Hexhome:
rambo19:
In london, 99% of cyclists dis obey the law.Which law ? And the evidence that you are quoting from is?
RTA applys to cyclists as well.
Evidence?, just me experience of driving around london for a living.
Agree that there are bad drivers in all walks of life, but, and there is always a but,
Sit at any set of traffic lights and you will see cyclists going through a red light, how many vehciles do the same?
I’m sure most of us look out for ALL other road users when we are driving, but the sad fact is that cyclists do themselves no favours and put themselves in dangerous situatuions all the time.
Anyone who says most cyclists obey the law must live in cloud cooko land…
Carryfast:
albion1971:
Carryfast you just do not be able to grasp the fact that although somebody has been trained it does not mean they will drive the way they have been trained forever.
It is not the training that is flawed.It is the drivers.If the training and testing regime is doing it’s job correctly it (should) be able to sort out wether a driver is using the mirrors correctly on an instinctive basis or just forcing themselves in order to pass the test.If it’s the former of those and the correct instinctive use of mirrors has been correctly identified the driver certainly will drive that way forever in just the same way that they use all the other controls in order to drive the thing correctly and keep it under control.In the case of the latter it’s more likely to be isolated random incidents of drivers who’ve slipped through the net because of isolated random variations in training and testing standards which would probably account for such bad driving as that which you’ve experienced.Of which collisions with cyclists would be just one symptom in addition to clipping/flattening cars,kerbs,pedestrians and numerous types of street furniture including roll overs caused by running over roundabout edges etc etc etc.
Although having said that even your own description,which seems to be all about mirror ‘checks’,as opposed to the constant type of scanning which I’ve described,as being required and expected to drive a truck safely,that might provide a clue that it’s the training and testing standards which have been dumbed down from those that I knew.
However the case of cyclists getting into collision situations with trucks seems to be something different to that.It seems to be a specific type of collision issue because of the suicidal nature of cyclists attitudes to self preservation around motor traffic of which trucks present the most deadly type of threat to them and in which even the best driving standards won’t help.
However if you’re right and it’s a widespread problem caused by poor driving standards then,as I’ve said,there wouldn’t just be a problem concerning cyclists getting into conflict with turning trucks.
Sorry but banging head against brick wall springs to mind.Thanks for your views anyway.
In aircraft matianance and design they have a rule called murphys law, this says that if a part can be fitted the wrong way round or a pipe to another pipe of a differet system then some day it will be ie one will be fitted by a competant well trained aircraft technician and an accident will happen.So the moral of this long winded storey no matter how well you train the motorist,trucker ,cyclist one of the will make a mistake and disaster will ensue so the best idea is to keep the two well apart or both fully aware of result of one or other makes a mistake
fuse:
In aircraft matianance and design they have a rule called murphys law, this says that if a part can be fitted the wrong way round or a pipe to another pipe of a differet system then some day it will be ie one will be fitted by a competant well trained aircraft technician and an accident will happen.So the moral of this long winded storey no matter how well you train the motorist,trucker ,cyclist one of the will make a mistake and disaster will ensue so the best idea is to keep the two well apart or both fully aware of result of one or other makes a mistake
In this case a better analogy would be having a glider and light aircraft flying club sharing the use of Heathrow Airport’s runways and the glider and light aircraft pilots moaning about near misses and collisions both on the ground and in the air with airliners and those like Albion blaming it on the airliner pilots’ standards of flying. 
Carryfast:
In this case a better analogy would be having a glider and light aircraft flying club sharing the use of Heathrow Airport’s runways and the glider and light aircraft pilots moaning about near misses and collisions both on the ground and in the air with airliners and those like Albion blaming it on the airliner pilots’ standards of flying.
Not only the airline pilots standard of flying, but more importantly his “attitude” towards their idiotic, yet possibly quite legal antics. Though I doubt that flying a small microlight towards a Delta Airlines 747 arriving from Houston, Texas and getting high and mighty because he didn’t change his flight path would be something that would be tollerated by law.
Quite why its legally allowed for a fool on two wheels to cycle down the blind side of a stationary truck and then cry wolf is beyond me. Sharing the road is one thing, making an accident happen by being thick and then trying to blame everybody else is quite another. There are no exceptions, riding down the side of a stationary truck on his blind side is completely unnacceptable this time, last time and every time it happens and its high time those fools doing so were brought to account by the law for the safety of everybody. It would take numerous sets of mirrors and cameras to spot an idiot on a bike in the wrong place, it only takes one set of eyes and two or more brain cells for the cyclist not to put himself there to begin with.
robinhood_1984:
Carryfast:
In this case a better analogy would be having a glider and light aircraft flying club sharing the use of Heathrow Airport’s runways and the glider and light aircraft pilots moaning about near misses and collisions both on the ground and in the air with airliners and those like Albion blaming it on the airliner pilots’ standards of flying.Not only the airline pilots standard of flying, but more importantly his “attitude” towards their idiotic, yet possibly quite legal antics. Though I doubt that flying a small microlight towards a Delta Airlines 747 arriving from Houston, Texas and getting high and mighty because he didn’t change his flight path would be something that would be tollerated by law.
Carryfast:
Personally, I think that even flying a small microlight or glider takes considerable skill and ability so we’re being insulting here to those that actually do so. Perhaps a more fitting comparision between those cyclists that ride down the blind side and pay the consequences would be with those flocks of birds that find them selves getting shredded as they fly infront of a plane taking off and get sucked in to the jet engines. The question is though, which holds the lesser level of intelligence? The cyclist being a fool or a pigeon being a pigeon?
Or arrogant people who won’t accept the truth because it goes against their prejudices!
To go to this latest analogy which attempts to show that size is all! Light aircraft do occasionally use Heathrow and they have equal rights with any other aircraft regardless of size. If in the Heathrow circuit, a large airliner may well have to ‘give way’ to a smaller aircraft.
All road users break the law - probably, but not all of the time. So we can safely argue on that basis that all cyclists break the law - probably, but not all the time. The point I am trying to get across is that cyclists, whatever their behaviour, do not deserve some of the vitriolic comments they have received in this thread.
Yes they have to take responsibility for their behaviour, we all do. Cyclist are not an alien race, they are you, I, our friends and families. They are ordinary people going about their lives. There are good people, there are not so good people. We try not to judge but hey, we all do. They are most certainly not vermin to be sucked into our engines for daring to get in our way.
By all means argue for suitable segregation, improved training, banning certain vehicles off the road. We are all entitled to our views. But to argue that a section of people are all (insert here any of the descriptive words used in this thread to describe cyclists) is pure prejudice and that is why the DCPC module would be useful. This thread has proved that beyond all reasonable doubt.
No criticism of truck drivers has ever been made in this thread, in fact quite the opposite. Maybe we are an over-sensitive breed?
over sensitive or maybe a better word is hypocritical.
From cycling to aircraft with trucks and roads in between, brilliant. If nothing else comes of this thread at least there are a few that will think more about cyclists when they are out and about. As for the rights and wrongs, all I would say is try and keep yourself safe and let natural selection, or karma, take care of the rest.
Hexhome:
Or arrogant people who won’t accept the truth because it goes against their prejudices!To go to this latest analogy which attempts to show that size is all! Light aircraft do occasionally use Heathrow and they have equal rights with any other aircraft regardless of size. If in the Heathrow circuit, a large airliner may well have to ‘give way’ to a smaller aircraft.
By all means argue for suitable segregation,
If in the Heathrow circuit a light aircraft would’nt be able to follow a heavy in to land using the same seperation distance as a heavy would use if it was following a light (or another heavy) aircraft.At least unless the pilot of the light aircraft is good at landing it upside down.
Ironically segregation is exactly what the sensible here like Robinhood and ROG etc are calling for.Wheareas those like Albion would obviously blame that example,of what would happen if the pilot of a light aircraft got too close to a heavy one while in the landing circuit,on the pilot of the heavy aircraft.
By the way I think the difference in seperation would need to be around 7 miles in the case of the light aircraft following the heavy into land.Unlike the 3-4 required for a heavy following a light or heavy in. 
Carryfast:
If in the Heathrow circuit a light aircraft would’nt be able to follow a heavy in to land using the same seperation distance as a heavy would use if it was following a light (or another heavy) aircraft.At least unless the pilot of the light aircraft is good at landing it upside down.Ironically segregation is exactly what the sensible here like Robinhood and ROG etc are calling for.Wheareas those like Albion would obviously blame that example,of what would happen if the pilot of a light aircraft got too close to a heavy one while in the landing circuit,on the pilot of the heavy aircraft.
By the way I think the difference in seperation would need to be around 7 miles in the case of the light aircraft following the heavy into land.Unlike the 3-4 required for a heavy following a light or heavy in.
Having been in a light aircraft landing at Heathrow, I can tell you that whilst the ‘behind’ separation would have to increase if the Pilot in Charge insisted on an 85 knot approach, the PIC in our case carried out finals at higher speed (it’s a long runway to hold off on) thus removing the need for separation increase. ‘Ahead’ separation is only slightly longer (might be 5NM as opposed to 4?). You are clearly aware of the issues, so I assume some knowledge of the subject?
Segregation would be most cyclist’s preferred option, but it will take many years to develop and would never be 100%. Cycling on the pavement will never be a practical solution or popular politically. It would have to be done sensibly to ensure usage. Currently the government spend less that £1.00 per person on cycling as against a calculated 80p saving to the NHS (don’t know how that calculation is made, I would guess average interventions for non active as against active patients) and £3 billion contributed to the economy.
Hexhome:
Or arrogant people who won’t accept the truth because it goes against their prejudices!To go to this latest analogy which attempts to show that size is all! Light aircraft do occasionally use Heathrow and they have equal rights with any other aircraft regardless of size. If in the Heathrow circuit, a large airliner may well have to ‘give way’ to a smaller aircraft.
All road users break the law - probably, but not all of the time. So we can safely argue on that basis that all cyclists break the law - probably, but not all the time. The point I am trying to get across is that cyclists, whatever their behaviour, do not deserve some of the vitriolic comments they have received in this thread.
Yes they have to take responsibility for their behaviour, we all do. Cyclist are not an alien race, they are you, I, our friends and families. They are ordinary people going about their lives. There are good people, there are not so good people. We try not to judge but hey, we all do. They are most certainly not vermin to be sucked into our engines for daring to get in our way.
By all means argue for suitable segregation, improved training, banning certain vehicles off the road. We are all entitled to our views. But to argue that a section of people are all (insert here any of the descriptive words used in this thread to describe cyclists) is pure prejudice and that is why the DCPC module would be useful. This thread has proved that beyond all reasonable doubt.
No criticism of truck drivers has ever been made in this thread, in fact quite the opposite. Maybe we are an over-sensitive breed?
Heathrow airport is situated in Class A airspace, which, unless you hold an instrument rating you are forbidden to fly in. You have to be highly trained to hold an IR, irrespective of the size or type of aircraft. Heathrow is operated on IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) not VFR (Visual Flight Rules).
You are correct that aircraft all get treated the same. When I landed at Humberside once, I had a Boeing 737 bound for Italy had to wait while I completed my final approach and landing in my Piper Arrow…
But, the difference here is that pilots are highly trained and know what they are doing…and the penalties for doing wrong or stupid things are severe, the worst of course being death (though this equally applies to road users too of course). For example, the average life expectancy for a qualified visual pilot flying in cloud that isn’t trained to do so is around 4-5 minutes.
Most cyclists aren’t trained at all, and a lot of drivers aren’t much better. Think a different analogy is required really…
Truckulent:
Most cyclists aren’t trained at all, and a lot of drivers aren’t much better. Think a different analogy is required really…
OK agreed, but most cyclists have driving licenses! Would any specific test for cyclists be to a higher standard?
Because this has developed into such a long thread, I would like to summarise (as fairly as I can) the discussion so far.
Another cyclist has been killed by an HGV. I offer the suggestion that there is a free ‘Vulnerable Road User’ module available, which counts towards the 35hrs DCPC requirement.
This is seen as an attack on HGV drivers who are not responsible for these fatalities. Discussion favours the view that all cyclists are poorly trained idiots who are responsible for the result of their own actions.
Despite repeated efforts to assure HGV drivers that their superiority in ‘accident’ avoidance is recognised, and that this is just about awareness of the issues from a cyclists perspective. The overall view remains that before cyclists clean up their (admittedly soiled) act, the blame remains on their shoulders, we are not interested in the issues from their point of view.
Fair?
Hexhome:
Truckulent:
Most cyclists aren’t trained at all, and a lot of drivers aren’t much better. Think a different analogy is required really…OK agreed, but most cyclists have driving licenses! Would any specific test for cyclists be to a higher standard?
Cyclists may have driving licences, which, if so, makes it even more worrying that they carry on as they do. What they need is to see perhaps,is the results of a few cycle/motor vehicle ‘arguments’ and how badly they come off in relation to other road users…it would sober at least some of the ‘heroes’ up a fair bit…
Incidentally, this suggested DCPC course re cyclists. What exactly would you teach on it? How about ‘cyclists are vulnerable?’ Agreed, but it’s the cyclists that struggle with that, not the majority of drivers. How about teaching 'all cyclists are utterly unpredictable (except in their unpredictability) and are likely to (at some point) break every rule and show a lack of every bit of common sense available? Not fair to the good cyclists that do none of these things obviously, but there are far more idiots than good ones as the majority on here would agree.
There is no exact answer to this other than to split the two groups up so they never come into contact with each other.
My personal view is that cycling is fine, but there are many roads now where doing so is always going to be very risky. The odds are stacked against a cyclist for many reasons. Drivers’ problem with them is partially because the cyclists themselves are often oblivious to the risks they are taking but are very quick to point the finger at other road users when things go wrong. However, I do not and would never support a move to ban cyclists from roads other than motorways. They have a right to ride if they so wish.
By all means educate other road users. But, as a group start taking a little more responsibility for your own safety. A hiviz vest and polystyrene helmet is not an impenetrable forcefield!
Truckulent:
Incidentally, this suggested DCPC course re cyclists. What exactly would you teach on it?
Why cyclists behave how they do. It serves to give drivers an insight into cyclists seemingly suicidal behaviour.
Truckulent:
But, as a group start taking a little more responsibility for your own safety. A hiviz vest and polystyrene helmet is not an impenetrable forcefield!
Totally agree, and cycling groups are active in this area. No one criticises the ‘Ninjas’ (which is what cyclists call them) more than other cyclists! See here sillycyclists.co.uk/
There are many training opportunities available, I personally would like to see some level of training compulsory. Currently, all school children are offered training but the real problem is adults who have recently taken it up. This is a similar situation that motorcycling ‘enjoyed’ over the last decade when the 40+s took to riding high powered motorcycles some decades after passing their test.
Hexhome:
Because this has developed into such a long thread, I would like to summarise (as fairly as I can) the discussion so far.Another cyclist has been killed by an HGV. I offer the suggestion that there is a free ‘Vulnerable Road User’ module available, which counts towards the 35hrs DCPC requirement.
This is seen as an attack on HGV drivers who are not responsible for these fatalities. Discussion favours the view that all cyclists are poorly trained idiots who are responsible for the result of their own actions.
Despite repeated efforts to assure HGV drivers that their superiority in ‘accident’ avoidance is recognised, and that this is just about awareness of the issues from a cyclists perspective. The overall view remains that before cyclists clean up their (admittedly soiled) act, the blame remains on their shoulders, we are not interested in the issues from their point of view.Fair?
I think a fair summary would be that unless we can identify a fundamental flaw in the driver training regime in which the use of mirrors is being overlooked to the point of trucks being under the incorrect control of not being ‘driven on their mirrors’ (which means constant use),in which case that wouldn’t just be reflected in truck v cyclist type collisions,then the problem must be elsewhere.
If we aren’t interested in the issues from the point of view of all concerned then we obviously wouldn’t be here trying to make constructive suggestions as to how the issue can/should best be sorted out.I think you’d save a lot more lives of cyclists by telling it to them like it is in that even using the best driver practice there’s an unnacceptable risk to cyclists if they are under the false sense of security that truck drivers would/should always see and notice them in the event of them riding bicycles in close proximity around/along the sides of trucks.
Although having said that it also wouldn’t do any harm to point out the importance of the correct use of mirrors when driving trucks which means that it’s just as important to use the mirrors in regard to both the position of the vehicle relative to the road and street furniture etc around it and other road users,including cyclists and pedestrians,who might be near it etc,at least as much as looking ahead through the windscreen where it’s going,for the benefit of any drivers who might not be driving a truck to those standards,on the basis of if the cap fits wear it. 
Carryfast:
I think a fair summary would be that unless we can identify a fundamental flaw in the driver training regime in which the use of mirrors is being overlooked to the point of trucks being under the incorrect control of not being ‘driven on their mirrors’ (which means constant use),in which case that wouldn’t just be reflected in truck v cyclist type collisions,then the problem must be elsewhere.If we aren’t interested in the issues from the point of view of all concerned then we obviously wouldn’t be here trying to make constructive suggestions as to how the issue can/should best be sorted out.I think you’d save a lot more lives of cyclists by telling it to them like it is in that even using the best driver practice there’s an unnacceptable risk to cyclists if they are under the false sense of security that truck drivers would/should always see and notice them in the event of them riding bicycles in close proximity around/along the sides of trucks.
Although having said that it also wouldn’t do any harm to point out the importance of the correct use of mirrors when driving trucks which means that it’s just as important to use the mirrors in regard to both the position of the vehicle relative to the road and street furniture etc around it and other road users,including cyclists and pedestrians,who might be near it etc,at least as much as looking ahead through the windscreen where it’s going,for the benefit of any drivers who might not be driving a truck to those standards,on the basis of if the cap fits wear it.
Agreed, some excellent points and cyclists (if they are bothered enough to find out) are being educated in the limitations of mirrors in projects such as ‘Exchanging Places’ - tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling … x#exchange .