Rob K:
Tragic though it is, no-one to blame here other than the cyclist. Cyclists in general ■■■■ me off big time because they’re all a bunch of hypocrites.
And from a forum for professional drivers! If this is trolling, it is in extremely poor taste. People are dying unnecessarily and training for all parties would improve the situation. End of.
Cops near me ignore cyclists riding safely on the pavement
Slackbladder:
and so it begins. what started as a reasoned talk on cycling v motor vehicle only to have the usual tool turn up. its the attitude that all cyclists are in the wrong because they are in my way. its that attitude that ensures things will never change. as far as im concerned its the problem with society as a whole, nobody has time for anything or anybody except themselves. we all think we are in the right, even when we know we are wrong. no amount of training for cyclists or truckers will stop accidents happening, people are too self absorbed.
the way I see it is that there is no deterrent to cyclists riding like idiots in traffic, just as there is no real deterrent to motorists when they kill a cyclist, average sentence is 9 months. im not expecting things to change anytime soon.
ride on the pavement! last time I looked at the HWC it was not allowed, also its full of pedestrians. given that around 2 million vehicles on the road have no tax or insurance I don’t think that is viable either. road tax does not exist, we all pay for roads and, if you care to check, there are plenty of cars on the road that do not pay any car tax. the Volvo v40, the Toyota prius and the vw 1,6 bluemotion to name a couple. have a look at ipayroadtax,com for more info.
No mate.The problem is all about a load of militant nutters on bikes who aren’t interested in sorting out a simple problem in a reasonable logical way.If anyone has an attitude about anyone being in anyone’s ‘way’ it’s the cycling lot.Get them onto the pavement where they belong and then make them ride with the type of responsibility towards pedestrians on the pavement which they expect from every other road user under the present stupid idea of having cyclists on the road but who obviously don’t have any intention of giving in return.Until they start looking at it reasonably with a bit of intelligence like ROG then zb em I’ve got no sympathy with most of them.
As an off road mountain biker, a road cyclist, a car driver and somebody who also drives for a living I find that I think differently to the vast majority of cyclists I see out on the road.
I think a large part of the problem is that many cyclists don’t drive a car, and possibly never have, so they don’t see the dangers we, as drivers, do…
I was driving at about 20-25mph a few weeks back through a small town. I noticed an old guy fifty yards in front of me on the pavement riding a bike. He suddenly decided to leave the pavement and went straight into the road. He did’nt look over his shoulder once. If I had have been closer to him he’d have gone straight into me…
I honestly think a huge amount of cyclists think that they’re invincible and that ‘it’ will never happen to them. These are the same one’s I pass every morning wobbling along a 40mph dual carriageway in the pitch black with not a single light…
They make my blood boil with their sheer stupidity
Hexhome:
Rob K:
Tragic though it is, no-one to blame here other than the cyclist. Cyclists in general ■■■■ me off big time because they’re all a bunch of hypocrites.And from a forum for professional drivers! If this is trolling, it is in extremely poor taste. People are dying unnecessarily and training for all parties would improve the situation. End of.
People are dying because of a stupid anomaly in the way the Brits run the road traffic and cycling issue and because of the support of those cyclists who are all about making martyrs of themselves on some bs anti motorised transport crusade.The only training required is that of making cyclists aware of their responsibilities towards pedestrians after putting them where they belong on the pavement not on the road.End of.
Pavements are not suitable for cycling. My commute is 15 miles each way, it would take me forever if I attempted it on the pavement. The first problem I would have is getting past the cars parked on it. I would have to stop at each junction to get up and down the kerb. Pedestrians would get quite angry and as it is illegal, who can blame them! This time of year they are not gritted and icy. The final major problem is that there are no pavements for at least half of my commute!
I’m sure there are some people who would argue ban them from the roads (actually there are many saying ban lorries). Such people are unreasonable and ill informed.
No, bicycles (and lorries) are here to stay. We have to get on with each other safely. I had hoped for a more appropriate response from my fellow professionals.
ROG:
Cops near me ignore cyclists riding safely on the pavement
This was the Met ROG who’ve always run things to suit the bonkers commie republic there.Since the olymipcs it seems that Surrey police have been pushed into accepting the raving cycling crusade for ‘equality’ on the road for cyclists bs to the point of now having to avoid cyclists using lane 1 of the A3 (which is effectively a 3 lane motorway) because the militant zb’s would rather get wiped out than use the hard shoulder. 
Hexhome:
the maoster:
Agreed, but that’s the problem, cycles are not dangerous to others.
Tell that to this gentlemans family:
and not just here in the UK:
so there’s no need for this then:
Ermm…Dangerous and Reckless Cycling Bill.
There are plenty more of examples just do a google search.
I’m not anti-cyclist. I just get fed up with the one sided argument ie blame the lorry not the fool that put themselves in a dangerous position. Maybe TFL should consider banning anything bigger than a 3.5t going in to London from 07.00 to 20.00 and then ban cyclists outside these hours.
Hexhome:
Pavements are not suitable for cycling. My commute is 15 miles each way, it would take me forever if I attempted it on the pavement. The first problem I would have is getting past the cars parked on it. I would have to stop at each junction to get up and down the kerb. Pedestrians would get quite angry and as it is illegal, who can blame them! This time of year they are not gritted and icy. The final major problem is that there are no pavements for at least half of my commute!I’m sure there are some people who would argue ban them from the roads (actually there are many saying ban lorries). Such people are unreasonable and ill informed.
No, bicycles (and lorries) are here to stay. We have to get on with each other safely. I had hoped for a more appropriate response from my fellow professionals.
There aren’t many places in London where there aren’t any pavements.Such an idea certainly would have saved the life of the girl in the recent tv programme.If it means a bit of inconvenience in cyclists having to realise that they are just pedestrians using an unmotorised device which is just on a slightly higher level than walking tough.Road traffic calming and 20 mph speed limits all over the place have added loads of time to motorists journeys too.Deal with it.
Hexhome:
Rob K:
Tragic though it is, no-one to blame here other than the cyclist. Cyclists in general ■■■■ me off big time because they’re all a bunch of hypocrites.And from a forum for professional drivers! If this is trolling, it is in extremely poor taste. People are dying unnecessarily and training for all parties would improve the situation. End of.
Hexhome this is a matter that’s obviously close to your heart, well fair play to you, and I honestly hope that this problem is sorted in a way that makes you happy.
However, I’ll return to this training thing again. It’s all very well saying it could be included in the DCPC, but what? What training are you proposing? I honestly don’t understand what form you think this training should take, please enlighten me. There isn’t imo a great deal you can teach a LGV driver, and to be honest a 7 hour training module consisting of nothing more than a trainer saying “don’t run them over” would probably ■■■■ me off enough to go out and do just that!
So I’ll stick to my original assertion that it’s the vulnerable ones who need training, not the ones encased in steel.
the maoster:
However, I’ll return to this training thing again. It’s all very well saying it could be included in the DCPC, but what? What training are you proposing? I honestly don’t understand what form you think this training should take, please enlighten me. There isn’t imo a great deal you can teach a LGV driver, and to be honest a 7 hour training module consisting of nothing more than a trainer saying “don’t run them over” would probably ■■■■ me off enough to go out and do just that!So I’ll stick to my original assertion that it’s the vulnerable ones who need training, not the ones encased in steel.
I keep repeating this as people seem want to turn this thread into a vitriolic rant. I agree wholeheartedly that cyclists need to clean up their act BUT it isn’t just irresponsible cyclists who are getting killed and injured. Even well trained and skilled cyclists are involved in tragedies. Remember, most cyclists hold driving licences and many of us have vocational licences as well. I personally have been hospitalised by a stupid and deliberate act by a (car) driver.
The form of training which is already available in some London Boroughs as a DCPC module with a full 7 hour credit (and free for many drivers) is about recognising the issues from a cycling perspective. I can promise you that it is eye opening. There is also similar training available, again free, for cyclists, recognising the issues from an HGV drivers point of view. Again for most cyclists, this is an eye opener and I would expect that none of them would ever come up the inside of a large vehicle ever again.
Hopefully, this will help fta.co.uk/export/sites/fta/_ … g_code.pdf
Carryfast:
There aren’t many places in London where there aren’t any pavements.Such an idea certainly would have saved the life of the girl in the recent tv programme.If it means a bit of inconvenience in cyclists having to realise that they are just pedestrians using an unmotorised device which is just on a slightly higher level than walking tough.Road traffic calming and 20 mph speed limits all over the place have added loads of time to motorists journeys too.Deal with it.
Cycles travel at 14 to 25 mph, they are not in any way compatible with pavements. In London there are many pavements but there are also many pedestrians, there simply is not the room for cyclists.
Segregation may be a way forward but it can never be total and in any case there simply is not the money. There will always be a point where cycles (horses, tractors, pedestrians etc. etc.) will have to share the road with us. Though it sounds a simple solution, it is just not workable.
The thing is carryfast, the majority aren’t militant nutters, they are “normal” people that choose to ride a bike. They don’t take much notice of other vehicles as, because I said earlier, they are too absorbed in themselves, bit like the car and truck drivers I see every day. Like the white van man nutter who tried to get past me into roadworks despite me being only 50mtrs off the first bollard, and him not even started to get past me. That cost him his bumper and hopefully his job. Like the trucker going uphill to tibshelf services who did not want to wait while a slower truck passed me, into lane 3 then as I’m in a hurry and more important. Get used to it because nothing will happen, ever.
Hexhome:
the maoster:
However, I’ll return to this training thing again. It’s all very well saying it could be included in the DCPC, but what? What training are you proposing? I honestly don’t understand what form you think this training should take, please enlighten me. There isn’t imo a great deal you can teach a LGV driver, and to be honest a 7 hour training module consisting of nothing more than a trainer saying “don’t run them over” would probably ■■■■ me off enough to go out and do just that!So I’ll stick to my original assertion that it’s the vulnerable ones who need training, not the ones encased in steel.
I keep repeating this as people seem want to turn this thread into a vitriolic rant. I agree wholeheartedly that cyclists need to clean up their act BUT it isn’t just irresponsible cyclists who are getting killed and injured. Even well trained and skilled cyclists are involved in tragedies. Remember, most cyclists hold driving licences and many of us have vocational licences as well. I personally have been hospitalised by a stupid and deliberate act by a (car) driver.
The form of training which is already available in some London Boroughs as a DCPC module with a full 7 hour credit (and free for many drivers) is about recognising the issues from a cycling perspective. I can promise you that it is eye opening. There is also similar training available, again free, for cyclists, recognising the issues from an HGV drivers point of view. Again for most cyclists, this is an eye opener and I would expect that none of them would ever come up the inside of a large vehicle ever again.
It’s the ‘London Boroughs’ that are more part of the problem rather than the solution.It’s no surprise that it’s London where many of the problems seem to be happening.The best solution would be to return the outer London Boroughs to the counties where they belong and allow the cycling issue to be sorted at local government level.In which case those who think that the cycles on the pavement idea is best can use it while the Londoners can just carry on as they are.Logic never being one of the Londoners’ strong points.
As for trucks if a driver doesn’t know how to make a safe turn without wiping someone out then no DCPC course is going to help.Mirrors,signal,manouvre and checking any obstruction being passed in the mirrors covers it.If some idiot on a bike then puts themselves in harm’s way by trying to overtake and/or riding alongside a truck after the driver has established that there’s no one in the mirrors before turning or having passed safely then that’s the cyclists fault.However getting cyclists off the road and onto the pavement would remove around 90% of those issues.
Another life lost, which is sad.
As part of my dcpc, I did a bike awarness day which included getting on a push bike.
I must admit though, at least 90% of cyclists I see break the law/ride in a dangerous manner.
I would be interested to see the statistics; how many cyclists killed by lorries/vehciles, and of those deaths, how many were the drivers fault, rather than the cyclist.
Carryfast, please accept this if nothing else;
I and most other cyclists will continue to use the roads and nothing you say will change that, we are not being difficult, we have no choice. I am just making a suggestion towards improving a situation which is bad and getting worse. By all means continue in the knowledge that you do everything you can to prevent a tragedy. I hope that you are correct. However, this training MAY help some and as we have to take 35 hours training anyway, why not?
rambo19:
As part of my dcpc, I did a bike awarness day which included getting on a push bike.
I would love to know whether you felt that it was a valuable experience or not?
I’d like to know what the ■■■■ cyclists have done to help their cause.
Hexhome:
Carryfast:
There aren’t many places in London where there aren’t any pavements.Such an idea certainly would have saved the life of the girl in the recent tv programme.If it means a bit of inconvenience in cyclists having to realise that they are just pedestrians using an unmotorised device which is just on a slightly higher level than walking tough.Road traffic calming and 20 mph speed limits all over the place have added loads of time to motorists journeys too.Deal with it.Cycles travel at 14 to 25 mph, they are not in any way compatible with pavements. In London there are many pavements but there are also many pedestrians, there simply is not the room for cyclists.
Segregation may be a way forward but it can never be total and in any case there simply is not the money. There will always be a point where cycles (horses, tractors, pedestrians etc. etc.) will have to share the road with us. Though it sounds a simple solution, it is just not workable.
There’s no way that cyclists travelling at 25 mph on pavements would be workable or safe.However it’s also the case that in most urban areas the speed of 20 mph even on the road is increasingly being seen as the safe maximum.So if it’s ok for road traffic to have to run at 20 mph instead of the old natural in town speed of around 40 mph + during the 1970’s then it’s ok for cyclists to have to reduce their speed to around 10-15 mph max on the pavement.
By the way when you’re talking about London it covers many areas (unfortunately).So what’s better for a cyclist here pavement or road 
.
i stand to be corrected but that story seems to be actually missing something that we always seem see in these tragic stories
“the hgv driver, automatically assumed to be at fault - naturally, was arrested at the scene”