaking and then turning left across the path of the cyclist, and have nothing whatever to do with cyclists putting themselves anywhere, stupid or otherwise.


----------



## Trevor_P (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> They are _especially _dangerous, because they are driving a truck. I am not terribly indulgent of motorists as a group, but this thread is about trucks. There's a chain of responsibility of which the driver is an important part. It's also a simple fact that a high proportion of cyclist deaths caused by lorries are due to drivers overtaking and then turning left across the path of the cyclist, and have nothing whatever to do with cyclists putting themselves anywhere, stupid or otherwise.


If that were the case, then there would be numerous prosecutions of said drivers for careless or dangerous driving. The FACT still remains that this is NOT the case. You have no proof that it is, it's just speculation on your part to justify your argument. As the rules of the road stand, there IS an obligation on cyclists to behave properly at junctions (Highway code rule 73). I couldn't guess at the number of cyclists that ignore this rule and are lucky enough to be spotted by the driver. It's VERY frequent though. Next time I'm in town I'll keep a count, but I might not have enough fingers and toes .


----------



## 333 (25 May 2014)

In answer to the original subject of this thread, yes they should!

There is a roundabout near me that is extremely busy at peak times 7 days a week with 7 main routes all connected to it (6 dual carriageways and 1 single), countless times and I mean I don't have enough fingers to count how many times I see lorries / trucks / artics doing this - I see one approach in the inside lane of the dual carriageway then proceed to drive around half of the roundabout (passing two exits, one a single carriage and the second a main dual carriageway artery to / fom a major city) on the inside lane with no indication as to where they are going at all, once again countless times another driver has come around the roundabout in the outside lane wanting to turn off one of the 7 roads and smashed into the side of the lorry that has failed to indicate because as he can only see the right side (his side) of the lorry he is assuming it is turning off to the left, I've seen it happen myself and I see it extremely often where luckily nobody has come around but the lorry has not indicated, this is lethal driving and its amazing that someone has not been killed yet, all for the sake of putting an indicator on to signal ones intent.

On a not lorry relevant story, yesterday I was descending a small hill near me (30 zone) and I see this elderly guy waiting at the other side of the road to cross (in fairness to him its a busy road and there is no crossing) further down the road, he starts to cross the opposite lane just as a car starts to overtake me, I start to think (as many of us do) what is going to happen next??? so I began slowing down, anyway he waits for the car to go past and then proceeds to walk out right infront of me making me slam the anchors on and swerve around the guy whilst shouting the odd expletive, if it wasen't for the fact that I anticipated it I would have ploughed head long into him at 25-30mph, pedestrians can be stupid too!


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> If that were the case, then there would be numerous prosecutions of said drivers for careless or dangerous driving. The FACT still remains that this is NOT the case. You have no proof that it is, it's just speculation on your part to justify your argument. As the rules of the road stand, there IS an obligation on cyclists to behave properly at junctions (Highway code rule 73). I couldn't guess at the number of cyclists that ignore this rule and are lucky enough to be spotted by the driver. It's VERY frequent though. Next time I'm in town I'll keep a count, but I might not have enough fingers and toes .



We've done this before... a lot. @glenn forger will be able to name many of those killed. Another member of this forum records the circumstances of all reported cyclist deaths and serious injuries caused by collisions in London. A TRL report found drivers solely responsible for collisions in 60-75% of all cases involving adult cyclists. It is the dangerous behaviour of drivers, and not the sometimes risky behaviour of cyclists, that is the issue. The reason it's so important to focus on this with regard to lorries is that the industry is taking a calculated gamble in order to avoid taking responsibility and bearing the costs of the risks it presents. The recent outrage at the number of cyclist deaths in London has caused it not to review the extent of law-breaking and dangerous driving behaviour, to redesign its vehicles or to change its practices, but to repeat and amplify the get-out-of-the-way mantra that underpins its everyday conduct, and to instil fear into vulnerable road users. Effectively, the industry is admitting, and even obligingly _demonstrating_, that its vehicles are unfit to share public roads, and counting on us being sufficiently intimidated to accept this state of affairs. It's sad how many cyclists are prepared to give in to this, and even to collude with the killers by spouting their propaganda on cycling forums.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

333 said:


> yesterday I was descending a small hill near me (30 zone)
> [...]
> 
> , if it wasen't for the fact that I anticipated it I would have ploughed head long into him at *30-35mph,*



You know that 30 is the maximum, right? And that it's your responsibility to anticipate that pedestrians looking to cross the road might. er... cross the road?


----------



## Trevor_P (25 May 2014)

Link to the available statistics. I can provide a link to the highway code which quotes the current law. Unfortunately, we have no means of recording near misses except hearsay. If we did you'd see just how much bad/inconsiderate road use we are obliged to allow for, tolerate and anticipate all the time. Amongst the professional driving community it is a widely discussed topic. It really is a travesty that no other road users are subject to the rigorous scrutiny and training that LGV and PCV drivers are forced to undergo (A good thing). If they were, the number of incidents would fall significantly.


----------



## summerdays (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> If that were the case, then there would be numerous prosecutions of said drivers for careless or dangerous driving. The FACT still remains that this is NOT the case. You have no proof that it is, it's just speculation on your part to justify your argument. As the rules of the road stand, there IS an obligation on cyclists to behave properly at junctions (Highway code rule 73). I couldn't guess at the number of cyclists that ignore this rule and are lucky enough to be spotted by the driver. It's VERY frequent though. Next time I'm in town I'll keep a count, but I might not have enough fingers and toes .


Are you saying lorry drivers don't turn across cyclists!!!

I was cycling in a Bus lane to the left of the line of traffic. Stopped in the ASL, lorry pulled up behind and in main line of traffic (right hand lane). When lights when green, both of us set off going straight on, and he decided to pull over into my lane to stop on double yellows. Luckily I was aware of the danger and realised what could potentially happen and stopped. Otherwise I would have been another accident statistic. I stopped to talk to him and he apologized and said he hadn't seen me. And there are plenty of videos on the web to show that lorry drivers make mistakes (as do cyclists), but it will be the cyclist who comes off worst in both situations. If you carried out a poll on here I suspect you would find that most cyclists had had problems with lorries at junctions even when the cyclist was correctly positioned.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> Link to the available statistics. *I can provide a link to the highway code which quotes the current law. *Unfortunately, we have no means of recording near misses except hearsay. If we did you'd see just how much bad/inconsiderate road use we are obliged to allow for, tolerate and anticipate all the time. Amongst the professional driving community it is a widely discussed topic. It really is a travesty that no other road users are subject to the rigorous scrutiny and training that LGV and PCV drivers are forced to undergo (A good thing). If they were, the number of incidents would fall significantly.



Gee, thanks. I wouldn't have known where to look. The Highway Code is a guidebook - some of its rules are enshrined in law, and you can recognise these by the appearance of the words "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Giving large vehicles room to manoeuvre is, like most of the code, sensible advice. What the Code most certainly isn't is a licence to endanger others, whether they are following its advice or not.

You want some links about who causes the death and injury? Fine. Here's one. Here's another. And another. Here's how, where and by whom people are hit in London.

It's a shame that all this apparently rigorous training doesn't prevent scandalously high levels of law-breaking and rule contravention amongst professional drivers. All drivers should be subject to more rigorous training and constraints, and the more dangerous the class of vehicle, the more rigorous these should be. Pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders etc don't present a comparable danger to others, so should of course not be subject to similar constraints.


----------



## marknotgeorge (25 May 2014)

Sounds to me as if we need a rethink of the Road Traffic Act and other laws so that the same laws apply to all road users, and which reflect the degree of harm a road user's likely to cause another in the case of a collision. I think we might need to do away with the 'death by...' laws and treat them as manslaughter. Maybe then people will think about their road use more and take responsibility.

'Road users' does of course mean cyclists, skateboarders, pedestrians, etc.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

marknotgeorge said:


> Sounds to me as if we need a rethink of the Road Traffic Act and other laws so that the same laws apply to all road users, and which reflect the degree of harm a road user's likely to cause another in the case of a collision. I think we might need to do away with the 'death by...' laws and treat them as manslaughter. Maybe then people will think about their road use more and take responsibility.



Quite. Presumed liability is a no-brainer.


----------



## marknotgeorge (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Quite. Presumed liability is a no-brainer.



Just so long as we're not absolving the more vulnerable road users of all responsibility.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3099115, member: 30090"]Are there any blind spots on a truck?

People go on about them and you have the infamous (although factually incorrect)Tfl vid. I recall my driving days and properly set up mirrors along with the front class IV mirror meant they were not any. Certainly not when I drove. Having said this one does need to check them when pulling away from a junction.[/QUOTE]
The trouble with blind spots is that, self-evidently, you can't see them. (Or should that be self-unevidently?) We have a physiological blind spot in what we regard as our field of vision. It takes an* exercise* to be able to see/not see it. Without the exercise we remain unconscious of what we can't see. There's enough visual information coming to not notice the invisible.

Beyond the physiological blind spots - sides, back of the head, high above and below, in addition to the optical nerve blind spot - there are the physical blind spots that come from having further restrictions placed on what we can see. I have the misfortune to have to do a lot of driving in a small car. I've had to make a special effort to see round what turns out to be a large pair of blind spots in the particular vehicle I'm driving, namely the pillar between windscreen and side windows. Beyond that, of course, there is the rear, the road below, the sky above, what's in front beneath the bonnet, etc, etc. Because we don't have eyes in the back of our head, we need mirrors, which can only partly compensate for the enormity of our blind spots. Sure, you can see more, but the views we get all have blind spots.

In an HGV, the blind spot problem is even more marked. Height can leave a substantial part of the road below unseen, and solid doors obscure information coming from alongside and a lower height, mirrors in artics may be adjusted for optimum vision but all this goes out of the window when turning. And as for what's behind, totally blind, if the ''If you can't see me, I can't see you'' stickers stuck on the rear of many trucks (just alongside the ''Cyclists stay back!'' stickers) are to be believed. You can't do much more than optimise mirrors to reduce blind spots but you'll still have blind spots aplenty.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

marknotgeorge said:


> Just so long as we're not absolving the more vulnerable road users of all responsibility.


There's no reason it shouldn't work all the way down the chain - HGV drivers bear the greatest responsibility because they present the most serious danger, a small child bears no responsibility at all. An adult cyclist who knocks a pedestrian over is responsible. There's no need for all the hedging.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> You know that 30 is the maximum, right? And that *it's your responsibility* to anticipate that pedestrians looking to cross the road might. er... cross the road?



No. It's a shared responsibility. 

I was in the Tufty Club at school and learned how to take responsibility for myself when crossing the road. Yes the drivers using the road also have a responsibility to be alert and to be able to stop in time... but cannot always anticipate a child running out into the road from behind a parked car. 

I was taught to be careful around ice cream vans (my responsibility). Drivers are told to be aware of kiddies running out in the road from behind a parked ice cream van (their responsibility)... so much so, the owners of the ice cram vans would have 'mind that child' painted in big letters in the back of the van. 

We share the roads, and therefore we share the responsibility to keep ourselves and others safe.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> No. It's a shared responsibility.
> 
> *I was in the Tufty Club at school *and learned how to take responsibility for myself when crossing the road. Yes the drivers using the road also have a responsibility to be alert and to be able to stop in time... but cannot always anticipate a child running out into the road from behind a parked car.
> 
> ...



Yes they start the indoctrination early. The message is "cars are dangerous, get out of their way". I was too young for Tufty, of course, but he was an odious little creep. I stand for the right of Willie the Weasel to buy an ice cream on his own without people running him over.


----------



## jonesy (25 May 2014)

Quite. They HSE would have little sympathy for the "shared responsibility" argument if applied to a workplace accident in which one party imposes a risk on another.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Yes they start the indoctrination early. The message is "cars are dangerous, get out of their way". I was too young for Tufty, of course, but he was an odious little creep. *I stand for the right of Willie the Weasel to buy an ice cream on his own without people running him over.*



so what does this mean? 5 or 10 mph speed limits? quilted bumpers? a red flag waving bod walking in front of every vehicle?

You may call Tufty an odious little creep... but he spent a lot less time in hospital than Willie the Weasel did because Tufty could be bothered to take a little responsibility for himself. 

do you have children of your own? if so, what do you teach them about road safety?


----------



## jonesy (25 May 2014)

It's about who should take responsibility. Where else, except on the public highway, can an adult in charge of dangerous machinery, kill a child and the child be held responsible?


----------



## marknotgeorge (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> There's no reason it shouldn't work all the way down the chain - HGV drivers bear the greatest responsibility because they present the most serious danger, a small child bears no responsibility at all. An adult cyclist who knocks a pedestrian over is responsible. There's no need for all the hedging.



Hedging? 



theclaud said:


> Yes they start the indoctrination early. The message is "cars are dangerous, get out of their way". I was too young for Tufty, of course, but he was an odious little creep. I stand for the right of Willie the Weasel to buy an ice cream on his own without people running him over.



How is it supposed to work all the way down the chain if you persist in dismissing the passing on of knowledge and experience to more vulnerable and hence less responsible members of the road using community (thus turning them into more responsible members) as indoctination?


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

jonesy said:


> It's about who should take responsibility. Where else, except on the public highway, can an adult in charge of dangerous machinery, kill a child and the child be held responsible?


I was taught not to run out into the road without looking first because moving vehicles are dangerous. If ALL the responsibility is on the drivers of these moving vehicles... what should we be telling our children about road safety?


----------



## marknotgeorge (25 May 2014)

jonesy said:


> It's about who should take responsibility. Where else, except on the public highway, can an adult in charge of dangerous machinery, kill a child and the child be held responsible?



It's the responsibility of those responsible for the child to teach them about the dangers of the road.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> so what does this mean? *5 or 10 mph speed limits?* quilted bumpers? a red flag waving bod walking in front of every vehicle?
> 
> You may call Tufty an odious little creep... but he spent a lot less time in hospital than Willie the Weasel did because Tufty could be bothered to take a little responsibility for himself.
> 
> do you have children of your own? if so, what do you teach them about road safety?



Ignoring the facetiousness for the moment, why should a speed limit for an area where children play be higher than the speed at which one can confidently state that they will be able to stop if a child runs out from behind a parked car? Usually that means 20mph or below in residential areas where there are parked cars. Personally, I'd do away with the parked cars too, but that's straying even further off topic...


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Ignoring the facetiousness for the moment, *why should a speed limit for an area where children play be higher than the speed at which one can confidently state that they will be able to stop if a child runs out from behind a parked car?* Usually that means 20mph or below in residential areas where there are parked cars. Personally, I'd do away with the parked cars too, but that's straying even further off topic...



it's a fair point.. but i reckon the safe speed limit would a lot less than 20mph.

and yes, it is going off topic. 

IMO... all drivers should have their licences suspended for mobile phone use, regardless of whether they drive for a living, drive to get to work or just drive for leisure..


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

marknotgeorge said:


> *Hedging?*
> 
> How is it supposed to work all the way down the chain if you persist in dismissing the passing on of knowledge and experience to more vulnerable and hence less responsible members of the road using community (thus turning them into more responsible members) as indoctination?



What I mean is that people seem to have difficulty with unqualified statements about their responsibility. It shouldn't be a problem to expect all road users to behave as if they started the day by saying to themselves "I will not kill, injure, or intimidate anyone on the road today". There's no need for a get-out clause.

The answer to your other question is that while we all end up capitulating in some ways to the dominance of the motor car, I think it is wrong to instil fear in children about their everyday environments, _especially where the result of this fear is to perpetuate the danger_; and that we need to make sure we are not killing _anybody's_ children, not just equipping our own to stay out of the way.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> it's a fair point.. *but i reckon the safe speed limit would a lot less than 20mph.*
> 
> and yes, it is going off topic.
> 
> IMO... all drivers should have their licences suspended for mobile phone use, regardless of whether they drive for a living, drive to get to work or just drive for leisure..



If the 5 or 10mph suggestion was not facetious, why follow it with the quilted bumper thing?

And I quite agree about mobile phone use.


----------



## marknotgeorge (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Ignoring the facetiousness for the moment, why should a speed limit for an area where children play be higher than the speed at which one can confidently state that they will be able to stop if a child runs out from behind a parked car? Usually that means 20mph or below in residential areas where there are parked cars. Personally, I'd do away with the parked cars too, but that's straying even further off topic...



Sounds reasonable to me (apart from the parked car bit, but then I live in an Edwardian terrace. You can't safely do more than about 20 here anyway...) Maybe we need to look at the Dutch idea of roads and streets. We need to balance a child's reasonable desire to get an ice cream outside his house with an adult's reasonable desire to get somewhere.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> If the 5 or 10mph suggestion was not facetious, why follow it with the quilted bumper thing?
> 
> And I quite agree about mobile phone use.


Neither is facetious... but the suggestion of the flag waver was. 

I'd rather be hit by a vehicle at 15mph that had a much softer surface on the front than a rigid metal or plastic surface.... in fact I'd rather stop, look and listen than be hit at all.


----------



## summerdays (25 May 2014)

Studies have found that children under the age of 10 (sorry I can't remember the exact details but @Cunobelin can I suspect), can't actually judge the speed of cars correctly at all above certain speeds. Doesn't matter if they know to look out for traffic, if they can't judge the speed correctly then they won't be able to gauge whether it is a safe distance away or not. Either we accept that children don't have responsibility for their safety or we only drive at speeds at which they can judge the speed.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

summerdays said:


> Studies have found that children under the age of 10 (sorry I can't remember the exact details but @Cunobelin can I suspect), can't actually judge the speed of cars correctly at all above certain speeds. Doesn't matter if they know to look out for traffic, if they can't judge the speed correctly then they won't be able to gauge whether it is a safe distance away or not. Either we accept that children don't have responsibility for their safety or we only drive at speeds at which they can judge the speed.


so teach them to wait until it's passed... it's not rocking horse science.


----------



## summerdays (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> so teach them to wait until it's passed... it's not rocking horse science.


How do they cross the road in a busy town/city where there can be almost constant traffic, especially near their school at the time they are travelling to school?


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2014)

summerdays said:


> Studies have found that children under the age of 10 (sorry I can't remember the exact details but @Cunobelin can I suspect), can't actually judge the speed of cars correctly at all above certain speeds. Doesn't matter if they know to look out for traffic, if they can't judge the speed correctly then they won't be able to gauge whether it is a safe distance away or not. Either we accept that children don't have responsibility for their safety or we only drive at speeds at which they can judge the speed.



Link to summary

link to full paper


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> so teach them to wait until it's passed... it's not rocking horse science.



But it is entirely inappropriate and impractical.

I can think of may roads around here where a child would never, ever be able to cross!


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

summerdays said:


> How do they cross the road in a busy town/city where there can be almost constant traffic, especially near their school at the time they are travelling to school?


lollipop person... they had them in my day, regardless of whether or not there was also a zebra or pelican crossing. 

I've managed to never get myself run over and i think that's largely due to being taught some road sense at an early age... but this is all off topic and should really be on a thread of it's own.


----------



## summerdays (25 May 2014)

Lollies are only there for set times, usually about 15 - 30 mins at specific crossing points. There is a shortage of them and many schools don't even have one.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

summerdays said:


> Lollies are only there for set times, usually about 15 - 30 mins at specific crossing points. There is a shortage of them and many schools don't even have one.


well you did quite specifically single out the time when they are travelling to and from school... if a school doesn't have a crossing assistant, then it needs one.. but again, all off topic.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> so teach them to wait until it's passed... it's not *rocking horse science*.





Streets are social spaces. For many children in urban and suburban areas, the street is the centre of their social lives. Why should they be constantly pushed to the sidelines?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> so teach them to wait until it's passed... it's not rocking horse science.


Perhaps it is just that, rocking horse science. Adult consciousness cannot be foisted onto children. So you have to look at how things work at the rocking horse level. Here's a little article about inattentional blindness that I just bumped into - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27538195

It's down to how children develop not how development can be forced onto them. While the UK has a comparatively good record on KSIs on the roads, it's worth remembering that we do badly at killing children on and by the roads.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> lollipop person... they had them in my day, regardless of whether or not there was also a zebra or pelican crossing.
> 
> I've managed to never get myself run over and i think that's largely due to being taught some road sense at an early age... but this is all off topic and should really be on a thread of it's own.




The lollipop person is actually a superb illustration of the real problem facing these areas.

They are difficult to recruit and retain

The most common problem being the abuse from motorists, being driven at and forced to get out of the way and threats from drivers.

Which really raises the question about the attitudes and behaviour of motorists around children and schools

The behaviour is so bad that in some places such as Exeter they are now considering the use of cameras to record the abuse, threats and bad driving


Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

link 4

Link 5


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The lollipop person is actually a superb illustration of the real problem facing these areas.
> 
> They are difficult to recruit and retain
> 
> ...




Lollicam! Brilliant!


----------



## Trevor_P (25 May 2014)

I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I am saying the number of cyclists and car drivers that creep up the blind side of trucks at junctions and roundabouts is very high. Almost a daily occurrence. In my experience. 


summerdays said:


> Are you saying lorry drivers don't turn across cyclists!!!
> 
> I was cycling in a Bus lane to the left of the line of traffic. Stopped in the ASL, lorry pulled up behind and in main line of traffic (right hand lane). When lights when green, both of us set off going straight on, and he decided to pull over into my lane to stop on double yellows. Luckily I was aware of the danger and realised what could potentially happen and stopped. Otherwise I would have been another accident statistic. I stopped to talk to him and he apologized and said he hadn't seen me. And there are plenty of videos on the web to show that lorry drivers make mistakes (as do cyclists), but it will be the cyclist who comes off worst in both situations. If you carried out a poll on here I suspect you would find that most cyclists had had problems with lorries at junctions even when the cyclist was correctly positioned.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I am saying *the number of cyclists and car drivers that creep up the blind side of trucks at junctions and roundabouts is very high. Almost a daily occurrence. In my experience*.



Funny that truck drivers don't learn to anticipate this, then. You might have a little think about the term "blind side" and ask yourself if a large vehicle whose driver describes it as having a "blind side" should be on the road at all.


----------



## summerdays (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I am saying the number of cyclists and car drivers that creep up the blind side of trucks at junctions and roundabouts is very high. Almost a daily occurrence. In my experience.


I agree that they do go up the side of lorries, I would have done so myself perhaps if I hadn't read on a forum warning me of the dangers just when I stared cycling 7 years ago or so. But I've had a number of occasions when lorry drivers have put me in positions of danger, and I've seen them on the phone fairly frequently. They aren't going to spot someone doing anything stupid or even just spot a cyclist if they are looking down at their mobile. They are supposed to be professionals so their behaviour and skill level should be above the average driver. And therefore the penalty for breaking the law should be higher.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3100049, member: 30090"]They do or I did. And blindside is a term not used with respect to what you are referring to.[/QUOTE]
Trevor just used it...


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3100076, member: 30090"]Clever Trevor.

There is the near side and offside, and when reversing, open and blindside.

Stands to reason that if the driver does not check thier mirrors then potentially both the n/s and o/s can become 'blindsides'

Some interesting points been raised. Never thought about the false economy regarding drivers mates Claudine so thanks for that.

I still say that there *no blind spots around the n/s drive axle of the tractor unit and front wheel if your mirrors are set up correctly*. I still say this is down more to driver error. Why the majority have not been proscuted I don't know, and it is a tradegy when this happens, as it would appear that no one is fault which I find hard to accept when someone has died.[/QUOTE]

It's a big "if", and it doesn't address the problem of inadequate design. There was a Brake Bros lorry pulled up in Mumbles the other day (I know, I was shocked too...) with one of those "if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you" stickers. It was this sort:







I was held up by sh1te Mumbles driving anyway, so I decided to stand in a few different places around it, and couldn't see the mirrors from most of them, which effectively turns the sign into "don't come anywhere near me". Of course, I frequently choose to pass quite near such vehicles (on the offside), because there is almost always something loading in that spot, and often a constant stream of oncoming traffic. Part of the point of being on a bike is that you can make progress when cars can't, and that involves passing all kinds of vehicle.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Streets are social spaces. For many children in urban and suburban areas, the street is the centre of their social lives. Why should they be constantly pushed to the sidelines?


I grew up on a relatively quiet street... at the end of that was a busy main road, on the other side of which was my junior school... i played constantly in/on the street on which I grew up... but put myself on the sidelines of the busy main road. In the absence of whatever Utopia you or I envisage, keeping to the sidelines of a busy road is the wise thing to do. Like i say, It's shared responsibility... i look out for them and hopefully they'll look out for me too.


----------



## glenn forger (25 May 2014)

Trevor_P said:


> Link to the available statistics. I can provide a link to the highway code which quotes the current law. Unfortunately, we have no means of recording near misses except hearsay. If we did you'd see just how much bad/inconsiderate road use we are obliged to allow for, tolerate and anticipate all the time. Amongst the professional driving community it is a widely discussed topic. It really is a travesty that no other road users are subject to the rigorous scrutiny and training that LGV and PCV drivers are forced to undergo (A good thing). If they were, the number of incidents would fall significantly.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep your ill-informed garbage to yourself.

The RHA routinely block safety ,measures and spout the same victim-blaming nonsense that you are spouting. Tell me this, if the road haulage industry strictly vets drivers how come a bloke who'd been banned from driving over twenty times get a job driving lorries in the capital? Dennis Putz is a good example of the casual disregard for safety among road haulage operators.


----------



## 333 (25 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> You know that 30 is the maximum, right? And that it's your responsibility to anticipate that pedestrians looking to cross the road might. er... cross the road?


Sorry chap, that was a stupid typo, it was meant to say 25-30 not 30-35, infact I was only going 25mph when he decided to walk out infront of me and 28mph before I started braking (this is what is logged in Strava). To be honest I actually thought he was going to get run over by the car that overtook me with the way he was walking purposefully but instead he chose to wait for that and walk right infront of me!


----------



## Trevor_P (25 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3100502, member: 30090"]The design issues can be addresses but this would still require drivers to look, if they don't look then it makes sweet FA difference.

I'm surprised that you could not see yourself in the above mirrors, the below is about the right set up that I'd have:

View attachment 46171



View attachment 46172


The first picture is about right regarding the positioning of the main mirror taking in about a third of the trailer. The wide angle mirror I'd have pointing down a bit more. Remember as well that newer tractor units you'd have a class IV mirror which would be attached just above to the top left corner of the windshield which would then look down at the n/s front axle/corner.

The second picture the kerbside mirror in this instance is positioned wrong. The mirror reflects way to much of the cab and in the instance of the main mirror should have roughly 1/3 of the unit and the rest should be the highway. With this set up there simply is no blind spots around the cab, when stationary in a straight line.

As I've said before I think that the majority of incidents are down to driver error in not checking the mirrors before pulling away. And I think the whole blind spot thing is a bit of a smokescreen where the TfL, CTC, RHA and any other organisations can have their say without directly pointing the finger politically. And whilst this is happening people are getting killed because like you say no-one really wants to take responsibility (haulage companies) and those in power are spineless buffoons who imo need to stand up, put the cat amongst the pigeons and create some destructive conflict. Which I hope will force haulage companies to take some responsibility and for the law to be changed. Sticking some stickers on a trailer and a poncey ''this vehicle is turning left'' is crap tbh.[/QUOTE]

I'd have the wide angle mirror a tad higher, so you can see just above the horizon in the top inch. It helps with lane changing on motorways. The main mirror slightly lower, I never understand why people want to look at so much sky. First thing after the sun comes up it can be blinding. If the adjustment works, you can always move it up 'on the fly' for scaffolding / overhanging buildings etc. The top or step mirror is always a pig to get far enough out for a reasonable ground view particularly on Mercs. The class IV mirror is a godsend for the n/s front corner. Always dirty though. Forever cleaning that one. We are lucky enough to have a couple of DAF XF's with n/s cab camera's but it takes some getting used to changing focus from mirror to screen. Do you have a mirror check routine at junctions? Do you mentally go through the hazards in advance? I was lucky in 84' to have a brilliant instructor. I've been out with some drivers who scare the living daylights out of me.


----------



## Trevor_P (25 May 2014)

Similar for me. The wide angle is useful on the M25 j13-12 when its busy. 5 lanes and moving from 2 to 3 you get cars going from 4/5 to 3 at the same time. Other similar junctions too. The extra wide just gives me the edge.

Motorway I'm thinking about the layout of the next junction, plenty of spacing, don't overtake. How the muppets exit/enter how heavy is the traffic and getting over to lane 1 at the earliest opportunity. In town thinking about whats behind me how close it is, looking for pedestrians motorcycles and cycles. If I've been there before (Usually have, what happened then, how the locals mis-use the junction etc.

I double up on the mirrors at junctions and like you scan them whilst waiting. Doubling up allows your brain time to note any changes which draws your attention to small differences quickly (like cyclists sneaking up on you. From 1984 that one.).

Your DAF an auto? Lovely box (not). Makes pulling away an art in itself.


----------



## Mugshot (26 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3100502, member: 30090"]

View attachment 46171



View attachment 46172


[/QUOTE]
Good pics, looks like they were taken while the truck was barrelling along the road


----------



## marknotgeorge (26 May 2014)

summerdays said:


> How do they cross the road in a busy town/city where there can be almost constant traffic, especially near their school at the time they are travelling to school?


If the traffic is that heavy, there should be a crossing there.


----------



## summerdays (26 May 2014)

marknotgeorge said:


> If the traffic is that heavy, there should be a crossing there.


I can think of plenty of schools without a crossing that would be difficult to cross due to there not being any traffic coming (since they can't judge car speed accurately), for a start something like 40% of pupils travel by car to the school. And even those with crossings don't have enough of them, expecting pupils and parents to take detours to use.


----------



## MontyVeda (27 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3103664, member: 45"]And how old are you?[/QUOTE]
That's irrelevant to the point of my post. 

Or is it one of those loaded question thingies?


----------



## theclaud (28 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> *That's irrelevant to the point of my post. *
> 
> Or is it one of those loaded question thingies?



Not really. You confessed to being a devotee of Tufty. There have been concerted efforts at particular historical moments to get people out of the way to make way for the motor car.


----------



## Mugshot (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104170, member: 9609"]since your such a pedantic twat at the best of times  looks like it is a compact camera (olympus FE115) 6 years ago, *and those effects could have easily been photo-shopped in*. - clearly against the highway code, but I don't know if it would be a specific offence.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what they did.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104095, member: 45"]It's entirely relevant. When I were't lad there were a lot less Allegros on the road. Traffic behaved very differently and the road furniture was nothing like it is today. Still, our mam had to cross us over t' road at the bottom of our street so that we could walk to school.[/QUOTE]
that just reinforces the irrelevance of my age.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

theclaud said:


> Not really. You confessed to being a devotee of Tufty. There have been concerted efforts at particular historical moments to get people out of the way to make way for the motor car.


If i was old enough to have lived before the car... I'd have hoped my parents would have advised me to get out of the way of an approaching horse and carriage... or tyrannosaurus for that matter.

May i ask, what do you say to children with regards to road safety?


----------



## Archie_tect (28 May 2014)

Depends how big they are.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104396, member: 45"]Except that if you are 30+ you're comparing two very different situations.[/QUOTE]
Really? The Allegro's have been replaced by Punto's... but other than that, it all looks pretty much the same. Every house had a car and still has, and the road furniture, or lack of is exactly the same as it was. They still have a lollipop person helping the kiddies cross the main road to school too... it very much the same.


----------



## summerdays (28 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Really? The Allegro's have been replaced by Punto's... but other than that, it all looks pretty much the same. Every house had a car and still has, and the road furniture, or lack of is exactly the same as it was. They still have a lollipop person helping the kiddies cross the main road to school too... it very much the same.


The road I grew up on, every house had drives and there was never a car parked on the road. Now there are lots and you can no longer see down the road, and the worst offender who parks multiple large vans on the road is also the parent of two kids who ride around the cul-de-sac and across the road without looking. It is worrying driving up their road, knowing that at any second two kids could launch themselves across the road, whereas when we were kids doing something similar you could be seen from the bottom of the cul-de-sac. Lots more cars, and the cars have got bigger. Two was the maximum number of cars associated with a house in the past, whereas around the corner from me is one with at least 4.


----------



## Archie_tect (28 May 2014)

Ironically, the Highways Agency and DfT research shows that the greater the perceived risks, the more obstructions and the shorter the forward visibility the slower and more carefully people drive, which led to the "Streets for Living" campaign and the rise of shared 'home zones' instead of culs-de-sac off distributor roads. This doesn't account for ignorant drivers who are a danger to themselves and everyone else. 
Open roads with parking restrictions, wide forward visibility splays and priority signage positively encourage drivers to drive faster.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104471, member: 45"]It's nothing like the same. Car ownership has changed how since you were a lad? The number of lollipop people has crashed since then, to be replaced by uncontrolled crossings or nothing. Street furniture is massively different.[/QUOTE]
Look... i know what the street i used to live on looked like in the 70's, and I know what it looks like now.... since you're so certain you have a better idea of what a specific area of the north west of England was and is like... please enlighten me. Please show me this uncontrolled crossing outside my old junior school. Please show me the new street furniture that wasn't there when i was a kid.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 May 2014)

User13710 said:


> I wonder if @Tin Pot would like to read that post as part of his research into what's wrong with car culture?


Research?

Volume doesn't strike me as a cultural issue.


----------



## stowie (28 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Look... i know what the street i used to live on looked like in the 70's, and I know what it looks like now.... since you're so certain you have a better idea of what a specific area of the north west of England was and is like... please enlighten me. Please show me this uncontrolled crossing outside my old junior school. Please show me the new street furniture that wasn't there when i was a kid.



One thing that has changed in general (I cannot comment on your specific case as I don't know the area) is the amount of traffic on the roads since the 1970's (assume you are referring to the 1970s with Austin Allegros). The quiet residential roads have often been transformed by councils using them as traffic overflow conduits from main roads. In my area local residential roads have been used as a bypass for a traffic junction which had restricted turns - the turns restriction allowed better traffic flow through the junction and the council actively amended the residential roads to accomodate through traffic wanting to make these banned turns. I think this is a big difference between the UK and other European countries - we have viewed every piece of tarmac as a valid passage for private cars and this has made even the minor roads deeply unpleasant for anyone wanting to use them in other ways.


----------



## marknotgeorge (28 May 2014)

When we moved into our house in the winter of 1983-84, there weren't the problems with parking there are now. Partly this is to do with the Technical College up the road becoming a university, which is why the stunt motorcyclist sign went up, but this is also to do with more cars being on the road. I have a car now - I didn't when I was 11.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104784, member: 45"]According to the RAC foundation, car ownership has risen from 19 million in 1971 to 31 million in 2007. Is there a special byelaw in the area you grew up on which means that massive growth isn't reflected there?[/QUOTE]
Do you have any idea what my actual point was?


----------



## Shaun (28 May 2014)

@MontyVeda - leave out the personal remarks please.

Thanks, Shaun.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104838, member: 45"]Yes, I read the post I initially responded to. And in subsequent posts you claim nothing much has changed. In the context of an (off topic) conversation between a number of members about how controlling road traffic is of our lives.[/QUOTE]
I'll take that as a 'no' then... but you're right it was off topic.. as I've pointed out a number of times.

@Shaun ... sorry... my neck is wound in


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104888, member: 45"]It's best to take it as it's written.[/QUOTE]
you claimed i was comparing then and now... I wasn't... you began that by asking how old i was, which as i initially stated, was, and is irrelevant to that post. 

But this has nothing to do with truck drivers and mobile phones... I'm sure we both agree on that.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3104936, member: 45"]At risk of repeating myself, we were discussing children and roads. Before the post I replied to asking your age you said that lollipopers would cross you over when you were young. They're few and far between these days, despite you claiming otherwise. You said you've never been run over as you were taught road safety at a very early age. In the context of the discussion -children crossing roads- the environment is very different today to when you were young.

The whole, and completely relevant, point is that the danger that road vehicles bring today is very different and much greater than when you or I were young. So, if we are to share responsibility as you have suggested, that requires that pedestrians have to increase their share of responsibility through no fault of their own. We have to do more to protect ourselves these days, when it's the road vehicles that have increased the risk. That's not shared responsibility, that's not right, and that's why I asked how old you were.[/QUOTE]
I know they still have lollipop-persons at my old junior school because i ride past them... they also have two of them at the junior school down the road from where i currently live... and the one near my parent's house. As far as i can tell oop'north... they're not the thing of the past like white dog poo, deely-boppers and spangles.

In light of the fact that you too seem to think that one should not take some responsibility for their own safety (i.e. to share the responsibility)....What road sense advice would you give to kids these days? 

PS... you don't have to reply, you won't be the first to avoid that question.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3105063, member: 45"]I've not said that pedestrians should not take some responsibility.

I think we may have found the reason why you've not had a reply to that question previously.[/QUOTE]

oh that's odd.. because ever since I've suggested that it should be a 'shared responsibility'... people on here seem to have other, alternative ideas... but don't seem to want to answer the question "What road sense advice would you give to kids?"... I expect their reluctance is due to the fact that they agree that it is in fact a shared responsibility, but would rather argue the toss and moan a bit more about cars. 

I'm glad we finally all agree that we do have a shared responsibility regarding our safety on or around the roads


----------



## summerdays (28 May 2014)

They will not have enough lollies to cover every direction of approach to a school. Kids arriving at my kids old primary school had one lollipop person who covered the nearby zebra, coming from other directions they could cross busy roads which included an A road, a road with mini roundabouts, a round with 4 lanes. We lived inside that square, but we still had to deal with narrow roads and parents who drove on the pavement. Most of their time at the school ther wasn't any lollipop man, and we only got one in the last few years of my youngest at the school. Not every school in Bristol has a lollipop crossing I know that fact.

It's a nervous time when you decide your child is ready to start making those choices for themselves, and I've seen many a child make the wrong decision, lucky with alert drivers most of the time.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3105096, member: 45"]Feel that rustling in your hair just then? That was the point whistling past you.

Try reading #161 again.[/QUOTE]
please.. stop.... you really are being silly now.


----------



## jonesy (28 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> oh that's odd.. because ever since I've suggested that it should be a 'shared responsibility'... people on here seem to have other, alternative ideas... but don't seem to want to answer the question "What road sense advice would you give to kids?"... I expect their reluctance is due to the fact that they agree that it is in fact a shared responsibility, but would rather argue the toss and moan a bit more about cars.
> 
> I'm glad we finally all agree that we do have a shared responsibility regarding our safety on or around the roads


Children have to be warned about the danger of motor vehicles in preparation for taking responsibilities as as adult, just as children have to learn about all sorts of things in life that we don't hold them responsible for until they become adults. Children need to be warned of the dangers of chainsaws, but it is the adult using one who must bear the burden of responsibility for ensuring children aren't hurt by one, and the same should apply to motor vehicles.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3105129, member: 45"]Post #161. The point.

No-one has suggested that pedestrians take no responsibility. We have to, because drivers don't. Everyone agrees that we have shared responsibility. Some people mistakenly think that this means 50/50.

Level of responsibility should be proportionate to the risk that you bring. That's shared responsibility, but not the level that some would mistakenly argue for.[/QUOTE]
Do you drive and do you consider yourself a responsible driver?

You seem to be getting in a twist over something we agree on... only your finer details of what shared responsibility may or may not mean is muddling things up. 

I have a responsibility towards keeping myself and others around me safe... as everyone else does (I'd like to think).. it doesn't matter if I'm on the pavement, in the road, on a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river... i have to take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of others regardless of whether i present 'the risk' or not.


----------



## glenn forger (28 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Really? The Allegro's have been replaced by Punto's... but other than that, it all looks pretty much the same. Every house had a car and still has, and the road furniture, or lack of is exactly the same as it was. They still have a lollipop person helping the kiddies cross the main road to school too... it very much the same.



It is nothing whatsoever like the same. Despite a much larger number of vehicles on the roads, fewer drivers are getting punished for driving offences.

Trafpol numbers have been slashed. Now, we have just 8 trafpol at any one time covering the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk. Traffic police numbers having been sharply reduced means that traffic convictions have also been slashed.

From '01 to '11 driving licence offences fell by 78%; TV licence offences rose by 78% Which is the more dangerous activity?


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

Glenn Glenn Glenn Glenn Glenn.... I was talking about a specific street and a specific section of main road in Lancaster, which is, by and large, more or less the same today as it was when i was a kid. [sigh]


----------



## glenn forger (28 May 2014)

Nowhere near the same level of policing. To pretend things are the same as thirty years ago is naive.


----------



## stowie (28 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Do you drive and do you consider yourself a responsible driver?
> 
> You seem to be getting in a twist over something we agree on... only your finer details of what shared responsibility may or may not mean is muddling things up.
> 
> I have a responsibility towards keeping myself and others around me safe... as everyone else does (I'd like to think).. it doesn't matter if I'm on the pavement, in the road, on a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river... i have to take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of others regardless of whether i present 'the risk' or not.



It is the "finer details" that matter in this case. You have provided some examples about responsibility to oneself - the pavement, in the road, a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river. This is part of the problem - in the last two these are features of nature, something which bears no responsibility for being there or offering the danger to you. The first two, being on a pavement for example, the danger is predominately presented by the decision of other people to operate dangerous machinery in the presence of you. In your cases, the similarity is that you have no influence over the danger presented to you, but the pavement example, the danger is presented by sentient beings who bear responsibility for their actions.

You should not be able to bring a danger to other people due to your decisions and then decide that it is their responsibility (or even 50:50) to avoid the danger.

The law sees it this way as well (at least in theory). Hence the reason I can ride a bike or walk without any paperwork, whereas I need license, insurance, MOT to take a car on the road. The problem is that in practice this gets turned on its head - the bigger danger bullies its way around and expects those most likely to get injured to keep away and compensate for them. And the law in practice should rectify this, but it all too often doesn't.


----------



## glenn forger (28 May 2014)

No mobile phones thirty years ago either:


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3105631, member: 45"]*No, you weren't*. Before and after that post you spoke generally, and only closed it down when you realised what you were saying was incorrect. Even closing it down doesn't help, because traffic levels (and policing as Glen suggests) have even changed in Lancaster.[/QUOTE]
Yes I was... but hey ho, have it your way.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 May 2014)

stowie said:


> It is the "finer details" that matter in this case. You have provided some examples about responsibility to oneself - the pavement, in the road, a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river. This is part of the problem - in the last two these are features of nature, something which bears no responsibility for being there or offering the danger to you. The first two, being on a pavement for example, the danger is predominately presented by the decision of other people to operate dangerous machinery in the presence of you. In your cases, the similarity is that you have no influence over the danger presented to you, but the pavement example, the danger is presented by sentient beings who bear responsibility for their actions.
> 
> You should not be able to bring a danger to other people due to your decisions and then decide that it is their responsibility (or even 50:50) to avoid the danger.
> 
> The law sees it this way as well (at least in theory). Hence the reason I can ride a bike or walk without any paperwork, whereas I need license, insurance, MOT to take a car on the road. The problem is that in practice this gets turned on its head - the bigger danger bullies its way around and expects those most likely to get injured to keep away and compensate for them. And the law in practice should rectify this, but it all too often doesn't.


Quite. NCAP's latest 5 star rating....






The red parts are poor protection for pedestrians. They don't do tests for killing or maiming cyclists but I'd guess the injuries would be broadly similar. 5 star safety - poor protection - no analysis of cycling collisions. Safety first is now safety me first.


----------



## Shaun (28 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3105744, member: 45"]Are you denying the posts exist where you did exactly that? Are you bonj?[/QUOTE]

Let it go now please and move on. Thanks.


----------



## theclaud (28 May 2014)

jonesy said:


> Children have to be warned about the danger of motor vehicles in preparation for taking responsibilities as as adult, just as children have to learn about all sorts of things in life that we don't hold them responsible for until they become adults. Children need to be warned of the dangers of chainsaws, but it is the adult using one who must bear the burden of responsibility for ensuring children aren't hurt by one, and the same should apply to motor vehicles.



This is spot on, but I find it astonishing that it's necessary to say it. The blind spot people seem to have with motor vehicles is the absolute responsibility for not killing others. The responsibility that said others might have towards themselves and/or their loved ones to stay alive has no bearing whatever on the responsibility of drivers not to kill people. If I run over a child, I am responsible - I am not somehow less responsible if I run over Willy Weasel than if I run over Tufty the Timorous T**t.


----------



## Dan B (29 May 2014)

My children will be advised to cross the road as per the advice given in the Green Cross Code, in much the same way as they will be advised to lock the door when they leave the house and to hand over their wallets and run like buggery if they should encounter a mugger. But this is nothing to do with some bullshit idea of "shared responsibility" and everything to do with self-preservation. When they're old enough to do their own risk assessment then should they decide to emulate their dad's practice of fixing the driver with a steely stare while sauntering vaguely across the road just _because_ the said driver is treating public space like a private racetrack and should slow the fark down, their dad will be very proud of them.


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2014)

...


Dan B said:


> My children will be advised to cross the road as per the advice given in the Green Cross Code, in much the same way as they will be advised to lock the door when they leave the house and to hand over their wallets and run like buggery if they should encounter a mugger. But this is nothing to do with some bullshit idea of "shared responsibility" and everything to do with self-preservation. When they're old enough to do their own risk assessment then should they decide to emulate their dad's practice of fixing the driver with a steely stare while sauntering vaguely across the road just _because_ the said driver is treating public space like a private racetrack and should slow the **** down, their dad will be very proud of them.


so you advocate the Green Cross Code... but think shared responsibility is a rubbish idea... erm... OK... if that's how you like your wires crossed, that's fine with me


----------



## Dan B (29 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> so you advocate the Green Cross Code... but think shared responsibility is a rubbish idea... erm... OK... if that's how you like your wires crossed, that's fine with me


If you got burgled and the miscreant was caught, would you accept having only 50% of your property returned on the grounds that it was partly your fault because you hadn't set the burglar alarm?

If you were carjacked by a fake squeegee merchant, would you let them have the car because it was your own fault for not having locked the doors?

If you found out after five years that your accountant had been stealing from you, would you let him have half the money because you were partly responsible because you'd employed him?

[edit: thank you anonymous mod for coalescing my three posts into one ]


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2014)

Dan B said:


> If you got burgled and the miscreant was caught, would you accept having only 50% of your property returned on the grounds that it was partly your fault because you hadn't set the burglar alarm?
> 
> If you were carjacked by a fake squeegee merchant, would you let them have the car because it was your own fault for not having locked the doors?
> 
> ...


three silly scenarios that have nothing to do with what i believe shared responsibility to be.


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3106583, member: 45"]Let's take this responsibility bit down another line....

Your son, on his way to school, is "sharing" the responsibility by waiting for a gap in the traffic. The traffic is charging down the road and there's no way he's going to get across without someone controlling the traffic. So what we're saying is that drivers dismiss their responsibility (rather than share) and only give way when they're made to. And then have the audacity to get stroppy if the person on the zebra crossing doesn't nod their thanks.

Being bullied off your route by road vehicles is not shared responsibility.[/QUOTE]
Do you drive Paul? If so... do you fit into the typical driver mindset you've depicted above?


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2014)

User said:


> What do you think it to be?


in TMN mode.... please re-read my posts because this has gone round in circles enough.


----------



## stowie (29 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> ...
> 
> so you advocate the Green Cross Code... but think shared responsibility is a rubbish idea... erm... OK... if that's how you like your wires crossed, that's fine with me



It has been said more than once, but worth repeating, getting children to learn the green cross code isn't shared responsibility. It is instilling some survival skills for the roads on children. Cyclists wearing high viz on streets isn't shared responsibility - it is a survival technique to try to get drivers to spot them. The actual responsibility for seeing them lies with the driver.


----------



## stowie (29 May 2014)

User said:


> I never participate in threads I haven't read. I am asking you to define the relative levels of responsibility to be shared between the driver of a motor vehicle and a child crossing a road.



Judging by some drivers at my daughter's local primary school who speed in the 20mph street, use the zig-zags as a dropping off zone, and park on the build outs designed to make crossing children more visible, the responsibility seems to fall solely on the 5-10 yr olds as opposed to the adults supposedly qualified via license to operate the cars. Judging by the apathetic responses from the school, parking enforcement and police, the responsibility also falls to the children. Shows how messed up our priorities have become.


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2014)

basically this Paul...



MontyVeda said:


> No. It's a shared responsibility.
> 
> I was in the Tufty Club at school and learned how to take responsibility for myself when crossing the road. Yes the drivers using the road also have a responsibility to be alert and to be able to stop in time... but cannot always anticipate a child running out into the road from behind a parked car.
> 
> ...


... which was in response to a claim that it's 'their responsibility'... which I took to mean 'solely the driver's responsibility not to hit a pedestrian*'.

edit.... *This is not a suggestion that a driver is not 100% responsible for not hitting peds... of course they are... but peds also have a responsibility to be aware around the roads.. hence the green cross code and all that tufty club stuff.


----------



## stowie (29 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> basically this Paul...
> 
> 
> ... which was in response to a claim that it's 'their responsibility'... which I took to mean 'solely the driver's responsibility not to hit a pedestrian*'.
> ...



You are mixing up responsibility with survival techniques. Even if you weren't how much responsibility can you attribute to a small child as compared with a trained driver who is actually also the source of the danger?

I would say that you are arguing about the responsibilities of the people not in control of the danger whilst the real argument is how drivers can seem to abdicate responsibility almost completely for their actions?


----------



## Dan B (29 May 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> three silly scenarios that have nothing to do with what i believe shared responsibility to be.


OK, then. You're walking in an open public space and someone running along with a trolley full of lead ingots cannons into the side of you and knocks you over. Who's responsible?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 May 2014)

Dan B said:


> OK, then. You're walking in an open public space and someone running along with a trolley full of lead ingots cannons into the side of you and knocks you over. Who's responsible?


The council.


----------



## Dan B (29 May 2014)

Near enough no expecation of pedestrians ... except road workers, the drivers and passengers of broken-down vehicles, emergency services ...


----------



## ufkacbln (29 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3106583, member: 45"]Let's take this responsibility bit down another line....

Your son, on his way to school, is "sharing" the responsibility by waiting for a gap in the traffic. The traffic is charging down the road and there's no way he's going to get across without someone controlling the traffic. So what we're saying is that drivers dismiss their responsibility (rather than share) and only give way when they're made to. And then have the audacity to get stroppy if the person on the zebra crossing doesn't nod their thanks.

Being bullied off your route by road vehicles is not shared responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Which is where we come back to the crossing patrols being driven at, bullied, threatened and abused physically.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (31 May 2014)

Just to add some food for thought about the use of mobiles in HGV's, see what you think of this article from today's Shropshire Star.

The people from the broken down car did everything right - got it off the carriageway, got out and stood the other side of the crash barrier. Who'd have expected to have the car chucked over the barrier at them?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (31 May 2014)

User13710 said:


> It doesn't say what driving penalties he might have got, but he certainly should not be allowed to drive any kind of vehicle again after that.


Agreed - I'll bet the driving ban will not be what we'd hope though.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 May 2014)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Agreed - I'll bet the driving ban will not be what we'd hope though.


I'd assume we'd all agree a lifetime ban from driving is what he should get, but since driving is one of those supposed god given rights, it's more likely to be a few years at most.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 May 2014)

User13710 said:


> It doesn't say what driving penalties he might have got, but he certainly should not be allowed to drive any kind of vehicle again after that.


he's probably been banned for less time than the duration of his sentence!


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (31 May 2014)

User said:


> Alas not, there is no permanent driving ban.


So I realise. I'd at the very least expect that he would never get his HGV licence back, but he probably will.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2014)

User said:


> There can be. A court can impose a permanent ban but it's very, very rare that they ever do.
> 
> Denis Putz was given a lifetime ban - but only after he'd killed Catriona Patel. He'd already had 20 disqualifications, including three for drink driving.



I don't think it's as rare as you believe, between 2003-2013 there were 810 people disqualified from driving for life by a court.

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2014)

User said:


> That's 810 over 10 years and out of how many motoring offence convictions?



I thought you'd have known that, I've got no idea.

GC


----------



## spen666 (5 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> I think there should be a period of zero tolerance.
> 
> In summer, the police could recruit all those people who take short term jobs over Xmas with the Royal Mail and *have a 6 week crack down on all traffic offences*: RLJ by motor or bike;* mobile phone use by* driver or* cyclist*; riding on pavements; parking on pavements etc. *Unfortunately there's probably a legal hurdle to this* but hey ho.



The biggest legal hurdle to cracking down on the highlighted is that it is not actually an offence!

Whether it should be an offence is a different matter


----------



## martint235 (5 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> The biggest legal hurdle to cracking down on the highlighted is that it is not actually an offence!
> 
> Whether it should be an offence is a different matter


To even things up, although I see few cyclists actually do it, I think plod should stop them and advise against it even though they can't do them for it


----------



## spen666 (5 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> To even things up, although I see few cyclists actually do it, I think plod should stop them and advise against it even though they can't do them for it


Plod have no power to stop them in such circumstances


----------



## martint235 (5 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Plod have no power to stop them in such circumstances


They are allowed to offer you advice. In fact anyone is allowed,to offer advice


----------



## Wobblers (5 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Plod have no power to stop them in such circumstances



Does that mean that plod's campaign in December stopping and "advising" cyclists that they should be wearing hi-vis and helmets was exceeding their powers?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Jun 2014)

McWobble said:


> Does that mean that plod's campaign in December stopping and "advising" cyclists that they should be wearing hi-vis and helmets was exceeding their powers?


I doubt that refusing to stop for a (gratuitous) lecture from the police led to any prosecutions of cyclists.


----------



## spen666 (5 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> They are allowed to offer you advice. In fact anyone is allowed,to offer advice


I don't think anyone is doubting they can offer advice. What they have no power to do in those circumstances is to stop you. As @deptfordmarmoset said no one has been prosecuted for refusing to stop for a lecture on wearing hi viz/ helmets


----------



## martint235 (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I don't think anyone is doubting they can offer advice. What they have no power to do in those circumstances is to stop you. As @deptfordmarmoset said no one has been prosecuted for refusing to stop for a lecture on wearing hi viz/ helmets


So if a police officer tells you to stop you have no legal obligation to do so? Regardless of what you're doing: cycling along on your mobile phone, walking down the pavement, running away with loot from a bank?


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> So if a police officer tells you to stop you have no legal obligation to do so? Regardless of what you're doing: cycling along on your mobile phone, walking down the pavement, running away with loot from a bank?


 No idea where you manage to get that interpretation from.

I made a comment about a specific situation. I'm not aware I mentioned bank robbery


----------



## martint235 (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> No idea where you manage to get that interpretation from
> 
> I made a comment about a specific situation. I'm not aware I mentioned bank robbery


Stop being pedantic. Does a police officer have the authority to stop a person or not?


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> Stop being pedantic. Does a police officer have the authority to stop a person or not?


 I refer you to my previous post.

I was commenting on a very specific situation.


in answer to your question, I cannot answer it without more details. Some circumstances an officer has the power to stop you and in others he does not.


----------



## martint235 (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I refer you to my previous post.
> 
> I was commenting on a very specific situation.
> 
> ...


And how would you know whether or not he has the authority unless you actually stopped, spoke to him and found out why he was stopping you?


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> And how would you know whether or not he has the authority unless you actually stopped, spoke to him and found out why he was stopping you?


 
That is for you to decide.


----------



## martint235 (6 Jun 2014)

Life is too short for dealing with idiots


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I refer you to my previous post.
> 
> I was commenting on a very specific situation.
> 
> ...


 

I have to say that it's my understanding that the police can stop any motor vehicle or cycle on the road and failure to comply is an offence.

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> Life is too short for dealing with idiots


 I'm not sure who you are suggesting is an idiot?

I would have thought someone who wants a definitive answer to all situations, without specifying the circumstances is probably the idiot.

The law is rarely black and white and without knowing the precise circumstances, it is not possible to give you a definitive answer.

Hence why there is a huge volume of case law on what "acting in the course of his duty is" in relation to the actions of police officers.

An action that may be in the course of his duty in one case, may not be in the course of his duty in an almost identical situation.

Hence why it is for you to decide whether you are going to stop or not.


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I have to say that it's my understanding that the police can stop any motor vehicle or cycle on the road and failure to comply is an offence.
> 
> GC


Police cannot randomly stop vehicles. They ( the police officer) need to be acting in the course of their duty. For example a police officer with a dislike of red motor cars does not have the power to stop all red vehicles to lecture the driver as to their choice of car colour. You would be perfectly within your rights to refuse to stop or to refuse to remain at the scene in such circumstances.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Police cannot randomly stop vehicles. They ( the police officer) need to be acting in the course of their duty. For example a police officer with a dislike of red motor cars does not have the power to stop all red vehicles to lecture the driver as to their choice of car colour. You would be perfectly within your rights to refuse to stop or to refuse to remain at the scene in such circumstances.


 
I disagree.

Provided you are on a road and are signalled to stop by a constable in uniform, you must comply. If it transpires that he wants to hand out a safety leaflet or direct you to a traffic census etc, you are at liberty to continue your journey. But failing to stop in the first place is an offence.

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Provided you are on a road and are signalled to stop by a constable in uniform, you must comply. *If it transpires that he wants to *hand out a safety leaflet or *direct you to a traffic census etc, you are at liberty to continue your journey. But failing to stop in the first place is an offence*.
> 
> GC


 In that situation it is an offence because the officer is acting in the course of his duty.

In the example I gave he is not acting in the course of his duty and in the circumstances you are under no obligation to stop or to remain at the scene



As I said in my earlier post, what is in the course of their duty varies


----------



## martint235 (6 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3118832, member: 45"]If you don't know why you're being asked to stop? What advice would you give your client?[/QUOTE]
Run the policeman down and then sue him for standing in the road.


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3118832, member: 45"]If you don't know why you're being asked to stop? What advice would you give your client?[/QUOTE]
I refer you to my answer at post #235

I cannot give a client definitive advice about a situation without all of the circumstances of the case.


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> The example you gave highlighted bits of another post. Were you specifically referring to mobile phone use on a bicycle?


 I was referring to the bit I higlighted - ie re stopping you re traffic census


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> As I said in my earlier post, what is in the course of their duty varies


 
I think the problem here is your repeated reference to the officer 'acting in the course of his duty'.
This is a red herring since at the time of the instruction to stop, the driver/rider will have no idea of the purpose for the stop.

The scenario you initially suggested was outwith the powers of police to stop a cyclist for was cycling while using a mobile phone. I say that it would be perfectly lawful for a police officer to stop the cyclist in those circumstances. (_Before it became a specific offence for motorists, drivers were charged with careless driving or not being in proper control of their vehicle.)_

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Did that bit not come later?


 I'm confused as to what you are asking about? I thought the post of mine was the one where I quoted the highlighted response?

Which post(s) are you referring to?


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I think the problem here is your repeated reference to the officer 'acting in the course of his duty'.
> This is a red herring since at the time of the instruction to stop, the driver/rider will have no idea of the purpose for the stop.
> 
> The scenario you initially suggested was outwith the powers of police to stop a cyclist for was cycling while using a mobile phone. I say that it would be perfectly lawful for a police officer to stop the cyclist in those circumstances. (_Before it became a specific offence for motorists, drivers were charged with careless driving or not being in proper control of their vehicle.)_
> ...


 

Not a red herring at all

You are only required to stop for a constable acting in the course of his duty.



You are confusing what the legal position is with whether it is sensible or not to ignore the police officer. I have repeatedly said it is up to you to decide whetrher in any given situation to stop. The fact you stop does not make the actions of the police officer iin the course of his duty.



The constable is not acting in the course of his duty to stop a cyclist who is acting lawfully to lecture him about the constables views on what is sensible or not. Under what authority are you suggesting the police officer has the power to stop you carrying out a lawful (albeit perhaps stupid ) activity


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> You are confusing what the legal position is with whether it is sensible or not to ignore the police officer. I have repeatedly said it is up to you to decide whetrher in any given situation to stop. The fact you stop does not make the actions of the police officer iin the course of his duty.


 
The legal position is that it is an offence to ignore the instruction to stop.



> Under what authority are you suggesting the police officer has the power to stop you carrying out a lawful (albeit perhaps stupid ) activity


 
Road Traffic Act 1988
S163 Power of police to stop vehicles..
(1) A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.​GC


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Jun 2014)

martint235 said:


> Run the policeman down and then sue him for standing in the road.


I'd stop and warn him or her about the dangers of walking in the road and tell him what happened to that copper in the Giro.


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> This one


 Which post number was that in? I'm confused. I am happy to respond but what I think I am answering and what you are asking seem to be different issues


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I think what spen is trying to point out is that the power to stop is not a blanket one that a police officer can exercise on a whim.


 

What spen has been saying is that _"it is up to you to decide whetrher in any given situation to stop." _That is plainly wrong.

GC


----------



## tincaman (6 Jun 2014)

stowie said:


> On a related note, going through London the use of mobile phones by vehicle users of all types is staggering. I have frequently been behind car drivers who are stationary at a green light because they are busy on the phone and then suddenly realise and shoot forward with no glance around them. On tailbacks on the mile end road I reckon I often see well over 25% of drivers fiddling with mobiles. Closest I have been to being knocked off on the bike have all involved car drivers on mobiles who clearly haven't looked before setting off.


 
I was in London last week, did a few trips on the top floor of the buses, you can see down into the cars below, I couldn't believe how many people were fiddling with phones down on their laps


----------



## Markymark (6 Jun 2014)

tincaman said:


> I was in London last week, did a few trips on the top floor of the buses, you can see down into the cars below, I couldn't believe how many people were fiddling with phones down on their laps


That's becuase driving on the phone is illegal...but if its on your lap or you're talking to it away form your ear its fine....apparently


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Will it? Care to suggest what it would be covered by?


 
It could be covered by riding without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The legal position is that it is an offence to ignore the instruction to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 This still requires the officer to be acting in the course of his duty


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> There is no offence of 'riding without due care and attention' - there is an offence of 'careless cycling' but the threshold for that cycling offence is similar to that for the equivalent driving offence.
> 
> A person can be only regarded as cycling carelessly if (and only if) the way he or she cycles falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist. The problem is defining what what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist - and that's one reason why the careless cycling offence isn't charged that often.


 
I wasn't providing the title of an offence. What I gave was the description (lifted from the RTA) of what the behaviour described could be regarded as.

*29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.*
_If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence_.​GC
​


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> This still requires the officer to be acting in the course of his duty


If a police officer signals one to stop... is stopping optional or not?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> This still requires the officer to be acting in the course of his duty


 
You keep repeating this and miss the point.

The stopping part is not optional for the rider/driver. Do you agree?

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> If we're talking about sufficient reason to stop, the test is 'reasonable grounds' so... if they can't demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to believe an offence was being committed (e.g. that someone was posing a substantive risk to a third party or to property) then they're unlikely to have grounds to stop.


 

Reg, that's wrong. Police have the authority to stop any vehicle on a road even when there is no offence committed or suspected.

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You keep repeating this and miss the point.
> 
> The stopping part is not optional for the rider/driver. Do you agree?
> 
> GC


 Of course I do not agree


The law is clear that you are not committing an offence in failing to stop if the officer is not acting in the course of their duty.
how you determine that is a completely different issue

I am talking about the legal position, not whether it is a sensible course of action or not


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I would say that cycling whilst using a mobile would fit S29 quite comfortably. "If a person rides a cycle on the road without due care and attention........."


 clearly it doesn't or they would not have had to introduce specific offences for motorists re using mobile phone. They could have used careless driving if you were right.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Of course I do not agree
> 
> 
> The law is clear that you are not committing an offence in failing to stop if the officer is not acting in the course of their duty.
> ...


 
In that case I'm eager to see supporting evidence for your position. 

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3119105, member: 45"]I asked you for your view of the sensible course of action, and you refused to go there.[/QUOTE]
The sensible course of action depends on all the facts of a situation and your own assessment of those facts


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> clearly it doesn't or they would not have had to introduce specific offences for motorists re using mobile phone. They could have used careless driving if you were right.


 
Is there a specific offence for eating an apple while driving? A biscuit? Putting on make-up?

GC


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In that case I'm eager to see supporting evidence for your position.
> 
> GC


 Pop round my office and I will lend you my copy of Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law and also the case law contained on Baiili


----------



## Markymark (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I would say that cycling whilst using a mobile would fit S29 quite comfortably. "If a person rides a cycle on the road without due care and attention........."


Then why did they introduce a separate one for cars if without due care and attention covered mobile phones?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Pop round my office and I will lend you my copy of Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law and also the case law contained on Baiili


 
Come on spen, if "_The law is clear.."_ just state what the Act or other instrument is, or name one of the stated cases. 

GC


----------



## Markymark (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> As above


oops, didn't see that. Don't agree, but didn't mean to ask twice.


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3119117, member: 45"]...and I've explained how the facts that you insist that you need in order to decide whether to stop are often not present at the time of the request.
[/quote] I agree , that is why I keep saying the decision whether to stop or not is for youand I cannot advise you on a partial set of facts


> If a police officer asked you to stop when you were cycling on the road, and you did not know why, would you stop or not?


 
without knowing all the facts of the case I cannot answer that properly


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> ...
> without knowing all the facts of the case I cannot answer that properly



Oh come on Spen, you're just avoiding a very simple question.

You're driving or cycling down the road... a police officer signals you to stop*... what do you do?

*At this point, you do not know why he/she is signalling you to stop... all you know is that you've been signalled to stop.

to make it easier for you... there's two possible answers:

1: Stop
2: Don't stop


hope this helps.


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Oh come on Spen, you're just avoiding a very simple question.
> 
> You're driving or cycling down the road... a police officer signals you to stop*... what do you do?
> 
> ...


 
I refer you to my earlier answer and in particular the reasoning given.


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I refer you to my earlier answer and* in particular the reasoning given*.


what reasoning?

There is no reasoning because all you see is a signal to stop.... if you stop, you'll likely find out the reason from said police officer, if you don't stop... well...

the question is a very simple one.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> That's the power to stop vehicles. That wasn't what Spen asked. Spen's question was: "Under what authority are you suggesting the police officer has the power to stop you carrying out a lawful (albeit perhaps stupid ) activity?" which is a different matter altogether.


 
Have you missed some of the previous posts?

This strand of the thread originated from spen's answer to martint235's post (see post#224) in relation to the power to stop cyclists using a mobile phone while riding on a road, i.e. the power to stop vehicles.

I don't know what else you think is being debated here.



GC


----------



## Markymark (6 Jun 2014)

...but presumably if I'm cycling and I don't know whether he's correctly stopping me for valid reason or incorrectly for a whim, I am supposed to stop either way. Once I have stopped, I can ascertain the reason and within my rights to move on if I feel it's an invalid reason and can complain, but I would have had to have stopped either way.


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Jun 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> ...but presumably if I'm cycling and I don't know whether he's correctly stopping me for valid reason or incorrectly for a whim, I am supposed to stop either way. Once I have stopped, I can ascertain the reason and within my rights to move on if I feel it's an invalid reason and can complain, *but I would have had to have stopped either way*.


That appears to be the case... a number of us have tried asking Spen666 whether that is the case or not... but it appears that he cannot provide a simple coherent answer to what appears to be a very simple question. Maybe he should join the legal profession.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Spen's question was very clear: "Under what authority are you suggesting the police officer has the power to stop you carrying out a lawful (albeit perhaps stupid ) activity?" Stopping the cyclist is only part of that.


 
This is the stumbling block being discussed: the power of police to stop a vehicle on a road. Spen's position is that compliance with that instruction is optional. I say he's wrong on that. What do you say?

Moving on to your next point:


> If the cyclist is not committing an offence, what grounds does a police officer have to tell them to stop doing something?


,

the important part is_ "If the cyclist is not committing an offence..". _My position is that the cop could, if he thought the cyclist's use of a phone affected his ability to control his bike, charge him with carelsss cycling.

There is no specific offence of using a mobile while cycling but I'll ask you the same question I put to Spen: Is there a specific offence for eating an apple while driving? A biscuit? Putting on make-up?


GC

Edited to correct typo.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> No. A police officer has powers to stop you at any time and ask you:
> 
> what you’re doing
> why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going
> However, you don’t have to answer any questions the police officer asks you. What's more, a police officer cannot tell you to stop doing something which is not an offence.


 
You're introducing police stop and account/search powers into a discussion on Road Traffic powers. 

GC


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> ...
> 
> If the cyclist is not committing an offence, *what grounds does a police officer have to tell them to stop doing something?* It's an easy question to answer...



So easy I'm wondering why you're asking... The police may not be stopping you because you might be doing something wrong. They may be stopping someone from riding down a stretch or road for any number of reasons, such as an RTA, gas leak, fire, homicidal sniper, helicopter crash.


----------



## Markymark (6 Jun 2014)

...or to have a word about how fast you took that last corner.....as your riding was epic and they were well impressed, innit!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3120184, member: 45"]So, to recap...

S.163 of the RTA states that a person riding a cycle on the road must stop if requested by a police officer in uniform.

Can someone who has knowledge of the law please tell me whether there's any condition to this, or is it as the law appears to clearly state?

Remember, we're not talking about whether the officer has a valid reason to stop you, but whether a cyclist must obey the request.....[/QUOTE]


It's unconditional.

Now come on over here instead, we're having a good laugh!

GC


----------



## spen666 (7 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's unconditional.
> 
> Now come on over here instead, we're having a good laugh!
> 
> GC


you only have to stop if the officer is acting in the execution of his duty


----------



## albion (7 Jun 2014)

"It is a specific offence to use a hand–held phone or similar device, when driving. Most offences will be dealt with by way of 3 penalty points and a £60 Fixed Penalty Notice but if the matter proceeds to a Court hearing, the fine can be as much as £1,000 or £2,500 if you were driving a bus, coach or any heavy goods vehicle."

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/mobile_phone.php
I really think they now need to change it to an outright ban. 

Hands free is available to everyone so this double distraction needs to be stopped in its wheel tracks.
I was right in telling off my bus driver the other day. I'm certain he would have been sacked or 'moved on' if the licensing council and his company knew.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> you only have to stop if the officer is acting in the execution of his duty



We're going to go round in circles here unless you cite specifically the supporting evidence for your position that stopping is optional.


GC


----------



## Shaun (7 Jun 2014)

After five pages of circular discussion about stopping powers and whether you _should _stop or not, I'd like you _all _to *stop*  - and move the discussion forward please. 

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jun 2014)

Shaun said:


> After five pages of circular discussion about stopping powers and whether you _should _stop or not, I'd like you _all _to *stop*  - and move the discussion forward please.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shaun



I agree and would not normally have pursued a point quite so far. However, it's not mere pedantry but an important legal point which I felt had to be clarified. There may be people reading this who are new to cycling (or driving) and risk breaking the law if they accept spen666's advice as accurate.

Would you object to the matter being cleared up in a thread of its own?

GC


----------



## Shaun (7 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Would you object to the matter being cleared up in a thread of its own?



Yes - because pursuing it in another thread would be no different to here; it has not been clarified with five pages of discussion so it won't benefit from further circular discussion.


----------



## spen666 (7 Jun 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I agree and would not normally have pursued a point quite so far. However, it's not mere pedantry but an important legal point which I felt had to be clarified. There may be people reading this who are new to cycling (or driving) and risk breaking the law if they accept spen666's advice as accurate.
> 
> Would you object to the matter being cleared up in a thread of its own?
> 
> GC


I have not given advice. I have repeatedly in this thread refused to give advice and have stated it is up to the individual to make their own decision on their actions.

I have stated (accurately) what the law is. How you or anyone decide to act is a matter for you.

@glasgowcyclist and you @User may care to consider the fact the appelate courts have ruled that on this point in a whole series of cases, including _R v Waterfield_ [1963] 3 All ER 659, and _Hoffman v Thomas_ [1974] RTR 182

In the case of _R v Waterfield_ [1963] 3 All ER 659, the court held that section 163 does not permit the police to stop a vehicle for an improper purpose. This line of reasoning was followed a decade later in _Hoffman v Thomas_ [1974] RTR 182 in which the court held that a constable must be acting in execution of his duty for a stop under what is now section 163 to be lawful.

The issue in _Hoffman_ was whether a police constable had power to require a motorist to stop and at a census point. The court in that case found that assisting in the conduct of a census was not part of the police officer’s duty, which at common law is to protect life and property and, as such, the constable was not acting in the execution of his duty and so the motorist was not guilty.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jun 2014)

Spen, much as I'd like to continue this, Shaun has asked us to stop. I'm disappointed that he's taken the view that we can't open a separate thread for it, but it's his forum.

GC


----------



## Mugshot (7 Jun 2014)

Do it quick while he's not online


----------



## spen666 (7 Jun 2014)

Have either of you bothered to read the 2 cases I sited?

The courts have made it clear that you are not committing an offence of failing to stop if the police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty.

There is little point in my continuing to take part in this debate when you seem to think your knowledge of the law exceeds that of even the appelate courts.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Have either of you bothered to read the 2 cases I sited?
> 
> The courts have made it clear that you are not committing an offence of failing to stop if the police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty.
> 
> There is little point in my continuing to take part in this debate when you seem to think your knowledge of the law exceeds that of even the appelate courts.



The debate is already over, see Shaun's post above.
Please don't get this thread locked.

GC


----------



## albion (7 Jun 2014)

You can always tell when the office is not acting in execution of duty.

Being well versed in law it is when 'he has a pizza on his lap and a can of coke at his side'.


----------

