rambo19:
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.
I don’t think that that statistic is published. I wanted to avoid the blame game though. My point is simply that if we can improve the situation as professionals on the road and therefore an example to other road users, it is worth doing.
It may be of interest that on Cycling forums, Truck Drivers are highly thought of as skilled and safe road users - forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=70689. No one ASFAIK is blaming Truck Drivers for what is happening except to point out that cyclists come off badly when they collide with lorries.
Hexhome:
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.
It seems ‘strange’ why any cyclist who thinks the present system is bad getting worse then doesn’t seem to want to support the idea of giving them that ‘choice’ of getting off the roads and onto the pavements where they belong.It’s my guess for the same reason that the idiots would prefer to use lane 1 of the A3 instead of the hard shoulder amongst other places where they’ve actually got a choice but still prefer to use the road.They’re just looking for trouble and then whine when they find it.In addition to not wanting the responsibility they’d need to show towards pedestrians in that case but which they expect to be given and more by other road users.
No there isn’t. That was a politically led private members bill which faded to nothing because appropriate legislation already exists. We have all seen poorly thought out legislation rushed through as a result of a tragedy when the local MP tries to gain votes.
There have been fatalities involving pedestrians and cyclists but they are very rare, though if as has been suggested we cycle on the pavements, that might change!
ROG:
Has this situation got worse in the last 10 years?
I ask because when I was doing London on a regular basis 10+ years ago I never came into conflict with any other road user even in the rush hours
I think there were alot less cyclists in London back then.
Attitudes of everyone that operates something with wheels, wether its a bike or a truck has also deteriorated last 10 years aswel.
Its like a bloody rat race out there IMO. I can only imagine what its like in London now compared with 20 years ago which is the last time i drove around the place.
Carryfast:
It seems ‘strange’ why any cyclist who thinks the present system is bad getting worse then doesn’t seem to want to support the idea of giving them that ‘choice’ of getting off the roads and onto the pavements where they belong.It’s my guess for the same reason that the idiots would prefer to use lane 1 of the A3 instead of the hard shoulder amongst other places where they’ve actually got a choice but still prefer to use the road.They’re just looking for trouble and then whine when they find it.In addition to not wanting the responsibility they’d need to show towards pedestrians in that case but which they expect to be given and more by other road users.
This is a road goo.gl/maps/B6X07 Were would you suggest that I cycle? Or do you just want to say that I shouldn’t be on the roads?
No there isn’t. That was a politically led private members bill which faded to nothing because appropriate legislation already exists. We have all seen poorly thought out legislation rushed through as a result of a tragedy when the local MP tries to gain votes.
There have been fatalities involving pedestrians and cyclists but they are very rare, though if as has been suggested we cycle on the pavements, that might change!
Strange but no surprise that it wouldn’t have been passed and faded to nothing.The whole thing is a politically driven bs excercise to make cyclists unresponsible for their actions while criminalising drivers in an attempt to reduce living standards by getting people out of their car and onto cycles.So what’s wrong with passing the bill and then putting cyclists where they belong on the pavement and thereby responsible for their own transport choice in which case they’ll be under exactly the situation that drivers are unfairly being lumbered with now.If a driver kills a cyclist (or a pedestrian) it’s more than likely going to end up as a case of causing death by careless or dangerous driving and prison whereas if a cyclist does the same it isn’t.It’s obvious that cyclists are just out to make sure that they can do as they like with as little inconvenience as possible.While drivers are expected to pay for it all both in terms of money and penalties when the inevitable collisions take place between motor vehicles and cycles both being used on the road when there’s no need.
As per a recent posts here, faster lorries can help boost economic growth. Not my words but thats what they reckon. So if the cyclists get onto the walkways, the traffic can go faster and not hold back economic growth. And also possibly save a few lives into the bargain. They (cyclists) may get held up/slowed down a bit with all the pedestrians but thats surely a small price to pay to save lives and boost economic growth? Makes sense to me anyway.
Carryfast:
Strange but no surprise that it wouldn’t have been passed and faded to nothing.The whole thing is a politically driven bs excercise to make cyclists unresponsible for their actions while criminalising drivers in an attempt to reduce living standards by getting people out of their car and onto cycles.So what’s wrong with passing the bill and then putting cyclists where they belong on the pavement and thereby responsible for their own transport choice in which case they’ll be under exactly the situation that drivers are unfairly being lumbered with now.If a driver kills a cyclist (or a pedestrian) it’s more than likely going to end up as a case of causing death by careless or dangerous driving and prison whereas if a cyclist does the same it isn’t.It’s obvious that cyclists are just out to make sure that they can do as they like with as little inconvenience as possible.While drivers are expected to pay for it all both in terms of money and penalties when the inevitable collisions take place between motor vehicles and cycles both being used on the road when there’s no need.
Well I’ll just leave you to your views. I only posted here because as an HGV driver who also cycles, I believe that some use could be made of the compulsory DCPC. Your views on getting cyclists on to the pavement are in my view impractical and unrealistic, but that doesn’t make them any less valid.
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. You see them whining like little girls on internet forums about vehicles overtaking them too close and ranting and raving about how dangerous it is if you come within a cars width of them, yet all this goes straight out of the window when they get to slow moving traffic that is travelling slower than they can pedal and it suddenly becomes perfectly okay to ride between the traffic and the kerb with only millimetres clearance between them. They want to have their cake and eat it and they can [zb] right off.
This is such a valid point.
You follow a cyclist in a truck for miles because you need a much bigger distance to pass it safely. You concentrate like nothing else on earth and make your move, you hit the thottle, you leave 5 feet between your truck and the bike or as much room as you can.
You then stop at a set of trafic lights and what happens?
The ■■■■ on the bike scrapes up the inside of you to try and get a head start Or more offten than not, you’l be lucky to see him actually stop at the lights.
The whole idea of riding a bike in towns and citys is “to get ahead”. Its that “get ahead” mentality that can be fatal.
I think that the main issue with cyclist safety is the lack of training on their part. I need a licence to drive my car, ride my motorbike, or drive a LGV for work for each of these licences I have had to do a theory test, a hazard perception test, a practical test and to drive a LGV I had to do a further 2 test module 2 and 4 of the DCPC. I would consider myself to be a better driver than the ‘average’ driver you see on the road were trained to be prepared for what’s around the next corner. Accidents are going to happen and as our ageing road network gets busier and busier. I find it very worrying and strange that drivers have to have all this training and show someone that you are at a certain standard yet you can jump on a bike and ride on the road network and if anything happens its always the trained persons fault.
Carryfast:
It seems ‘strange’ why any cyclist who thinks the present system is bad getting worse then doesn’t seem to want to support the idea of giving them that ‘choice’ of getting off the roads and onto the pavements where they belong.It’s my guess for the same reason that the idiots would prefer to use lane 1 of the A3 instead of the hard shoulder amongst other places where they’ve actually got a choice but still prefer to use the road.They’re just looking for trouble and then whine when they find it.In addition to not wanting the responsibility they’d need to show towards pedestrians in that case but which they expect to be given and more by other road users.
This is a road goo.gl/maps/B6X07 Were would you suggest that I cycle? Or do you just want to say that I shouldn’t be on the roads?
I don’t think in that case that you’d need to worry too much about turning traffic or clearance and space issues.Unlike the issues which apply in urban areas and it’s also obvious that you wouldn’t have a choice anyway in that place.Which doesn’t explain the issue of cycles needing to use the road here.
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. You see them whining like little girls on internet forums about vehicles overtaking them too close and ranting and raving about how dangerous it is if you come within a cars width of them, yet all this goes straight out of the window when they get to slow moving traffic that is travelling slower than they can pedal and it suddenly becomes perfectly okay to ride between the traffic and the kerb with only millimetres clearance between them. They want to have their cake and eat it and they can [zb] right off.
This is such a valid point.
You follow a cyclist in a truck for miles because you need a much bigger distance to pass it safely. You concentrate like nothing else on earth and make your move, you hit the thottle, you leave 5 feet between your truck and the bike or as much room as you can.
You then stop at a set of trafic lights and what happens?
The [zb] on the bike scrapes up the inside of you to try and get a head start Or more offten than not, you’l be lucky to see him actually stop at the lights.
The whole idea of riding a bike in towns and citys is “to get ahead”. Its that “get ahead” mentality that can be fatal.
I’m not here to argue whether cyclists have a right to be on the road or not. That is already clear in law. I would just like to leave my suggestion concerning the DCPC which we all moan about on the table.
Carryfast:
The whole issue is a load of bollox.Get cyclists off the roads and onto the pavement.Then make them as responsible for avoiding accidents with pedestrians on the pavement a the idiots want drivers to be in the case of cyclists coming into conflict with trucks and cars on the road.In which case they’ll have to ride a lot slower and be aware of what’s going on around them.With the charges relating to a cyclist hitting pedestrians being the same as those faced by drivers hitting them on a pedestrian crossing.It’s a more logical way of dealing with the problem.
Agree completely with this ^
Even when lots of money is spent on laying cycle paths, cyclists don’t want to use them because apparently they can’t go fast enough on them! There are many instances when I can’t travel as fast as I would like, but I have to drive to the conditions of the road and think for other road users.
Maybe cyclist awareness courses for large vehicle drivers will improve things; maybe they won’t.
But just maybe a TV advert campaign that is as blunt as possible with the message: “never, never cycle on the nearside of a large vehicle unless you want to die”, might get the message across.
If the bike isn’t there in the first place then the odds on a collision have reduced enormously.
I might be out on a limb here as the saying goes but due to the increase in traffic in the past 10/15years i think we are now at the stage where cyclists should be banned from roads especially busyier routes. As for the suggestion that Hgv drivers should undergo cycle awareness training at least the HGV drivers have undergone training more than can be said for 99% of cyclists. Eddie.
Yet again, an investigation hasn’t even been completed yet and already its assumed the lorry drivers fault. Who is to say at this stage that the cyclist didn’t do something stupid, it’s hardely uncommon to see, or his bike was a heap with poor brakes for example?
Any tom, ■■■■ or henrietta can jump onto a bike without any training, any highway code knowledge or proven skill whatsoever and ride amongst busy traffic on our roads with no insurance and without having to prove their bike is road worthy. And yet they want us already qualified and insured drivers to go on “cyclist awareness courses” to make sure we don’t hit them - there is something seriously wrong with that logic.
I hate reading about road users losing their lives.Who or whatever they are.
Some cyclists do seem to be the architects of their own misfortune though,
and seem to think they have a God given right to go for any gap,regardless.
There will never be an equal debate,though.There are a lot more cyclists among the ranks of government officials than there are lorry drivers.
