HGVs in towns and cities

[Origamist]

are you or are you not anti lgv? if you are not then i apologise but there are some members in this thread who are anti lgv

No, I'm not anti LGV - read my posts in this thread.

 

[zimzum42]

He is indeed a bit mental/ I'm still waiting to hear a suggestion from him as to how all these goods are to be transported once his HGV ban is imposed, and how buildings are going to get built in town centres when we have to bring the bricks in with wheelbarrows, etc etc

 

[Beanie]

FWIW, i'll add my bit to this debate. One thing that concerns me greatly about HGV's in towns and cities is whenever police forces and the government vehicle inspectorate agency (think they are called something like Vosa) do roadside checks on the roadworthiness of HGVs they seem to find high numbers of drivers commiting tachograph and licensing offences and vehicles that have defects which undermine their roadworthiness - no wonder so many people question the wisdom of allowing them into congested urban areas where the cons

 

[Beanie]

One thing that concens me about HGVs in congested urban areas is that whenever police forces and the government's vehicle inspectorate agency (think they are called somehting like VOSA) do roadside checks on HGVs they seem to find high numbers of HGVS with defects and drivers commiting tachograph and licensing offences. No wonder so many people feel uneasy about HGVs being in town centres.

 

[gavintc]

I a not defending the industry. But, the rewards from not following the law outweigh the risks. I suggest we have largely removed traffic police from our roads rely upon cameras to catch speeding and then leaving the police to operate as 'crime recording agents'. We bring in large demands for taxation and do not follow this through with an effective regime of inspection and monitoring.

 

[wafflycat]

Yeah it is, some parts, more so the bit that I pointed out to No 144
144

You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously
• drive without due care and attention
• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users

[Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991] applies to all cyclists as well

Forgive me if I appear dim. The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 2 (as substituted Road traffic Act 1991) makes it an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place. And the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 makes it an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place without due care and attention. In what way does that apply to *cycling*?

 

[wafflycat]

[/b]
Originally Posted by User3143
Yeah it is, some parts, more so the bit that I pointed out to No 144
144

You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously
• drive without due care and attention
• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users

[Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991] applies to all cyclists as well

Is the wrong answer I feel. Rule 144 clearly applies to driving, not cycling and the Acts referred to apply to motoring offences, not cycling offences.

 

[HF2300]

Trouble is the online version of the HC is misleadingly laid out. If you follow the links for cycling, it takes you not only to cycle specific but to general chapters about driver / rider behaviour. Unfortunately 144 then refers back to a motor vehicle specific bit of legislation - an example of what someone referred to as the HC having a motor vehicle bias.

That doesn't mean there aren't similar offences for cyclists:

RTA 1988 (1988 c52):

28 Reckless cycling

A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence.
In this section “road” includes a bridleway.

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.

In this section “road” includes a bridleway.

30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs

(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
(2) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section.
(3) In this section “road” includes a bridleway.




RTA 1991 (1991 c40):

7. Cycling offences

For section 28 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be substituted—

“28 Dangerous cycling

(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”

 

[wafflycat]

Wow, the more I read the funnier it gets! This rule was under the rules for cyclists cat.

This is the type of ignorance displayed that if it was not so stupid would almost be funny.

Next time you see a police car, start riding like a complete and utter dick and see if you don't get arrested instead of posting on this thread, when you lack the basic knowledge of cycling and the due care that it is needed and extended to other road users. Because going by your post I get the impression you have not got a clue.

Before you jump on the bandwagon as well regarding RLJ and riding without lights (I've heard it all before), remember that I still extend other motorists every courtesy when I'm out on the road.

Indeed. Considering the *specific* HC rules for cyclists are here...

59-82: Rules for cyclists

There are other rules of the HC which impinge upon cycling elsewhere in the HC, but s144 is not specifically for cycling - indeed it relates to *driving* Rule 144 comes under *general rules* - not the rules for cyclists, as you have stated. That's not to say a cyclist should behave like a dick or break the law, which, incidently, is how you give the impression of cycling from the posts you've put - riding without lights, RLJ...

When interpreting the HC - here's a clue - where the term MUSt is used - it relates to the legislation referred to. Example - go check why speed limits don't apply to pedal cycles.

 

[wafflycat]

Trouble is the online version of the HC is misleadingly laid out. If you follow the links for cycling, it takes you not only to cycle specific but to general chapters about driver / rider behaviour. Unfortunately 144 then refers back to a motor vehicle specific bit of legislation - an example of what someone referred to as the HC having a motor vehicle bias.

Exactly. The rule refers to motoring *not* cycling. Indeed, as you went on to say, there are specific cycling offences, but HC rule 144 is quite specific in referring to *motoring* and not cycling.

 

[wafflycat]

What exactly is your point Waffle?

The point is that *you* stated HC rule 144 applies to cyclists. It doesn't. It clearly refers to *driving* with a motor - not a pedal cycle. There are parts of the HC which apply to cycling, but rule 144 does not. You even said it came under the section for cyclists - it doesn't it comes under the general advice section If you follow the actual legislation referred to, they refer to *motoring offences* not cycling ones.

Edit: for further clarification. s1 & 2 of the RTA 1988 refer to

1. Causing death by reckless driving.
2. Reckless driving.

It is these specific offences as amended by the 1991 RTA the HC rule refers to.

 

[wafflycat]

Road users have a responsibility to use the road sensibly and legally with regard to others, no matter what form of transport they are using, be it motor, pedal cycle, horse, pedestrian.. But the point remains that those of us who hold a driving licence are effectively in charge of a lethal weapon moving at speed, so IMO we need to be *particularly* mindful of more vulnerable road users. That doesn't mean it's always the fault of the motorist when something untoward happens, but I'm of the opinion that in the UK the bias is too far in favour of the motorist - and I am a motorist as well as a cyclist & pedestrian.

 

[dondare]

He is indeed a bit mental/ I'm still waiting to hear a suggestion from him as to how all these goods are to be transported once his HGV ban is imposed, and how buildings are going to get built in town centres when we have to bring the bricks in with wheelbarrows, etc etc

Our towns were built before any kind of engine was invented, sometimes by people with wheelbarrows.
Mass transportation existed in England and throughout the British Empire without it relying on HGVs or LGVs.
Technology allows transport to happen one way or another, I'm not suggesting replacing all HGVs with wheelbarrows but that's hardly the only option. As I keep on pointing out, buses do not pose the same dangers to cyclists (or road fixtures) as lorries because the cabs are designed so that the drivers can actually see where they're going. Lorries could be designed the same way but they're not.
This country is not at war. The roads are not subject to dangerous uncontrollable natural forces. They are designed by people to allow safe movement of people and goods with laws to mitigate any risks that might arise; why should we accept that they are places of death?

 

[dondare]

The roads are populated by the young and the old, the ignorant and the inexperienced, the infirm and the incompetent. You cannot expect them all to be trained to know what to do if a lorry comes abreast of them at the lights, or starts to turn in front of them. That is why their safety is your responsibility when you drive and not theirs.
No-one should be placed in mortal peril on their way in to work or school by someone else's actions. The roads are supposed to be safe, that is why drivers are trained how to keep them safe rather than cyclists being trained how to survive.

see?

But that is the law. I didn't even write it, but I do agree with it.

 

[dondare]

Yes HF very good, I'm just amazed by the ignorance of some people on here, go back over this entire thread. Some people even suggest that the cyclist has no obligation at all when out on the road, and it is up to other road users.

Cyclists have to obey the law, and therefore have to know the law.
But the law works this way: it protects others. Cyclists have an obligation not to pose a danger, and so do drivers. Since motor vehicles are intrinsically more hazardous than bikes they are subject to much more legislation, not the same.
If all cyclists obeyed all laws it would not save many lives and it would not even save the lives of cyclists who can't anticipate the movement of HGVs.
If all motorists obeyed all laws it would save thousands of lives (mostly motorists but also many pedestrians and some cyclists) but if law-abiding motorists can still kill law-abiding cyclists because they are driving vehicles that give a restricted view of the road then it's not the behaviour of either that needs to be adressed but the use of such vehicles.