“extrapolating robust conclusions…” Ooooh,something for the weekend,sir? Suits you,ooooh.
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
You’re having a laugh just like BH’s bs.The fact is cyclists don’t get run over by left turning trucks by waiting at the stop line at lights and/or holding back at junctions for the truck to enter the junction and turn.Mary Bowers was stationary at the lights and was driven over and crushed:
thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy … 631594.ece
Sebastien Lukomski, stationary, waiting at the lights, crushed by a lorry driver:
ahalenia.com/memorial/slukomski.html
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23424735
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile.:
thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 … tlana.html
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.
road.cc/content/news/103530-boyf … oad-layout
The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.
thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 … l-cox.html
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile. Ms Patel was stationary, at the lights, obeying the law.
No surprise that your selective bs doesn’t take into account all the other situations where the lives of the suicidal majority of cyclists are saved by the driving skills of especially the majority of truck drivers.At least in the undertaking cyclist left turning vehicle scenario.While the fact is,with extremely few,if any,exceptions,there is no realistic way that a truck can run over a cyclist,during a left turn,unless the cyclist ignored rule 73 and entered the junction at the same time as the truck during a failed undertaking attempt.Bearing in mind that we’ve got at least one confirmed reference here by the cyclist cause that undertake and outrun is a preferred doctrine amongst the cyclist cause as opposed to rule 73 of the highway code related to junctions. 
Carryfast:
the fact is,with extremely few,if any,exceptions,there is no realistic way that a truck can run over a cyclist,during a left turn,unless the cyclist ignored rule 73 and entered the junction at the same time as the truck during a failed undertaking attempt.
I’ve just provided seven recent examples of cyclists doing NOTHING wrong who were killed by lorry drivers who failed to notice them. Cycling deaths are very rare, all are reported.
About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach ‘passing too close’ to the rider.
In a quarter of fatal cyclist accidents, the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle.
rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea … gures.aspx
So half of the collisions involve the drivers passing too close or colliding with the person on a bike from behind.
@roadrunner it’s not a fact they would be alive today . Had they jumped a red light there is a good chance of them being run over by other traffic running on the green light.
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
the fact is,with extremely few,if any,exceptions,there is no realistic way that a truck can run over a cyclist,during a left turn,unless the cyclist ignored rule 73 and entered the junction at the same time as the truck during a failed undertaking attempt.I’ve just provided seven recent examples of cyclists doing NOTHING wrong who were killed by lorry drivers who failed to notice them. Cycling deaths are very rare, all are reported.
About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach ‘passing too close’ to the rider.
In a quarter of fatal cyclist accidents, the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle.
rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea … gures.aspx
So half of the collisions involve the drivers passing too close or colliding with the person on a bike from behind.
As you seem to be all about statistics maybe you could provide those related specifically to the left turning truck scenario.Which also seems to be the case in the example related to the topic in addition to numerous other casualties previously.
Carryfast:
As you seem to be all about statistics maybe you could provide those related specifically to the left turning truck scenario.Which also seems to be the case in the example related to the topic in addition to numerous other casualties previously.
I already have:
theguardian.com/lifeandstyle … ents-study
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
Interesting to note that the ASL feeder in the clip, as well as the ASL itself, are both in the blind spot. So the only way a cyclist could enter the ASL without encroaching the blind spot would be to overtake to enter the ASL, which of course is illegal.
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
As you seem to be all about statistics maybe you could provide those related specifically to the left turning truck scenario.Which also seems to be the case in the example related to the topic in addition to numerous other casualties previously.I already have:
theguardian.com/lifeandstyle … ents-study
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
Interesting to note that the ASL feeder in the clip, as well as the ASL itself, are both in the blind spot. So the only way a cyclist could enter the ASL without encroaching the blind spot would be to overtake to enter the ASL, which of course is illegal.
The flawed idea of ASL’s is to pander to that idea of undertake and outrun.Meanwhile no those statistics don’t say anything specifically about left turning truck scenario collisions especially those involving single stop line or just open junctions as in the case of the incident related to the topic.As for the statistics as I’ve said we already know that we are dealing with a biased pro cycling lobby establishment agenda.
roaduser66:
I have not justified running red lights, not once. I pointed out that had the cyclists jumped the red lights they would still be alive. That’s a statement of fact, it’s not justifying anything.
Yes but sometimes the isolation of a lonely fact diminishes the truth, thats not to say that getting oneself out of a stupid self inflicted situation can be acclomplished by doing something else equally stupid. Sure most cyclists can preambulate their journey without ending up in a bucket or scraped up from the road, but from what i read of your posts all your are presenting is nothing more than trying to justify the moral highground which to be fair is fairly accurate in certain circumstances but does nothing in the real world to solve the problem. Its almost like watching someone from the past trying to catch up with the present.
So instead of trying to point score perhaps you could admit that truck drivers make misstakes and cyclists make misstakes and when these misstake happen at a similar time the cyclist will die. This will allow both sides of this to work together to find a solution.
This solution may take the form of more accountability for cyclists who breach the same HC they call upon to justify their actions to suit their needs or that most tipper drivers in London are useless at best, or shockingly to find a way we can raise awareness so cyclists are not killed.
Preaching statistics is pointless as these rarely take into account all the events leading up to the death, or to be more brutal as a cyclist lays on the ground watching their internal organs being pushed out through their splitting skin in so much pain that they either pass out or face the moment their own brain collapses when it is also crushed.
As always these internet waffles will continue but nothing will be done and more cyclists will die for whatever reason untill someone realises that the biggest danger to cyclists is themselves, not all obviously but a large number who feel their arrogance can write cheques which in reality their vunerable flesh and bone structure cannot cash.
Perhaps some cyclists in the end are just truck fodder and nothing we do will change this, but heck its amusing to watch everyone debate the same topic over and over and over again…
roaduser66:
I’ve just provided seven recent examples of cyclists doing NOTHING wrong who were killed by lorry drivers who failed to notice them.
And i’ve provided an example of cyclists not being killed by a lorry driver that did notice them.
How many times a day,do you think i would see cyclists endangering either themselves or pedestrians,during an average trip around london?
1 or 2?
Half a dozen?
20…100?
commonrail:
roaduser66:
I’ve just provided seven recent examples of cyclists doing NOTHING wrong who were killed by lorry drivers who failed to notice them.And i’ve provided an example of cyclists not being killed by a lorry driver that did notice them.
How many times a day,do you think i would see cyclists endangering either themselves or pedestrians,during an average trip around london?
1 or 2?
Half a dozen?
20…100?
One of the best things at traffic lights are these convex mirrors. I have only ever seen them in London and Manchester. I find them really useful. When driving a 15m coach it’s good to see down the entire length off the coach.
I can’t see why they can’t be fitted at every junction.
roaduser66:
14% of drivers jump a red light at least twice a month – Direct Line survey, August 201110% of cyclists found to jump red lights – Sunday Times operation, November 2013
Red light jumping is more common among drivers than cyclists, and a cyclist is three times more likely to be hurt by a driver jumping a red than by jumping a red themselves.
Eh? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that 90% of cyclists stop at red lights and wait? A complete and utter proof that statistics are massaged or manipulated. Either that or those 10% of cyclists who run the lights all live in the Glasgow area and/or always near me when im stopped at them coz I see a lot of them every day.
Of the 14% of motorists who run a light,how many do it accidently? Not all but some. And im guessing most. Of all the cyclists who run the lights (I mena the actual real ones,not the massaged 10% statistics you quote) how many do it accidently? Hardly any. How many do it because they see a red light and dont care or dont think it applies to them? Most of them. How many of the cyclists “found” to jump lights are only found because they got caught,not because the rest dont do it? There is hardly any record of cyclists doing it because it isnt worth the polices time. It wont go anywhere. Cyclists are so well protected in the eyes of the government they dont care anymore. Motorists get fines and points so it is obviously going to be a higher figure. Stop a motorist its logged as a traffic offense. Stop a cyclist and it gets chucked in the bin if they do issue a penalty notice
Oh and BTW,10%? Check the first video I posted. 6 cyclists ran one red light in a matter of about 8 seconds.
Im bored with your statistic quoting. Your like a government think tank. All statistics and no actual concept of what actually goes on in the real world. How many times does a bump happen between a cyclist and a motorist that is the cyclists fault but 1 of 2 things happens. Either the cyclist sticks two fingers up and pedals away knowing they will never be caught or the motorist has to let it go because their insurance goes up if they have to report a collision? Answer? Who knows. We never will because it goes unreported. Motorist has more to lose. The main problem is cyclists are on the whole,unaccountable. My mum hit a cyclist who went through a red light (must have been one of those pesky 10%ers again) and the police were called. They wanted to know her speed,had she been drinking,was she watching,was she distracted blah blah blah. Not a lot of consideration went into the lycra muppet who went through a red. He was let on his merry way. Meanwhile my mum had a large bill to fix the damage caused by this clown.
Even if I took statistics seriously,there are a lot more vehicles on the road than cycles so of course the comparison will look worse.
Plus If you believe all statistics you’d believe violent crime was down and the number of people in employment was up. But take the massager off and you find that violent crime is down because people either dont report it or it gets logged as something less serious and employment is only up due to zero hour contracts. Every January we get the usual “Oh more people are in employment”. Massaged to make the government look good but in reality its temporary contracts over christmas and new year.
The-Snowman:
Any joy on the questions I asked you yet? Or are you just convenitently ignoring them because you will then have to admit things you want to brush under the carpet?
That’l be a no then will it? Youve been ducking it all day,trying to avoid having to admit the answers. Even billyhunt and his procycle view had the decency to answer and admit it. Either answer the questions or stop quoting ■■■■■■■■ statstics that mean nothing. you join a drivers forum and come on here with anti driver views and plough your pro cycle agenda like no tomorrow. Im guessing my first instinct about you was true. You are a troll. Why else are you on a drivers forum and so anti driver?
ND888 BIGJ:
I can’t see why they can’t be fitted at every junction.
A good idea but all that expense because cyclists cant/wont just wait behind stationary traffic?
Hey Roaduser66-i think the snowman has just give you a puncture lol.
On yer bike…
Dipper_Dave:
So instead of trying to point score perhaps you could admit that truck drivers make misstakes and cyclists make misstakes and when these misstake happen at a similar time the cyclist will die. This will allow both sides of this to work together to find a solution..
In the seven examples I gave you the cyclists did nothing wrong. So no, I don’t admit that at all because it’s clearly not true.
Jjeeezzzzzuzzzz
With an attitude like that , always looking for the moral high ground , & refusing to accept any culpability or wrong doing from your fellow cyclists , you should not be surprised if this is a long hard road , in more ways than one . 
1 - Do you agree some cyclists run red lights when they shouldn’t?
I was the first person to mention cyclists jumping reds, look upthread. I’ve posted the research that shows how many cyclists jump reds five times now, remember when I explained it’s not a significant causal factor? You didn’t read the link, did you?
2 - Do you agree some cyclists ride while drunk?
I expect so. Again, it’s not a factor in KSI rates. Look at the link, it explains contributory factors in RTCs and drunk cyclists doesn’t appear. Not even in the top twenty. Surely you noticed this, when you read the link?
3 - Do you agree some cyclists have no road sense?
I’ve posted examples together with the research. It’s in the “Risky Cycling” link. Are you sure you’re reading my posts?
4 - Do you agree some cyclists are a danger to themselves and others?
I’ve posted the research. Look upthread. It’s under “Risky Cycling”. A minority of cyclists pose a risk to other road users of the same magnitude as golf balls or bees. So, these are all examples of bad behaviour by cyclists, all addressed in previous posts and none of which is a factor in the recent fatalities. So, there’s your answers. You already had them, but have them again. My turn:
1/
Do you agree that all of us are more likely to be killed by a lorry driver looking at ■■■■■■■■■■■ at the wheel than by a cyclist in any circumstances? If no, explain why.
2/
Do you admit that 80% of HGVs being found to be on the road illegally is a shocking indictment of the industry?
3/
Can you explain how a man who had been banned from driving three times got a job driving a lorry in London?
4/
Do you accept that lorry drivers drive drunk, drugged, looking at ■■■■, texting, speeding etc etc?
Casual Observer:
JjeeezzzzzuzzzzWith an attitude like that , always looking for the moral high ground , & refusing to accept any culpability or wrong doing from your fellow cyclists , you should not be surprised if this is a long hard road , in more ways than one .
When I highlighted the cyclists’ contributory failures it was refusing to acknowledge them, you think?
The-Snowman:
]My mum hit a cyclist who went through a red light (must have been one of those pesky 10%ers again) and the police were called. They wanted to know her speed,had she been drinking,was she watching,was she distracted blah blah blah. Not a lot of consideration went into the lycra muppet who went through a red. He was let on his merry way. Meanwhile my mum had a large bill to fix the damage caused by this clown.
The police attended an RTC with no injuries? That’s unusual. The cyclist did lots of damage to the car but was able to make his own way home? Mmmm. Your mum could have claimed directly from the cyclist, the fact she didn’t isn’t the fault of the police, who rarely attend non-injury collisions. I expect there’s rather more to this story, and the plural of unprovable and frankly implausible anecdote isn’t data.
ND888 BIGJ:
One of the best things at traffic lights are these convex mirrors. I have only ever seen them in London and Manchester. I find them really useful. When driving a 15m coach it’s good to see down the entire length off the coach.
I can’t see why they can’t be fitted at every junction.
The flaw in that idea being that it won’t provide real time information when you’ve passed the line,entered the junction and started a left turn.At that point you’re totally reliant in the vehicle’s nearside mirrors assuming you’ve got a cyclist/s who has/have decided to try to outrun you into and across the junction rather than them staying on the line and letting you clear it first.In that case the mirror can only provide confirmation of the best case scenario of a cyclist/s who’ve adhered to rule 73 by staying on the line.While it won’t do anything to help in the case of the worst of a cyclist who has decided to try to outrun you on entry into the junction and failed as you make the turn. 
roaduser66:
Do you admit that 80% of HGVs being found to be on the road illegally is a shocking indictment of the industry?3/
Can you explain how a man who had been banned from driving three times got a job driving a lorry in London?
4/
Do you accept that lorry drivers drive drunk, drugged, looking at ■■■■, texting, speeding etc etc?
If you’re trying to suggest that 80% of the UK road transport fleet is on the road illegally.Or that anything like as many drivers are driving as you describe as there are cyclists who haven’t got the slightest clue and/or intention as to how to use the road correctly no you’re talking bs as usually expected of the cyclist cause.The problem in this case being that cycling cause has got a corrupted government agenda helping it to commit suicide and then trying to blame other road users for the inevitable results. 