What I can see in my NS truck mirrors.

[Spinney]

Stopping close to the kerb doesn't usually achieve anything, as it's then often possible to filter through on the right hand side instead. I always get a slight sense of triumph when I do that, as it seems to me drivers sometimes stop close to the kerb deliberately to try and block a cyclist, god knows why.

But overtaking/filtering on the right is safer when it comes to HGVs and junctions, isn't it?

 

[Primal Scream]

Stopping close to the kerb doesn't usually achieve anything, as it's then often possible to filter through on the right hand side instead. I always get a slight sense of triumph when I do that, as it seems to me drivers sometimes stop close to the kerb deliberately to try and block a cyclist, god knows why.

Well one driver has given you his reason why but I have no doubt some do it for vindictive reasons.

 

[Spinney]

We have a legal right to filter. We also have a responsibility to ourselves to ensure we don't recklessly put ourselves in harms way. If in doubt...don't do it.

We have a legal right to filter.

We do not have a 'right' for others to leave space for us to filter.

 

[Spinney]

Not sure what you mean by 'but', Spinney. No rule applies in all situations; it's up to us to use our intelligence and judgement, as also should car and lorry drivers.

I'm talking about the situation at junctions with an HGV there, as that is the situation in which ffoeg said he often kept his HGV close to the kerb. Less likely to get squashed by a left hook if you overtake on the right.

As you say, in other situations the safest side may vary.

 

[Spinney]

In what way is it dangerous to cycle along the side of the road?

Ffoeg was talking about blocking the space on the left when near junctions. Do I need to go into detail why it is dangerous to cycle along the side of the road next to an HGV in those circumstances? That is the situation I'm talking about here (and I assumed everyone else was). I have never said that it is always unsafe to cycle along the side of the road.

 

[Spinney]

We are not talking about people leaving space. We are talking about people deliberately closing space off.

That's a matter of interpretation, surely? If they are closing space on the left, they are leaving space on the right. If there is no legal requirement to leave a certain space from the kerb, then they are not really 'closing it off', are they?

 

[Sara_H]

[QUOTE 2639502, member: 9609"]


Because cyclists shouldn't be undertaking lorries. Cyclist quite rightly get very annoyed when a truck passes them with under a metre of space, but then the cyclist will go into a space much smaller to pass the truck.


.[/quote]

Heres another thing that pisses me off about this "cyclists must take respobsibility for their own safety" argument. Anyone, from the moment they're phsically able, to the day they die, is legally entitled to use our roads. They are not obliged to be trained to do so and may have absolutely no idea that a driver has blind spots.
Why should it be up to them to avoid HGV's driving blindly on our roads?
Hell, if I want to I can hold a tea dance in the middle of the road, and the legal obligation is on the drivers to avoid me.

 

[Primal Scream]

Wrong, if you have a tea dance on the road you will be arrested for obstruction as many sit down protestors are.

 

[Sara_H]

Wrong, if you have a tea dance on the road you will be arrested for obstruction as many sit down protestors are.

Drivers will still be legally obliged to avoid me.

 

[Puddles]

you will be arrested for obstruction as many sit down protestors are.

Unless you are 3 and it is 1977 in a rural area

 

[Arch]

I understand what you're saying, but believe it or not it isn't always dangerous to cycle along the inside of an HGV at a junction - for example if you see the lights have only just changed and there's a queue of traffic, etc etc. That's what I mean by intelligence and judgement.

But the situation described was when the HGV is near the front of the traffic, and turning left at the lights. In that case, it's really very stupid to cycle up the inside, and there'll be very little advantage to doing so, because the cyclist will only be waiting a few vehicles back from the front anyway.

Exactly like taking primary on a bike, it's about preventing others from doing stupid things.

Heres another thing that ****es me off about this "cyclists must take respobsibility for their own safety" argument. Anyone, from the moment they're phsically able, to the day they die, is legally entitled to use our roads. They are not obliged to be trained to do so and may have absolutely no idea that a driver has blind spots.
Why should it be up to them to avoid HGV's driving blindly on our roads?
Hell, if I want to I can hold a tea dance in the middle of the road, and the legal obligation is on the drivers to avoid me.

So if you run out into the road without looking, it's ok, because it's up to drivers to avoid you? After all, you've got every right to be there. Why not walk down the middle of the road at night wearing a black cloak while you're at it? After all, you need take no responsibility for your own safety...

 

[Brandane]

...yep...lots of them here as well in tiny streets, they block the road, cut corners, double park to deliver and expect the world to bow down to them just because they are so ridiculously oversized.
Our road infrastructure in towns is not designed for such large trucks, regardless of the economic reasons the trucking companies are placing peoples lives at risk by driving unsuitably sized vehicles, often in a dangerous manner, on small local roads.
Got a huge truck? Stick to the motorway!

Next time a transport manager hands me the keys of an artic, along with a pile of delivery notes and tells me to go into several different town centres and deliver pallets of goods to shops where greedy consumers wait to buy said goods as cheaply as possible, I must try that line. "But.... but.... boss; cyclists and car drivers don't like us being in town centres. Can't I drop the stuff off at a motorway services and you can get a fleet of vans to take it the rest of the way?"

"Aye no problem driver, pick up your P45 on the way out!".

Bottom line is, we, the consumers, demand goods in the shops to be available, and to be available cheaper than anywhere else. That means that everything is done as cheaply as possible, from being manufactured in sweat-shops in the far east, to being delivered by an artic rather than several vans. Reason being is quite simple; cost.

 

[Sara_H]

So if you run out into the road without looking, it's ok, because it's up to drivers to avoid you? After all, you've got every right to be there. Why not walk down the middle of the road at night wearing a black cloak while you're at it? After all, you need take no responsibility for your own safety...

Yes, because there should always be anticipation that that could happen. Legally, the responsibility is with the driver. SMIDSY, YWIMBS etc are no mitigation. And when you go down the road you're going, it's not long before you get insurance companies trying to blame pedestrians who get run over for not wearing hi-viz.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-multi-million-pound-compensation-battle.html

Really, think about it, should HGV's really be driven blindly around PEOPLE? - it's really stupid.

 

[Arch]

Next time a transport manager hands me the keys of an artic, along with a pile of delivery notes and tells me to go into several different town centres and deliver pallets of goods to shops where greedy consumers wait to buy said goods as cheaply as possible, I must try that line. "But.... but.... boss; cyclists and car drivers don't like us being in town centres. Can't I drop the stuff off at a motorway services and you can get a van to take it the rest of the way?"

"Aye no problem driver, pick up your P45 on the way out!".

Bottom line is, we, the consumers, demand goods in the shops to be available, and to be available cheaper than anywhere else. That means that everything is done as cheaply as possible, from being manufactured in sweat-shops in the far east, to being delivered by an artic rather than several vans. Reason being is quite simple; cost.

There's also this to think about: one HGV, driven by someone with specialist training (OK, some might be bad, but many many more are fine), or 7 or 8 Transits, driven by someone who managed to pass a car test and not necessarily any more....

Not that I like HGVs and LGVs in town, I can just see the most likely alternative....

 

[Sara_H]

But

Bottom line is, we, the consumers, demand goods in the shops to be available, and to be available cheaper than anywhere else. That means that everything is done as cheaply as possible, from being manufactured in sweat-shops in the far east, to being delivered by an artic rather than several vans. Reason being is quite simple; cost.

we don't demand they are delivered in a way that puts our lives at risk. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that these vehicles are banned from our streets. In fact it would be quite sensible.