Another cyclist killed

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
81

Watch it guys

That Roaduser66 is on the wrong forum, must have missed the concepts for truck drivers. He’s either just a bloody troll or one of them bloody know it all cyclists, that liked to be heard…You know the type… the one that likes to ■■■■, moan and bang the drum about no lorries on the road and laying the blame truckers when they get seriously injured or killed, expecting the government to pay for all these cycle lanes, yet none of them have ever passed a test, paid insurance, tax, etc etc…cyclists just a law to them selves…you spend all this money on vehicle mods and the knobs still ignore it… then you wonder why do you bother…

82

GasGas:
Another example of cyclists doing what our chum says they never do

youtube.com/watch?v=ubqPTbpSZtU

and another

youtube.com/watch?v=_DHQQtp6bh0

and another

youtube.com/watch?v=bKvNLXr_Rfk

Show me where I said that never happens.

83

The-Snowman:

roaduser66:
You mean the video clip taken by the LTDA?

Nope. I mean this one
youtube.com/watch?v=FguuUKaeIxo
You know,one taken in real life. Not part of a statistic or a survey. Actual footage

roaduser66:
You have a problem with cyclists, that’s fine, but don’t allow your prejudice to obscure the facts.

I dont have a problem with cyclists. No where have I ever stated cyclists should be banned or put off the road. Ive quite clearly said in the past that we all need to share the road and respect other road users as equals. Im simply stating that cyclists who disregard the highway code are a problem. I also have a BIG problem with drunk drivers,speeders and those who use the road like their own private race track without regard for anyone else. And ive been involved in many an argument with those who try and justify or dismiss it. Dont flatter yourself its just some cyclists that I have a problem with

roaduser66:
I’m asking you to film it because I don’t believe you.

I dont care whether you believe me or not. But I believe my own two eyes and I know what I saw. Ask any driver regarding cyclists and the highway code and they’ll tell you the same thing as me regarding red lights,junctions etc.

roaduser66:
I’ve never seen a cyclist ride the wrong way round a roundabout in my life, why on earth would they do that, and you claim to have seen it just today? Mmmmm.

So because YOU’VE never seen it then it didn’t happen? Doesn’t work like that. Ive never seen a bank robbery but they still happen.
youtube.com/watch?v=D36t4KIeqFU
There you go,just for you. Not my footage but it took all of 5 seconds to find.

roaduser66:
“are you telling me their not dangerous,reckless or showing a disregard for the rules of the road?”

Can you answer this question please. Thanks. You quoted it so I think requesting an answer is justified

roaduser66:
I would urgently recommend you undergo additional driver training. That a professional driver remains ignorant of the fact that filtering is entirely legal is shocking.

Filtering? Where did I say filtering was illegal? In fact,where did I mention filtering? I mentioned wrong way round a roundabout,wrong way up a one way street(these were the same person BTW) ,using mobiles while cycling and dashing between moving traffic. I can only think you mean the last example. And to try and avoid stating that’s its a risky,dangerous and idiotic practise,and saying it is something that needs to be looked at,and by conveniently not acknowledging the other incidents,you instead try to attack MY driving standard and say I need additional training? Thats is a pretty poor response. Your actually condoning it,and this actually proves the point that cyclists dont take reasonable care of their own safety and justify it at any and every oppertunity. (BTW just because something isnt illegal,does not mean its neccesserily safe. At NO point did I use the word illegal,I was mearly using examples of dangerous activity by cyclists)

roaduser66:
Helmets would save more lives for vehicle occupants for cyclists, so if you don’t wear a plastic hat every time you get in a car you’re a rank hypocrite.

Hypocrite? Because I dont wear a helmet in a car? Your getting desperate to try and pick holes now. There are seatbelts,airbags and side protection for me in my car. A helmet is overkill. Cyclists have none of these things. The best,in fact the ONLY, protection they have is a helmet. Yet some choose not to wear one. Why?

I asked you two questions. You quoted parts of the post so you obviously read them. Any joy on the answers yet?

You said previously you always obeyed the highway code,didnt cycle on the pavement,had insurance etc etc. Based on your attitude on here Im inclined to believe you(Im not asking you to film it) and I can understand why you get annoyed at the stereotypes thrown about regarding cyclists. But you joined an hgv forum and throw cliches like viewing ■■■■ while driving and banned drivers etc and you wonder why we get annoyed at YOUR stereotyping?

roaduser66:

The-Snowman:
Its not illegal to cycle without a helmet or use lights at night

Yes it is. Seriously, you need to brush up your knowledge of road traffic laws.

eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/#LAWFAQ13
Hmm,the 13th one down is a DOOZY. Seems like theres two of us need to brush up then eh?
On a side note,any reasoning you have for why people are allowed to cycle on busy roads without even needing to know ANY road traffic laws,or what road signs mean, would make interesting reading. Please share

Filtering is legal. The Highway Code even asks you to take special care. You don’t like filtering, filtering isn’t illegal.

Despite all the safety measures in cars, 25% of in-vehicle fatalities are caused by head injuries. Didn’t you know this? So helmets would save FAR more lives for car occupants than cyclists. You think a plastic hat protects you from a twenty ton lorry? I think your faith in polystyrene helmets is misplaced.

“Can you answer this question please.”

I have. Several times. Loom upthread where I pointed out that cyclists are to blame in 20% of RTCs. Or a fifth, if you prefer. So, rather than saying “Cyclists are never in the wrong” I gave you the evidence of how often they are in the wrong. In 20% of RTCs. Or a fifth, if you prefer. If I wanted to say cyclists are never in the wrong I would have written “cyclists are never in the wrong”. I didn’t write that cyclists are never in the wrong. I explained they’re at fault in 20% of RTcs. Or a fifth, if you prefer.

Understand now?

“The best,in fact the ONLY, protection they have is a helmet.”

You are talking about stuff you don’t understand. Helmets are not even in the top twenty ways of keeping cyclists safe. Lower speeds produce much better results on safety than plastic hats, reductions in KSI rates of up to 40%. The safest countries in the world to cycle in, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, all have no helmet compulsion and very low rates of helmet wearing. How do you explain this? One country, Australia, introduced helmet compulsion and it made zero difference to KSI rates. How do you explain this? You’re talking about a subject you know next to nothing about. Car occupants per mile traveled are more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists , so explain why you don’t wear a helmet in a car but want riders to wear one. It’s because you’re prejudiced. Your bias makes you blind to the reality.

“you instead try to attack MY driving standard and say I need additional training?”

because you are ignorant about the law,ignorant about the Highway Code and ignorant about how cyclists are getting hurt.

84

scanny77:
Statistics can easily be manipulated and only cover actual incidents, not near misses ie where the person who causes an accident or near miss is not actually involved

Every other type of road user must show that they are up to an acceptable standard (albeit low standard) before they are allowed to use the roads so why does this not apply to cyclists? Most of them probably are licenced drivers but as already said in this thread, with a false sense of security in a vehicle. You put that false sense of security on a bike and there will be inevitable problems. Instead of banning cyclists or blaming drivers, train every road user to share the road with every other road users. That way we all know what we are doing instead of having different standards of training dictated by licence category

Then , if you are correct, you would expect casualties to rise when cycling rates increase, yes? The more cyclists there are, if you are correct, the more likely accidents will be, seems to be what you’re saying.

So how come the opposite is true?

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 112034.htm

What you’re saying is a reversal of the actuality. More cyclists = safer roads. Boris bikes have been ridden the equivelant of the moon and back three times with one fatality. In fact the casualty rate for Boris bikes is lower than for normal cyclists. The more people that cycle, the safer it becomes.

85

roaduser66:

Fincham:

roaduser66:

Fincham:
How many cyclist’s lives are saved, by the prompt evasive action of other road users, when they are taking unnecessary risks?

Eleventy twelve. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Your answer tells me that you are probably a cyclist, I assume then that cyclist’s NEVER make wrong decisions.

It’s a shame you didn’t bother to read the post above yours that explains that blame is attached to cyclists in 20% of cases. I don’t know how I could have made that clearer.

This happened before, someone demands evidence that cyclists are NOT usually at fault in KSI RTCs. The evidence is posted that it is usually the driver’s fault but cyclists are to blame in a fifth of collisions. IMMEDIATELY someone pops up and says “So, I suppose you’re saying cyclists are never to blame!?!”

Once again, cyclists are not usually at fault in these collisions. It is usually the driver who made a fatal error, or was drunk, or looking at ■■■■ on his mobile, or playing with a phone, or asleep, or on drugs, or speeding, or in an unsafe vehicle, or failing to indicate.

Think about it, construction vehicles were involved in all five cyclist fatalities in the capital this year. Not buses, not coaches, not taxis, not private cars. So, either there is something about these vehicles or drivers that makes them deadly, or the cyclists are behaving entirely properly until they see a construction vehicle and suddenly behave rashly. In London, HGVs were involved in 53% of cycling fatalities in 2011 despite making up just 4% of the traffic. With drivers like Dennis Putz and Barry Meyer getting jobs driving lorries despite both having been banned from driving five times I think it’s time their employers stood in the dock with them. Someone employed both those drivers and either didn’t bother to check their driving record or didn’t care. Either way it’s Corporate
Manslaughter.

If you had bothered to read my post you would see my point was about the number of collisions that are avoided by other road users taking action because a cyclist has done something stupid.

If you got off your high horse and took the time to read other people’s opinion rather than ramming your own opinions down their throat then they might take the time to listen to your arguments.

86

standard.co.uk/news/london/l … 64566.html

'In December 1997, he was convicted of drink-driving for which he was disqualified for 18 months.

'In July 1998, he was convicted of driving while disqualified, which he had committed in June, just six months after his disqualification.

'In December 2004, he was convicted of driving a lorry with a skip which carrying a dangerous load, in other words was overloaded; displaying a tax disc which did not match the registration of the vehicle; driving without the appropriate operator’s license for the vehicle.

'In May 2007, he was again convicted of driving with excess alcohol and disqualified for 36 months which would be reduced to 27 months if he undertook a driving course.

'In July 2007, he was convicted of driving a van whilst disqualified and give a further 12 month disqualification.

‘In September 2008, he was stopped, driving whiles disqualified, a 7.5 tonne lorry. He gave the police a false name because he knew he was both driving whilst disqualified and driving with no insurance; he was disqualified for a further period of 14 months.’

In addition, he has previous convictions for assault, criminal damage and drug possession.

Who employed him?

87

If you had bothered to read my post you would see my point was about the number of collisions that are avoided by other road users taking action because a cyclist has done something stupid.

Have you subtracted the number of RTCs avoided by cyclists evading idiot drivers?

88

No he has’nt,which is why stats can give a misleading picture of what is really happening out there.

89

I think you’ll find I already asked the same question about the very same incident on this very thread.

As with any other area of business, there’s a criminal element in road transport. Sadly, the enforcement authorities often seem keener on pursuing the basically law abiding for minor technical offences than tackling the really criminally dangerous.

And that’s not just my opinion: it’s also the opinion of Senior Traffic Commissioner Beverly Bell.

You clearly have time on your hands, so why not ask the police why the joker who employed this man was not in court alongside him for ‘causing or permitting’?

We’d love to hear the answer…

roaduser66:
Lorry driver banned from the roads five times admits jumping red light and killing cyclist | London Evening Standard | Evening Standard

'In December 1997, he was convicted of drink-driving for which he was disqualified for 18 months.

'In July 1998, he was convicted of driving while disqualified, which he had committed in June, just six months after his disqualification.

'In December 2004, he was convicted of driving a lorry with a skip which carrying a dangerous load, in other words was overloaded; displaying a tax disc which did not match the registration of the vehicle; driving without the appropriate operator’s license for the vehicle.

'In May 2007, he was again convicted of driving with excess alcohol and disqualified for 36 months which would be reduced to 27 months if he undertook a driving course.

'In July 2007, he was convicted of driving a van whilst disqualified and give a further 12 month disqualification.

‘In September 2008, he was stopped, driving whiles disqualified, a 7.5 tonne lorry. He gave the police a false name because he knew he was both driving whilst disqualified and driving with no insurance; he was disqualified for a further period of 14 months.’

In addition, he has previous convictions for assault, criminal damage and drug possession.

Who employed him?

90

The real issue with many cycle fatalities is actually TFL’s stupid road markings.

standard.co.uk/news/london/m … 83576.html

The overal idea seems to be to encourage cyclists to pass queuing traffic on the nearside, then pull into what is a blindspot for trucks using the advance stop line.

So you now have the slowest,most vulnerable users being encouraged to repeatedly place themselves in front of all other traffic.

The ASLs should in fact be reserved for motorcycles…which can get themselves out of the way of the other traffic. But there is no hope of that because the one-time bus company bosses who run TfL hate motorcyclists…see Leon Mannings article on p14 of May’s Motorcycle Sport and Leisure

91

roaduser66:
Filtering is legal. The Highway Code even asks you to take special care. You don’t like filtering, filtering isn’t illegal.

See,this is exactly what im talking about. You go on about it being legal. You blame HGVs for cyclists getting hurt,yet when I bring up about filtering you state its perfectly legal. And refuse (twice now by my counting) to at least say its dangerous,reckless and showing a disregard for road safety. Do you not think that maybe cycling between two lanes of moving traffic is not really a good idea? Legal does not automatically mean safe

roaduser66:
Despite all the safety measures in cars, 25% of in-vehicle fatalities are caused by head injuries. Didn’t you know this? So helmets would save FAR more lives for car occupants than cyclists. You think a plastic hat protects you from a twenty ton lorry? I think your faith in polystyrene helmets is misplaced.

Did I mention it would stop all fatalities? It offers a great deal more protection than not having one. Why would you think it ok (which is basically what your saying) not to have one? your the one mentioning deaths. It offers at least the chance of avoiding brain injury/fractured skull etc so to try and move the point onto car drivers to wear one is moot since 75% of fatalities dont involve head injurys

roaduser66:
“Can you answer this question please.”

I have. Several times.

No you haven’t. You’ve quoted statistics of accidents (which ive repeatedly told you I dont believe) but you have NEVER stated yourself what your own opinion is. Do YOU think ant of the examples I told you about last night are dangerous,reckless or showing a disregard for the rules of the road? (Im well aware filtering isnt illegal but there was also mention of wrong way round roundabouts,wrong way up one way streets and mobile phone usage. Perhaps you could respond to them)

roaduser66:
You are talking about stuff you don’t understand. Helmets are not even in the top twenty ways of keeping cyclists safe. Lower speeds produce much better results on safety than plastic hats, reductions in KSI rates of up to 40%. The safest countries in the world to cycle in, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, all have no helmet compulsion and very low rates of helmet wearing. How do you explain this? One country, Australia, introduced helmet compulsion and it made zero difference to KSI rates. How do you explain this? You’re talking about a subject you know next to nothing about.

Again your by passing and taking the quote out of context. When I said helmets were the only form of protection I meant in a collision. There are countless other ways to save lives in cars rather than seatblets if you want to start using lower speeds as examples. Also the safest countries you mention all have far superior cycle infrastructres than we do. When you mentioned yesterday about improving them and making them better its about the only sensible thing youve said

roaduser66:
Car occupants per mile traveled are more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists , so explain why you don’t wear a helmet in a car but want riders to wear one.

See above.

roaduser66:
It’s because you’re prejudiced. Your bias makes you blind to the reality.

Im not prejudiced. Ive mentioned many times about all road users needing to share the road. None of us own it.
you want to talk about blind to reality? Seriously? The guy who repeatedly refuses to answer simple questions about what goes on in the real world,ignores scores of video evidence and instead throws up more and more statistics? Only one of us is blind to the real world mate,and it aint me

roaduser66:
because you are ignorant about the law,ignorant about the Highway Code and ignorant about how cyclists are getting hurt.

Im not ignorant about any of the above. Your the one who refuses to condone red light jumping,wrong way cycling and all manner of other dangerous practises. You seem convinced all cyclists get hurt by vehicles being in the wrong and throw up statistics to prove your point. I think it was Albion who posted a few videos for you to watch. One had stationary traffic of two lanes that moved. Three cyclists jumped from the outside to the inside lane in front of a bus,which had started to move,forcing the bus to stop. There is a collision involving cycles avoided right there. How many times a day does that happen? Countless. yet you throw up all these statistics to show times when collisions happened to prove vehicles are the most dangerous? Massaged at best

The-Snowman:
On a side note,any reasoning you have for why people are allowed to cycle on busy roads without even needing to know ANY road traffic laws,or what road signs mean, would make interesting reading. Please share

Your answer?

youtube.com/watch?v=FguuUKaeIxo

What are your thoughts on THIS video? Not your statistics or surveys,your OWN PERSONAL thoughts?

youtube.com/watch?v=D36t4KIeqFU
And ill have your opinion on this one as well while your at it.

Do you think its a good idea to have cyclists take a test to prove road sense etc before being allowed to use the roads?
Do you think it would be a good idea to have cycles conform to a road worthiness safety check every,say,6 weeks for brakes,tyres etc?
Do you think it would be a good idea for cycles to have some form of marking to make them identifiable similar to number plates?

92

Do you think it would be a good idea for cycles to have some form of marking to make them identifiable similar to number plates?

I think there’s a country that has that system, They make the riders have a bib like hviz vest with a number on it .
I reckon there should be a test and at least insurance and all riders to wear a safety hat / cap like this at a minimum

DunceCap.gif
DunceCap.gif787×787 10.4 KB

93

And what do we do about the unprofessional truck drivers Nick2008?
Both parties are as much to blame.
I mean look at the pathetic arguments on this forum. What chance have they got of getting along together on the roads with some of the attitudes.
It’s a serious subject Nick. People are being killed.

94

GasGas:
I think you’ll find I already asked the same question about the very same incident on this very thread.

As with any other area of business, there’s a criminal element in road transport. Sadly, the enforcement authorities often seem keener on pursuing the basically law abiding for minor technical offences than tackling the really criminally dangerous.

And that’s not just my opinion: it’s also the opinion of Senior Traffic Commissioner Beverly Bell.

You clearly have time on your hands, so why not ask the police why the joker who employed this man was not in court alongside him for ‘causing or permitting’?

We’d love to hear the answer…

roaduser66:
Lorry driver banned from the roads five times admits jumping red light and killing cyclist | London Evening Standard | Evening Standard

'In December 1997, he was convicted of drink-driving for which he was disqualified for 18 months.

'In July 1998, he was convicted of driving while disqualified, which he had committed in June, just six months after his disqualification.

'In December 2004, he was convicted of driving a lorry with a skip which carrying a dangerous load, in other words was overloaded; displaying a tax disc which did not match the registration of the vehicle; driving without the appropriate operator’s license for the vehicle.

'In May 2007, he was again convicted of driving with excess alcohol and disqualified for 36 months which would be reduced to 27 months if he undertook a driving course.

'In July 2007, he was convicted of driving a van whilst disqualified and give a further 12 month disqualification.

‘In September 2008, he was stopped, driving whiles disqualified, a 7.5 tonne lorry. He gave the police a false name because he knew he was both driving whilst disqualified and driving with no insurance; he was disqualified for a further period of 14 months.’

In addition, he has previous convictions for assault, criminal damage and drug possession.

Who employed him?

I know him and the person who’s lorry it was

95

albion1971:
And what do we do about the unprofessional truck drivers Nick2008?
Both parties are as much to blame.
I mean look at the pathetic arguments on this forum. What chance have they got of getting along together on the roads with some of the attitudes.
It’s a serious subject Nick. People are being killed.

I agree it is a serious subject, and one that is taken very seriously by the industry, with schemes like CLOCS and FORS , massive investment in safety equipment, manufacturers bringing in new low cab urban truck designs. The issue I see that is causing some much antagonism, is all this investment/training/regulation is all one sided. As yet I have yet to see any sort of similar enforceable initiatives for the cyclists.

There are two parties too this problem, but it seems only one is expected to carry the regulations , training and costs, an approach that clearly is not working successfully so it must be time to approach the problem from another angle and start to regulate cyclists in cities to a far higher degree.

96

Rikki-UK:
so it must be time to approach the problem from another angle and start to regulate cyclists in cities to a far higher degree.

I totally agree whereas cyclists are to undertake a compulsory basic training, as do scooter & motorbikers undertake even before being allowed on the road… even then they have to display L plates… why shouldn’t cyclists…

97

Rikki-UK:

albion1971:
And what do we do about the unprofessional truck drivers Nick2008?
Both parties are as much to blame.
I mean look at the pathetic arguments on this forum. What chance have they got of getting along together on the roads with some of the attitudes.
It’s a serious subject Nick. People are being killed.

I agree it is a serious subject, and one that is taken very seriously by the industry, with schemes like CLOCS and FORS , massive investment in safety equipment, manufacturers bringing in new low cab urban truck designs. The issue I see that is causing some much antagonism, is all this investment/training/regulation is all one sided. As yet I have yet to see any sort of similar enforceable initiatives for the cyclists.

There are two parties too this problem, but it seems only one is expected to carry the regulations , training and costs, an approach that clearly is not working successfully so it must be time to approach the problem from another angle and start to regulate cyclists in cities to a far higher degree.

Personally I’d like to see a proper investigation into figuring out why all the investment isn’t working and why the problem seems to be so heavily weighted towards tippers. There has to be a reason that one sub-type of lorry features so prominently in the deaths.

98

Tippers are probably the most numerous lorry in central London due to the constant construction going on

99

Several reasons:

  1. Lots of construction work in London so lots of tippers on the road…more than other trucks

  2. Less under-run protection on tippers, so accident more likely to be fatal

  3. Drivers often under time pressure…where is a truck driver who is in London all day supposed to take his breaks?

100

Rikki-UK:

albion1971:
And what do we do about the unprofessional truck drivers Nick2008?
Both parties are as much to blame.
I mean look at the pathetic arguments on this forum. What chance have they got of getting along together on the roads with some of the attitudes.
It’s a serious subject Nick. People are being killed.

I agree it is a serious subject, and one that is taken very seriously by the industry, with schemes like CLOCS and FORS , massive investment in safety equipment, manufacturers bringing in new low cab urban truck designs. The issue I see that is causing some much antagonism, is all this investment/training/regulation is all one sided. As yet I have yet to see any sort of similar enforceable initiatives for the cyclists.

There are two parties too this problem, but it seems only one is expected to carry the regulations , training and costs, an approach that clearly is not working successfully so it must be time to approach the problem from another angle and start to regulate cyclists in cities to a far higher degree.

Can’t argue with any of that Rikki.