erfguy:
Hexhome You said earlier in a posting that cyclists were here first. Well there were horses and carts carrying goods long before 1842 when the first cycle was invented by KEIR HARDIE. The horsemen were carters and lorries naturally followed on and took over gradually and the first drivers were termed carters as well. so your cycles were well after the first goods vehicles,on yer bike son. Eddie.
Fair point, although I think that Keir Hardie invented the Labour Party, possibly an even more controversial invention to some here
Carryfast:
A stationary truck can’t hurt anyone.The only way that the girl in the tv programme example could have been run over by the concrete mixer is for her to have been at the side of it within the junction as it turned considering that he never drove it on the pavement at any time through the turn.
Have you watched the footage of the accident? It overtakes her and stops at pedestrian lights just before a minor road. No left signal is showing. The girl, an experienced cyclist made the fatal mistake of assuming that the Cement Mixer was going to carry on straight ahead and carried on up the inside on the cycle lane. As the lights changed to green, the cement mixer signalled left and immediately made a left turn across the cyclist who was now halfway along the vehicle.
Yes, if she had been on the pavement she would not have been killed, but until there is a change in the law, she could not legally be there. Cyclist are now trained to avoid this maneuver - youtube.com/watch?v=uPkbNFt5NuY
It was as a result of this incident that Cemex undertook measures to prevent such tragedies, which were then annual events. This included cycle awareness training. They have had no fatalities since.
Whilst I can’t agree the point about pavements being the place for cyclists, as would anyone who regularly commutes by cycle, it is impractical as well as illegal. I do agree that cyclists need to be more responsible for their own safety. I also happen to think that cycle awareness training, given that it is available as a DCPC module might be useful. It might at least explain some of the things cyclists do just as cyclists might need it explained why a lorry might move to the right before turning left.
I took my HGV test over 20 years ago, long before hazard perception tests and the like. In those days you passed your test with a 30 foot flat bed and in my case was on a 40ft fridge the following Monday. Training is much better now and maybe my suggestion is unnecessary? It was made with the best of intentions and not intended to antagonise anyone. Maybe it’s worth a new thread to ask what DCPC modules we are taking?
Professional drivers in general are certainly not getting the blame for these collisions, but when we are involved it also has a devastating effect on us. Some years ago, a colleague was unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and collided with a teenage pedestrian with obvious results. He has never fully recovered from that day and has not returned to driving, even though it was not his fault.
Carryfast:
A stationary truck can’t hurt anyone.The only way that the girl in the tv programme example could have been run over by the concrete mixer is for her to have been at the side of it within the junction as it turned considering that he never drove it on the pavement at any time through the turn.
Spot on. In most cases I’ve read about and indeed in my own personal experiences on the matter it appear that the cyclist has rode down the left hand side of the truck at a junction and then paid the price for placing themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place. A truck is a large, clumbsy thing to drive with very restricted visibility, it has nothing to do with attitudes, its a physical fact that is beyond dispute. Knowing this and having no choice but to accept this as being the hard facts, if a cyclist choses to ignore the prior facts and blatently disgregard any sense of personal safety and refuse to act with any responsibility for their own actions by placing themselves in the danger, then the outcome however unfortuntate is of their own doing. Lets not forget that a cyclist is not restricted in his or her visibility of the sitation by the confines of a cab or the dimensions of his or her vehicle. The only attitudes that has to change here are those of the fools on bikes, who act like an ever increasing about of car drivers and think that they can act and behave in any which way they like because its everybody elses responsibility around them to account for their stupid actions so they dont have to put any effort in themselves to do things properly in the first place.
I’ve never said cyclists don’t need training, the problems occur because the majority haven’t been on a bike on city streets for years and could do with it. It won’t happen though because it’s not the law. Having said that all drivers on the road have been trained and look at how they drive. I’m impressed on a daily basis by some of the driving I see, and not in a good way. Is training needed? Yes for all parties. Will it make a difference? No, how many of us road users drive to the laws all the time?
It’s being called the war on britains roads but, with the current score standing at, cyclists dead this year on the roads 109, vehicle drivers dead after collision with cyclist 0. Not much of a war is it.
ThrustMaster:
And as for those calling for taxation and insurance for cyclists, I’m staggered that they want to add another tier of bureaucracy and red-tape, shame on you
Hang on … its no good having training and testing for cyclists if when they do something wrong the law has virtually no chance of doing anything because they cannot be traced
Well that’s the problem isn’t it? Proper testing would lead to registration and some form of bike vrn plate, no problem so far. Then when irate drivers call the police to tell them a cyclist has gone through a red light they can give them the plate. Police would do nothing as its a waste of time, try doing it now and you will get warned for wasting time. These schemes have been tried in various countries and I think so far, I may be wrong so happy to be corrected, every one has proved too expensive and unworkable and have been cancelled. On the insurance front if a cyclist damages your vehicle then they can be made to pay for damage the same as anyone else. Most regular cyclists have insurance, you would be foolish not to these days, and , if proved to be in the wrong, have to pay. You may say they can cycle off never to be seen again but so do cars.
There is no quick fix for this problem. It’s not going away anytime soon. A little more patience goes a long way.
ROG:
Hang on … its no good having training and testing for cyclists if when they do something wrong the law has virtually no chance of doing anything because they cannot be traced
I think that training and testing improves road skills and attitudes, I’m surprised that you don’t value this aspect given your background. As for identifying cyclists who do wrong, is it an issue or a reaction? Personally I’m not sure that number plates are the answer as that only identifies the bicycle, there are plenty of cases where a driver has not been identified by a number plate. I’m not convinced that there is a huge problem of criminal cyclists either. I do believe in 3rd party insurance and many cyclists such as myself have it. It currently costs me £15 per year and covers any family member (from the IAM you might be interested to learn).
No, training for cyclists is essential and they should be pushed towards it. I certainly wouldn’t want my 14 year old who competes (and is covered by British Cyclings 3rd party insurance scheme) in road cycling to be out there without the sort of training the IAM offer (which is the biggest growth area for the IAM).
In a nutshell. yes there are some cyclists who behave appallingly on our roads, they are not the majority. Most could benefit from further training. They have to use the road, there is no alternative (maybe when the Tour De France is started in Britain in 2014, it will be run along the pavements)
I guess a dCPC module isn’t the worst idea, if it saved one such incident then it’d probably be a lot more useful than some of the modules I’m sure. To date I have only done one which was a H&S module, 95% of which had little or no relevance to being on the road. Most of what was said was really only applicable to workers in a fixed premises environment. There was no need to interact and contribute whereas a practical course would be more interesting and engaging.
Seeing as there are various different courses that can be done, it does give some choice. Isn’t the Crossrail induction largely about cyclists? That’s a dCPC module that you have to do if you reguarly deliver there.
8wheels:
I guess a dCPC module isn’t the worst idea, if it saved one such incident then it’d probably be a lot more useful than some of the modules I’m sure. To date I have only done one which was a H&S module, 95% of which had little or no relevance to being on the road. Most of what was said was really only applicable to workers in a fixed premises environment. There was no need to interact and contribute whereas a practical course would be more interesting and engaging.
Seeing as there are various different courses that can be done, it does give some choice. Isn’t the Crossrail induction largely about cyclists? That’s a dCPC module that you have to do if you reguarly deliver there.
Truckulent:
Most cyclist ride with no regard for the rules of the road.
Most cyclists are oblivious to their vulnerability when the ‘red mist’ of dodging through traffic descends.
If the majority of cyclists could be punished in the same way the rest of us can be (points, fine, ban etc.) for riding/behaving stupidly or flouting the law, many of them wouldn’t last a month before being handed points,fine or worse.
Most drivers are aware of cyclists - but the same cannot be said about cyclists and their standing on the roads. As a motorcyclist having taken advance training (yes i know, it’s not the bee all an end all), I know I’m vulnerable and I ride accordingly. I wouldn’t ride up the inside of a truck turning left for a million pounds sterling, as a truck is bigger and heavier and the driver has enough to think about without a nob riding up his or her inside…
Until cyclists make the same sort of connection in their heads, as a group they will remain vulnerable and will keep getting squashed. Cyclists - you need to sort this out first before seeking to blame everyone else…
Hexhome:
In a nutshell. yes there are some cyclists who behave appallingly on our roads, they are not the majority. Most could benefit from further training. They have to use the road, there is no alternative (maybe when the Tour De France is started in Britain in 2014, it will be run along the pavements)
The fact is the Tour De France is run on closed road stages whereas we’re talking about a load of (not very bright) cyclists who want to use open roads in a similar way at ridiculous Tour De France type speeds and with race type get ahead mentality (suggest you watch the recent tv programme again).
Whereas the Japanese have shown the need to get ordinary non race cycling onto the pavements wherever possible because of the impossiblity of cyclists and road traffic being able to share the roads safely.
As for cycle road racing yet more double standards considering what would have happened if any car racing enthusiasts had asked Surrey County Council to close a large road route for a road race as is possible on the Isle of Man.No surprise it would probably be the raving politically motivated cycling lobby and their friends in government who’d be the first to complain about such an ‘outrageous’ ‘environmentally unfriendly’ idea.
8wheels:
I guess a dCPC module isn’t the worst idea, if it saved one such incident then it’d probably be a lot more useful than some of the modules I’m sure. To date I have only done one which was a H&S module, 95% of which had little or no relevance to being on the road. Most of what was said was really only applicable to workers in a fixed premises environment. There was no need to interact and contribute whereas a practical course would be more interesting and engaging.
Seeing as there are various different courses that can be done, it does give some choice. Isn’t the Crossrail induction largely about cyclists? That’s a dCPC module that you have to do if you reguarly deliver there.
There is a dCPC module that is Safer Driving in London put out in conjunction with TfL and FORS and is very enlightening regarding the love/hate affair between Truck and cycle.
Do other large towns and cities have similar probs with cycle deaths? There was a truck driver on LBC the other day saying his firm (not named) had been involved in two cyclist fatalities in three months! Wonder how the insurance company view that even if they are asolved from any blame.
That’s odd because I distinctly remember F1 closing down the centre of London a few years ago for a little race and a lot of publicity. Didn’t hear any cyclists ■■■■■■■■ about it though.
Having thought about it you are correct, it’s the cyclists fault. All of it. Despite all the mirrors I have, 4 on the nearside, rear facing camera, and all the other things I have to do while driving, hold the steering wheel, look out the window and watch my speed, it’s definitely not up to me to look out for anyone else, especially cyclists who, let’s face it deserve all they get for daring to go on our roads.
Some of you seem to be of the opinion that cyclists leave home with the sole intent of annoying vehicle drivers. It’s simply not the case and, while the attitude shown by some on here remains then it won’t get any better. Not perfect by any means, just normal people getting on with their lives.
Face the fact that they won’t get forced on to the pavement, won’t have to get registered, won’t have to pay any form of tax, will remain in your way. I would go so far as to say you have more chance of seeing C&E vehicles being banned off the roads, especially built up areas during daytime hours, say 0700 to 1800. How do you think that would go down with the general public. Tough I know but nobody said it was an easy job.
Slackbladder:
That’s odd because I distinctly remember F1 closing down the centre of London a few years ago for a little race and a lot of publicity. Didn’t hear any cyclists ■■■■■■■■ about it though.
Having thought about it you are correct, it’s the cyclists fault. All of it. Despite all the mirrors I have, 4 on the nearside, rear facing camera, and all the other things I have to do while driving, hold the steering wheel, look out the window and watch my speed, it’s definitely not up to me to look out for anyone else, especially cyclists who, let’s face it deserve all they get for daring to go on our roads.
Some of you seem to be of the opinion that cyclists leave home with the sole intent of annoying vehicle drivers. It’s simply not the case and, while the attitude shown by some on here remains then it won’t get any better. Not perfect by any means, just normal people getting on with their lives.
Face the fact that they won’t get forced on to the pavement, won’t have to get registered, won’t have to pay any form of tax, will remain in your way. I would go so far as to say you have more chance of seeing C&E vehicles being banned off the roads, especially built up areas during daytime hours, say 0700 to 1800. How do you think that would go down with the general public. Tough I know but nobody said it was an easy job.
I think if cyclists don’t accept ‘the fact’ that they need to be put where they belong,on the pavement not on the road,just as the Japanese have realised since the late 1970’s,then the situation of cyclists continuing to come into conflict with road traffic will just get worse.Which then results in the possibility of a prison sentence for a law abiding citizen who was just doing his job to earn a living and the high probability of a fatality in the case of the cyclist concerned.
All because of some bloody minded bs view that cyclists can’t ride/won’t ride in a sensible way on the pavement and the truck driver will always see the idiot on the bicycle who often has a suicidal tendency regarding every commuter trip on the bike being a private Tour De France time trial type journey.Let alone their obvious motive being all about ‘getting in the way’ of motor vehicles just to make some bs anti motor vehicle point.Such as that example of riding a bicycle in a live lane 1 of the A3,which is effectively a motorway,all because using the hard shoulder wouldn’t give the nutters their kicks of getting in the way with the added benefit,as they see it,of martyrdom for them and a jail sentence for the unlucky driver if/when the idea all goes pear shaped.
As for use of public roads for motor racing this article says it all about the hypocricy of the raving cycling lot.
