boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast:
Feel free to explain how a cyclist who’s been knocked to the ground by a side guard won’t then be run over by the wheels.Because they will tend to get knocked away from vehicle . not fall under wheels .
Not quaranteed obviously , but every little helps
That’s only going to work in the case of a truck going straight ahead.In the case of a turning truck no chance because the wheels are actually going in the direction that the cyclist is lying in the road. 
boredwivdrivin:
Snowtroll . i must sincerely apologise . the next time a get flayed by a strap and hoofed off my bike i must remember to find a tape measure , run after fleeing lorry and measure the strap .
Most people would be concered with me being injured and off bike but i can see thats wrong and its the estimation of length of steap thats key
My bads .
Im sorry
boredwivdrivin:
SnowTroll . when answering a question ‘wot has transport industry done to alleviate problem’ i can now see that a list of things OTHER people have done IS relevant
I dont know how i could be so stooopud not to reslise thatMy humbles
Soreee
This. This right here is what the problem is. I respond to a sensible post you put up and how do you reply? With this load of sarcasm. I waited to see if you’d reply to it since id allow you your sarcasm to respond to mine but two hours is more than enough time and your,once again,choosing to pick and choose which posts to reply to in order to suit your agenda.
You’ve now confirmed without any more doubt that you have absolutely no intention what so ever of trying to have a decent,well thought out discussion. The first time you put up anything resembling sense I reply to it with either an agreement,a counter or another version of it and your not interested in anything but insults.
You only interested in total cyclist ■■■■■■■■■■ and anything other than total cycle rule is of no interest to you what so ever.
You have a very small minded attitude of complete closed shop views and your only recourse is issuing insults to anyone who doesnt agree with you (of which no one ever does) and your everything thats wrong with the attitude of cyclists. The one that says “ill do as I please and everyone else will need to take more care”. The one that screams “we have more right to use the road than you do”
I have now asked you FOUR times at least why you are so against a cycle test and license requirement. No answer from you
I have asked you before what you think needs done about law breaking cyclists. No answer
I asked you if you thought a cycle tax could go towards paying for all the implementations you demand. Zilch. Nada
You finally answered about what you want the RHA to do and despite a couple of half decent points its still littered with requirnments that are unworkable (an engineering lift to raise the suspention? Really?) and totally remove ANY responsibility from cyclists to start behaving responsibly. I note theres nothing there which requires cycling groups to work with the RHA to educate cyclists about dealing with lorries.
You are so forceful in your “right” to sit on the nearside of a lorry you completely ignore calls to answer the fairly simple question of why you demand its the drivers 100% responsibility to check if you have sat there instead of taking at least some of the onus on you and your kind not to do it in the first place.
Ive told you before,the attitude you have is what is causing the problems and animosity between drivers and cyclists. The arrogance of doing what you want and getting away with it is why some drivers detest cyclists.
By ignoring my other post to you (the one where I actually agreed with some of the stuff you wrote) you have shown yourself to be uninterested in working to any solution exept one where you are absolved of any blame and all drivers have to bend to your will and demands without question.
Your only interested in issuing sarcasm,ignoring decent posts,avoiding reasonable questions and insulting everyone and anyone who pulls you up for what your posting.
And THAT,my friend,is the 100% definition of an internet troll
Read this thread with a very large tub of popcorn, better than any comedy.
And still nowhere does drivel dispenser boredshitless address getting cycling regulated, sidestepping issue yet again like every cycling body does.
Entertaining as this lot is , unfortunate thing is this thread started with the loss of some poor souls life and turned into another Us and Them scenario.
dcgpx:
Read this thread with a very large tub of popcorn, better than any comedy.And still nowhere does drivel dispenser boredshitless address getting cycling regulated, sidestepping issue yet again like every cycling body does.
Entertaining as this lot is , unfortunate thing is this thread started with the loss of some poor souls life and turned into another Us and Them scenario.
+1
dcgpx:
Entertaining as this lot is , unfortunate thing is this thread started with the loss of some poor souls life and turned into another Us and Them scenario.
+1
Yep. As I said in my post above,he has no interest in actually working with both sides to improve things. Only in ensuring cyclists have carte blanche to do as they please and every one else needs to take more care. Thats why there is such a big problem of us v them but hes so far up his own gear cog he cant see that HE is a bigger part of the problem than any amount of mirrors or near sided cameras is going to solve
I am thinking back to the time, only 30 or so years ago, when virtually all HGV traffic heading North/South actually went through London and there must have been cyclists around in those days yet I can’t remember them getting splattered by trucks like they do now, or was it not newsworthy back then? Having said that, regarding the amount of bikers in the Capital, the amount of death’s is small in proportion and there are probably far more fatal accident’s involving cars and pedestrians, hit and runs etc, in the area which you don’t hear about as they are not ‘headline grabbing’ news and not of a David and Goliath scenario like Public Enemy number one a ‘massive’ lorry and a tiny bike! I’m not making light of the issue but just putting things into perspective.
Of course there will be mistakes made by both parties as Humans are involved but common sense must come into the scenario as well, I went shopping last week and saw a cyclist with his head down and earphones on plough into a truck reversing into an entrance when all the other vehicles and pedestrians were stationary. 
Regarding mirrors, I would have set my mirrors exactly the same as Muckaway. No use viewing them through that quarterlight as then you would be blind to anything approaching from the left, he can see the full length of the body and the second steer, plus the nearside front wheel area as well. If the arm was moved out more the mirrors would have a very short life in this area, he can see the kerb to help him avoid any ironwork etc on sites or knocking newly laid kerbs out, and the rear corner for reversing up to the tipping area which basically is all a tipper driver needs to see.
Pete.
windrush:
Regarding mirrors, I would have set my mirrors exactly the same as Muckaway. No use viewing them through that quarterlight as then you would be blind to anything approaching from the left, he can see the full length of the body and the second steer, plus the nearside front wheel area as well. If the arm was moved out more the mirrors would have a very short life in this area, he can see the kerb to help him avoid any ironwork etc on sites or knocking newly laid kerbs out, and the rear corner for reversing up to the tipping area which basically is all a tipper driver needs to see.Pete.
so I can keep on the digger drivers good side by reversing under his bucket. 
dcgpx:
Entertaining as this lot is , unfortunate thing is this thread started with the loss of some poor souls life and turned into another Us and Them scenario.
Not exactly it started with what seems to be yet another collision, involving yet another cyclist,on the nearside of a left turning/moving truck.The topic has then evolved,rightly,into the usual debate of trying to get it through to the cycling lobby’s thick heads that it will keep happening unless cyclists do more to reduce the odds by staying well back from turning/potentially turning trucks.While equally pointing out the issues and dangers contained in ( often flawed ) mirror design and mirror use and trucks overtaking cyclists and then turning on them.On that note reducing the odds of further casualties is obviously all about continuing that discussion which is a clearly defined two sided issue.
windrush:
I am thinking back to the time, only 30 or so years ago, when virtually all HGV traffic heading North/South actually went through London and there must have been cyclists around in those days yet I can’t remember them getting splattered by trucks like they do now, or was it not newsworthy back then? Having said that, regarding the amount of bikers in the Capital, the amount of death’s is small in proportion and there are probably far more fatal accident’s involving cars and pedestrians, hit and runs etc, in the area which you don’t hear about as they are not ‘headline grabbing’ news and not of a David and Goliath scenario like Public Enemy number one a ‘massive’ lorry and a tiny bike! I’m not making light of the issue but just putting things into perspective.
Of course there will be mistakes made by both parties as Humans are involved but common sense must come into the scenario as well, I went shopping last week and saw a cyclist with his head down and earphones on plough into a truck reversing into an entrance when all the other vehicles and pedestrians were stationary.
Regarding mirrors, I would have set my mirrors exactly the same as Muckaway. No use viewing them through that quarterlight as then you would be blind to anything approaching from the left, he can see the full length of the body and the second steer, plus the nearside front wheel area as well. If the arm was moved out more the mirrors would have a very short life in this area, he can see the kerb to help him avoid any ironwork etc on sites or knocking newly laid kerbs out, and the rear corner for reversing up to the tipping area which basically is all a tipper driver needs to see.Pete.
Firstly there’s no way that the mirror situation shown in Muckaway’s pic can be anything like ideal.As I said the arm arc is around its widest point where the mirrors are positioned there.Which puts them just behind the window partition and therefore,contrary to can’t drive’s comments,isn’t the issue at all.
‘However’ it is equally obvious that,without wider mirror arms,the narrow cab v body idea compromises the mirror view along the side of the truck to the point where at least the rear wheels and corner/s are out of sight caught behind the body overhang.
While the adjustment itself is showing too much sky above the vehicle and too much of the vehicle sides.The latter possibly in a vain attempt to compensate for the flaw in the narrow cab with too short mirror arms issue.As for wider set mirrors being wiped out by approaching traffic the advantages in a better field and angle of view along the sides far outweigh the disadvantages and which obviously applies in the case of full width cabs anyway and which should be made mandatory for that reason.On that note bearing,in mind the odds in London of tipper/v cyclist conflict, maybe that might partly explain why tippers seem to be disproportionately involved in the statistics.In which case there should at least be a minimum set mirror width.Which assuming narrow cabbed trucks should be no less than that of a full width cab mirror setting.
Carryfast:
dcgpx:
Entertaining as this lot is , unfortunate thing is this thread started with the loss of some poor souls life and turned into another Us and Them scenario.Not exactly it started with what seems to be yet another collision, involving yet another cyclist,on the nearside of a left turning/moving truck.The topic has then evolved,rightly,into the usual debate of trying to get it through to the cycling lobby’s thick heads that it will keep happening unless cyclists do more to reduce the odds by staying well back from turning/potentially turning trucks.
Not sure where you get the ‘Not exactly’ from as it was about a cyclists death however you are spot on about it turning into the usual poles apart debate.
Shame some can’t see both sides rather than ignore that cyclists need to do a lot more - other than we are right so there attitude they have.
I truly wish someone in power( unfortunate as that is politicians) will have the gall to tell cyclists they need regulated same as any other road user, till that happens they will do as they please.
Not all cyclists are suicidal, I go into York a lot and most cyclists are very aware of traffic and hang back or at least show respect for larger vehicles. Not that hard really.
dcgpx:
Carryfast:
dcgpx:
Entertaining as this lot is , unfortunate thing is this thread started with the loss of some poor souls life and turned into another Us and Them scenario.Not exactly it started with what seems to be yet another collision, involving yet another cyclist,on the nearside of a left turning/moving truck.The topic has then evolved,rightly,into the usual debate of trying to get it through to the cycling lobby’s thick heads that it will keep happening unless cyclists do more to reduce the odds by staying well back from turning/potentially turning trucks.
Not sure where you get the ‘Not exactly’ from as it was about a cyclists death however you are spot on about it turning into the usual poles apart debate.
Shame some can’t see both sides rather than ignore that cyclists need to do a lot more - other than we are right so there attitude they have.
I truly wish someone in power( unfortunate as that is politicians) will have the gall to tell cyclists they need regulated same as any other road user, till that happens they will do as they please.
Not all cyclists are suicidal, I go into York a lot and most cyclists are very aware of traffic and hang back or at least show respect for larger vehicles. Not that hard really.
At the end of the day doing everything possible,in this case arguing here with the cyclist lobby,to try to reduce the odds of it happening to others is better than all the RIP stuff.
Couldn’t agree more , wish some cycling lobbies would actually listen though
It will be a long time before cyclists realise how unimportant they are when compared to the lorries travelling round London.
The whole concept of getting folks on their bike is to reduce car traffic so trucks can get through.
Course this will never sink in and no amount of naked protests is going to make any difference.
What would make a difference is for every cyclist to have a car day and show that cycling is no longer attractive enough to participate in.
The odd cyclist death will always be just an ‘acceptable loss’ when compared to the capital cities need for growth and logistical supply.
So why should we bother, after all punishment for killing a cyclist is minimal anyway.
After a bit of looking I found the following statistics for deaths on London roads last year. It shows that contrary to popular belief that there are substantially less cyclists killed than any other road user except car/lorry/bus etc. It goes to show that just by making the most noise about deaths of cyclists, one particular group can get a disproportionate amount of column inches. If there was a group concerned with pedestrian safety, for example, they would have a far stronger case for change than the cyclists do.
I can’t figure out how to copy actual table but here’s the link
tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/docum … n-2014.pdf
Having looked again there were more car drivers killed last year than cyclists so who is the most vulnerable group?
Carryfast:
Firstly there’s no way that the mirror situation shown in Muckaway’s pic can be anything like ideal.As I said the arm arc is around its widest point where the mirrors are positioned there.Which puts them just behind the window partition and therefore,contrary to can’t drive’s comments,isn’t the issue at all.‘However’ it is equally obvious that,without wider mirror arms,the narrow cab v body idea compromises the mirror view along the side of the truck to the point where at least the rear wheels and corner/s are out of sight caught behind the body overhang.
While the adjustment itself is showing too much sky above the vehicle and too much of the vehicle sides.The latter possibly in a vain attempt to compensate for the flaw in the narrow cab with too short mirror arms issue.As for wider set mirrors being wiped out by approaching traffic the advantages in a better field and angle of view along the sides far outweigh the disadvantages and which obviously applies in the case of full width cabs anyway and which should be made mandatory for that reason.On that note bearing,in mind the odds in London of tipper/v cyclist conflict, maybe that might partly explain why tippers seem to be disproportionately involved in the statistics.In which case there should at least be a minimum set mirror width.Which assuming narrow cabbed trucks should be no less than that of a full width cab mirror setting.
I bow down to your far greater knowledge of driving rigid tipper’s CF, however without fitting a Zanneti type mirror I don’t see that he could get a much wider field of vision unless the arm was moved right out which would be daft. The first thing we did on a new truck was move the mirror arms right in, then sometimes put a tin shield behind the mirror to protect it from trees etc. OK if he was on main road work all the time, however that isn’t the point of this thread so I will shut up, ■■■■ out and go back to making tea!
Pete.
Carryfast:
Firstly there’s no way that the mirror situation shown in Muckaway’s pic can be anything like ideal.As I said the arm arc is around its widest point where the mirrors are positioned there.Which puts them just behind the window partition and therefore,contrary to can’t drive’s comments,isn’t the issue at all.‘However’ it is equally obvious that,without wider mirror arms,the narrow cab v body idea compromises the mirror view along the side of the truck to the point where at least the rear wheels and corner/s are out of sight caught behind the body overhang.
While the adjustment itself is showing too much sky above the vehicle and too much of the vehicle sides.The latter possibly in a vain attempt to compensate for the flaw in the narrow cab with too short mirror arms issue.As for wider set mirrors being wiped out by approaching traffic the advantages in a better field and angle of view along the sides far outweigh the disadvantages and which obviously applies in the case of full width cabs anyway and which should be made mandatory for that reason.On that note bearing,in mind the odds in London of tipper/v cyclist conflict, maybe that might partly explain why tippers seem to be disproportionately involved in the statistics.In which case there should at least be a minimum set mirror width.Which assuming narrow cabbed trucks should be no less than that of a full width cab mirror setting.
You’d start an argument in an empty room CF, for once in your life actually take on board what people with more knowledge of tippers than you are saying.
If the mirror arm’s right out, it wont last long in rural areas or on tight access sites.
“Too much sky.” That’s for a good reason, so I can see a digger bucket when reversing up to get loaded. It’s worked for me for nearly 15 years, it worked for my Dad and my uncle (and Windrush it would appear) so forgive me for disregarding your ■■■■■■■■.
windrush:
Carryfast:
Firstly there’s no way that the mirror situation shown in Muckaway’s pic can be anything like ideal.As I said the arm arc is around its widest point where the mirrors are positioned there.Which puts them just behind the window partition and therefore,contrary to can’t drive’s comments,isn’t the issue at all.‘However’ it is equally obvious that,without wider mirror arms,the narrow cab v body idea compromises the mirror view along the side of the truck to the point where at least the rear wheels and corner/s are out of sight caught behind the body overhang.
While the adjustment itself is showing too much sky above the vehicle and too much of the vehicle sides.The latter possibly in a vain attempt to compensate for the flaw in the narrow cab with too short mirror arms issue.As for wider set mirrors being wiped out by approaching traffic the advantages in a better field and angle of view along the sides far outweigh the disadvantages and which obviously applies in the case of full width cabs anyway and which should be made mandatory for that reason.On that note bearing,in mind the odds in London of tipper/v cyclist conflict, maybe that might partly explain why tippers seem to be disproportionately involved in the statistics.In which case there should at least be a minimum set mirror width.Which assuming narrow cabbed trucks should be no less than that of a full width cab mirror setting.
I bow down to your far greater knowledge of driving rigid tipper’s CF, however without fitting a Zanneti type mirror I don’t see that he could get a much wider field of vision unless the arm was moved right out which would be daft. The first thing we did on a new truck was move the mirror arms right in, then sometimes put a tin shield behind the mirror to protect it from trees etc. OK if he was on main road work all the time, however that isn’t the point of this thread so I will shut up, ■■■■ out and go back to making tea!
Pete.
Don’t let em get you down Pete, you know us old 'uns know nowt
I have got to take you up on one point though, you shouldn’t be making your tea on a Friday, it’s fish and chips night 
Regards. John.
Muckaway:
Carryfast:
Firstly there’s no way that the mirror situation shown in Muckaway’s pic can be anything like ideal.As I said the arm arc is around its widest point where the mirrors are positioned there.Which puts them just behind the window partition and therefore,contrary to can’t drive’s comments,isn’t the issue at all.‘However’ it is equally obvious that,without wider mirror arms,the narrow cab v body idea compromises the mirror view along the side of the truck to the point where at least the rear wheels and corner/s are out of sight caught behind the body overhang.
While the adjustment itself is showing too much sky above the vehicle and too much of the vehicle sides.The latter possibly in a vain attempt to compensate for the flaw in the narrow cab with too short mirror arms issue.As for wider set mirrors being wiped out by approaching traffic the advantages in a better field and angle of view along the sides far outweigh the disadvantages and which obviously applies in the case of full width cabs anyway and which should be made mandatory for that reason.On that note bearing,in mind the odds in London of tipper/v cyclist conflict, maybe that might partly explain why tippers seem to be disproportionately involved in the statistics.In which case there should at least be a minimum set mirror width.Which assuming narrow cabbed trucks should be no less than that of a full width cab mirror setting.
You’d start an argument in an empty room CF, for once in your life actually take on board what people with more knowledge of tippers than you are saying.
If the mirror arm’s right out, it wont last long in rural areas or on tight access sites.
“Too much sky.” That’s for a good reason, so I can see a digger bucket when reversing up to get loaded. It’s worked for me for nearly 15 years, it worked for my Dad and my uncle (and Windrush it would appear) so forgive me for disregarding your ■■■■■■■■.
Where did you get the idea that I didn’t do any tipper work as a council driver both muck and bulk refuse using the same multi lift wagon amongst a few others.I don’t ever remember needing to be bothered about loading shovels in the air while moving the wagon into place ready for loading.
Although having said that then I’m guessing that the pic you posted wasn’t the relevant adjustment which you actually take it out on the road with assuming that was just for seeing shovels in the air in the yard ?.
As for mirrors not being far enough out to see the rear wheels and corners that would at least partly explain how cyclists could creep alongside without being more easily noticed.On that note there are plenty of examples of full width cabs and therefore the required mirror outset being used on tipper type work.
windrush:
I bow down to your far greater knowledge of driving rigid tipper’s CF, however without fitting a Zanneti type mirror I don’t see that he could get a much wider field of vision unless the arm was moved right out which would be daft. The first thing we did on a new truck was move the mirror arms right in, then sometimes put a tin shield behind the mirror to protect it from trees etc.
It doesn’t matter what type of mirror you fit if the mirrors are too close to a narrow cab then all you’ll get is around half a mirror full of truck body and no view of a cyclist lurking close to the nearside rear corner and/or heading under the rear wheels.
I’ve not read all the pages but when will cyclists learn not to pass on the nearside of ANY vehicle? Caution should be taken when overtaking on the offside as well!