Cyclist Killed

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
141

roadhog69:

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.

It needs to be remembered that TFL is a raving politically motivated pro cycling anti road transport organisation.Much like many of the cyclists in London who are increasingly using London’s roads as their own private race track.

142

Yes and us truckers are such a professional lot we don’t need to look out for anyone else do we.

Leicestershire Police cracked down on the fatal four offences.
Two lorry drivers were caught watching DVDs while on major roads in Leicestershire in a police operation.

Officers used a heavy goods vehicle of their own to spy on drivers on the M1 and A1.

The three-day operation ran from Tuesday to Thursday and caught 90 drivers for a variety of offences.

Leicestershire Police said it was to cut down on drink-driving, not wearing a seatbelt, using a phone and speeding, known as the fatal four.

The force said the lorry drivers were watching foreign language films as they were not from the UK.

PC Russ Davies said police often had reports of lorry drivers watching DVDs on laptops, but it was usually difficult to prove.

“Invariably when drivers do it they start veering off onto the hard shoulder,” he said

"Because of the height they are at it’s difficult to prove they are watching a film, as some of them have sat-navs on their computers as well.

“So unless we can get up and see what they are doing we can’t prosecute them.”

Of the 90 drivers caught during the operation, 52 were not wearing a seatbelt and were given £60 fines.

‘Bang to rights’

Another 21 were using a mobile phone, six were said to be not in proper control of their vehicles and two were watching DVDs. All were given a £60 fine with three points on their licence.

A further nine were caught driving longer than they should and were given a mixture of warnings and fines.

Dave Galloway was one lorry driver caught not wearing a seatbelt.

He said: "I didn’t realise I was supposed to be wearing a seatbelt in a truck. I always wear one in the car.

“But they caught me bang to rights, you’ve got no choice really.”

PC Davies added: "There’s just that small minority who think, perhaps by their height, they are going to be immune from prosecution.

“What we are trying to achieve is to let them know we are out looking for these offences.”

143

Hexhome I got mixed up the inventor was Kirkpatrick MacMillan and it was Keir village his blacksmiths shop was. Eddie.

144

Slackbladder:
Yes and us truckers are such a professional lot we don’t need to look out for anyone else do we.

Leicestershire Police cracked down on the fatal four offences.
Two lorry drivers were caught watching DVDs while on major roads in Leicestershire in a police operation.

Officers used a heavy goods vehicle of their own to spy on drivers on the M1 and A1.

The three-day operation ran from Tuesday to Thursday and caught 90 drivers for a variety of offences.

Leicestershire Police said it was to cut down on drink-driving, not wearing a seatbelt, using a phone and speeding, known as the fatal four.

The force said the lorry drivers were watching foreign language films as they were not from the UK.

PC Russ Davies said police often had reports of lorry drivers watching DVDs on laptops, but it was usually difficult to prove.

“Invariably when drivers do it they start veering off onto the hard shoulder,” he said

"Because of the height they are at it’s difficult to prove they are watching a film, as some of them have sat-navs on their computers as well.

“So unless we can get up and see what they are doing we can’t prosecute them.”

Of the 90 drivers caught during the operation, 52 were not wearing a seatbelt and were given £60 fines.

‘Bang to rights’

Another 21 were using a mobile phone, six were said to be not in proper control of their vehicles and two were watching DVDs. All were given a £60 fine with three points on their licence.

A further nine were caught driving longer than they should and were given a mixture of warnings and fines.

Dave Galloway was one lorry driver caught not wearing a seatbelt.

He said: "I didn’t realise I was supposed to be wearing a seatbelt in a truck. I always wear one in the car.

“But they caught me bang to rights, you’ve got no choice really.”

PC Davies added: "There’s just that small minority who think, perhaps by their height, they are going to be immune from prosecution.

“What we are trying to achieve is to let them know we are out looking for these offences.”

None of which seems to have much relevance to the type of issues involved in cyclists getting run over by trucks turning left or right having ridden a bicycle alongside the vehicle before it started turning. :unamused:

145

You try to put the point across that all cyclists are idiots and they deserve all they get while truckers, and other road users are all saints. The article shows that all road users are liable to do stupid things. If the drivers are watching DVDs while driving they aren’t really concentrating on the road are they. while I’m aware that cyclists can be a pain, most of the time they are just trying to stay safe after all, you don’t seem to be able to admit that vehicle drivers do any wrong whatsoever. Must be nice in that cookoo land you drive in.

146

Slackbladder:
You try to put the point across that all cyclists are idiots and they deserve all they get while truckers, and other road users are all saints. The article shows that all road users are liable to do stupid things. If the drivers are watching DVDs while driving they aren’t really concentrating on the road are they. while I’m aware that cyclists can be a pain, most of the time they are just trying to stay safe after all, you don’t seem to be able to admit that vehicle drivers do any wrong whatsoever. Must be nice in that cookoo land you drive in.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that there aren’t idiots doing stupid things on the road out there driving all type of vehicles.However that isn’t the same issue.

The issue of cyclists coming into conflict with motorised road traffic,regardless of who is to blame,is another.If I was putting any point concerning cyclists deserving the results of that then I wouldn’t be (trying to) make the same case as the Japanese did in trying to save the lives of cyclist by getting them off the road onto the pavement.It’s my bet that the reason why the cyclists are so against that is that they know that there’s a lot more of them,who wouldn’t be prepared to show the required levels of responsibility,towards pedestrians,which they’d need to in that environment,than there is truck drivers watching DVD’s while driving.

The argument concerning making motor traffic share the road with cyclists is all about a politicised idea of making drivers take on all the responsibility of the safety of cyclists while requiring no responsibilty on the part of cyclists at all in return.Which is why if drivers are driving in a way which doesn’t meet the required standard they can be charged with any number of different offences according to the type of bad driving in question to the point of loss of licence or a prison sentence.While cyclists face none of those sanctions for failure to ride a bicycle in an acceptable safe way.

However you won’t change anything for the better by just allowing the status quo of the type of mistake which the girl who came into contact with the concrete mixer made to go unchallenged.If I’d have been her father or whatever I’d be saying if only she’d have been riding the bike on the pavement and crossed the junction just as if she’d have been a pedestrian or at least why didn’t she stop behind the truck and/or at least stay where she was and let the truck go first before entering the junction.Not blaming the driver of the truck because he hadn’t seen her at the side of the truck when he turned. :bulb:

But yes I do know that drivers make loads of mistakes on the road and that’s why I’m still here because I didn’t plough on into the result instead of using more than a bit of anticipation.Using the road is 20% knowing when to go and 80% knowing when to hold back because of what ‘might’ happen in front of you regardless of wether you’re driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle.Assuming of course you’re prepared to accept the risk of riding a bicycle on the road at all which I never was. :bulb:

147

cyclists on the pavment is absurd .terryfying old ladies ,mothers with young children then you have the idiots who walk around with earphones on oblivious as to whats going on around them.
All you are doing is moving the problem a couple of feet over to the left. Cyclists need to learn lane discipline as well.

Maybe an audible warning system fitted to trucks buses like when you are reversing “WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT STAY CLEAR”
The local plod could go round offices factories like they do with skools and show some goary videos to educate and shock them into acting responsible.

148

ND888 BIGJ:
cyclists on the pavment is absurd .terryfying old ladies ,mothers with young children then you have the idiots who walk around with earphones on oblivious as to whats going on around them.

Which means that cyclists would have to be more aware of others and ride accordingly. Just like we have to with them…

149

I don’t know why you keep banging on about Japan, they tend to do what their political masters tell them, unlike here where we don’t. Mobile phones when driving for instance.
Now let’s assume we have to ride on pavements here. I would guess that most cyclists would get back in their cars, that would be around 1.2 million more cars on the road, happy with that? Given that in 2011, the last year stats were available, 49 pedestrians were killed on the paths by motor vehicles. Not really a safe haven is it. Now have areas of this, it’s why you know it would never happen here.
A cyclist in Cambridge now has a criminal record after he faced a Magistrates’ Court trial for cycling on the pavement.

David Arnold, 35, was one of 40 cyclists who were caught on the pavement in Arbury Road in a police sting.

They were all offered the opportunity to pay a fine, but Arnold refused, saying that the footpath had been mixed use further along, and there had been no signage to indicate bicycles were no longer permitted.

He was convicted of riding a pedal cycle on a footpath after a one-hour trial at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court, and was fined £30 plus a £15 victim surcharge. The fixed penalty notice that he was offered on the day would have been a £30 fine.

However Arnold now carries a criminal record, potentially something he has to declare to employers and other officials.

Cambridgeshire police defended their actions though, saying that local communities had requested the crackdown, because they were angry that cyclists dodged traffic lights by cycling on the pavement.

A spokesman told Cambridge News: “We want cyclists to stop using the pavement as they pose a danger to pedestrians.

“We will continue to carry out enforcement days and anyone caught riding on pavements faces being fined.

“Ultimately we do not want them riding on the pavement, but if they do we will give them fixed penalty notices and it is their decision to contest that.”

Mr Arnold said after the trial: “I have cycled along that bit of pavement on what must be 500 occasions. I am not the only one who is confused by this.

“There must be better signage so people know when they can cycle on pavements and when they can’t so this does not happen to anyone else.”

Colin Rosenstiel, a cyclist and city councillor, said some of the signage in the city was “appalling” and he was surprised the cyclist was made to go through legal proceedings.

He added: “It’s a bit harsh if he was saying he was genuinely confused by the signage. The trouble is as a cyclist you are trying to stick to the law and some of the signage does not help at all.”

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesman said: “Shared use footpaths are clearly marked and our advice to cyclists would be that unless the footpath is clearly signed as such they should not use it as a cycleway.”

Â

150

grumpybum:

ND888 BIGJ:
cyclists on the pavment is absurd .terryfying old ladies ,mothers with young children then you have the idiots who walk around with earphones on oblivious as to whats going on around them.

Which means that cyclists would have to be more aware of others and ride accordingly. Just like we have to with them…

It’s not cyclists not riding accordingly its everyone els on the pavement, there is no lane segregation people don’t walk down the left hand side of the pavement in one line they wander about all over it at angles, it just isn’t feasible, on the road everyone stays to the left largely cyclists can be overtaken when safe by vehicles on the right, on pavements it’s just chaos also as to the mention of the girl and the mixer if she was on the pavement and rode across the junction shees move lightly to get hit or are you saying that HGV drivers are more lightly to notice a cyclist on the pavement where they could be obscured by any number of street furniture?

Also all the mention of cyclists not riding on the hard shoulder of a duel carriage way there are a few reasons for this, now I don’t know the road in question but might be wrong, first off it would be illegal so you lot would all be on here moaning that cyclists are allowed to ride there so why shouldn’t you drive there.
Also you say it’s a hard shoulder normally there not full width, and littered with debris that aren’t always visible from a car/truck hence you are about a foot away from the road traffic comes past at full speed giving you no room for error or if you have to swerve to miss things, if you ride in the lane traffic slows down appropriately and normally gives you more room hence its safer to ride in the lane, also you are more visible at junctions if there are any,

I hate riding on duel carriageways and try to avoid them however there are times when it just has to be done in order to get from A to B in a sensible time, this is normally round the Kendal/ barrow type areas toward the lakes where there are allot of duel carriageways

151

I live near an industrial estate where there are 3 council yards and many who work for the council cycle to work and use the pavements without any incidents at all probably because there are very few pedestrians on them

It would not always be safe for cycles to use pavements but where it is safe they should be encouraged to do so

Safe cycling on pavements = plod not interested

152

Its quite ironic that one of the major reasons for not wanting to ride on the footpath are the other inconvenient footpath users such as pedestrians who behave in a way not at all condusive to cycling and may cause an obstacle by wandering around where they are not expected to go while listening to their iPod etc…exactly the same things that often cause cyclists to be knocked off their bikes when they’re the unpredictable and often invisible objects that cycle down the side of a large truck completely oblivious to the danger they are putting themselves in. Footpaths may not be suitable for cycling but neither are narrow inner city roads where three lanes are crammed into a junction approach where there is probably only suitable width for two lanes and trucks have to deal with all sorts of problems at every angle and until human evolution gives us more than two eyes and the ability to check more than X amount of mirrors, cameras and sensors in any given timeframe, cyclists will just have to be less reckless and take responsibility for their own actions and stop relying on everybody else to make up for their own shortfall in common sense.

153

Maybe an audible warning system fitted to trucks buses like when you are reversing “WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT STAY CLEAR”

Already available and I think part of the requirements for Crossrail. Won’t help the cyclists wearing headphones though.

I noticed the other day a tanker with side markers that flashed with the indicators, seemed like an excellent idea that is creeping in. Anything that makes it much clearer is a good thing, I know there will still be plenty who ignore it but it’s a start

154

If the drivers are watching DVDs while driving they aren’t really concentrating on the road are they.

Whilst this is 100% true, I’m fairly certain the drivers who do this do it on the motorway and not whilst driving through the capital. I’d not be surprised to see otherwise, but it’s going to be a lot less likely.

155

I cannot believe anyone would be ok with truckers watching DVDs while driving, as long as its only on the motorway and not in city centres.
Cyclists were here before motor vehicles and will be here when all the diesel has dried up. Take a little extra time to get past them and content yourselves with shouting at the window. They aren’t going anywhere so ■■■■ it up and get used to it.

156

AHT:
Also all the mention of cyclists not riding on the hard shoulder of a duel carriage way there are a few reasons for this, now I don’t know the road in question but might be wrong, first off it would be illegal so you lot would all be on here moaning that cyclists are allowed to ride there so why shouldn’t you drive there.
Also you say it’s a hard shoulder normally there not full width, and littered with debris that aren’t always visible from a car/truck hence you are about a foot away from the road traffic comes past at full speed giving you no room for error or if you have to swerve to miss things, if you ride in the lane traffic slows down appropriately and normally gives you more room hence its safer to ride in the lane, also you are more visible at junctions if there are any,

I hate riding on duel carriageways and try to avoid them however there are times when it just has to be done in order to get from A to B in a sensible time, this is normally round the Kendal/ barrow type areas toward the lakes where there are allot of duel carriageways

You don’t know the road in question but you’re happy enough to still make some bonkers bs excuse as to why cyclists can’t use the hard shoulder on it. :unamused: The fact is in my experience of riding a bike many,if not most,pavements are suitable for cycle use and as far as I’m concerned anyone who thinks otherwise is as raving mad as anyone who wants to ride a bicycle in lane 1 of this road instead of using the hard shoulder.By the way the correct procedure here is for cyclists to use the exit and entry slip roads at junctions so they don’t get wiped out by traffic entering and exiting the road.As for using lane 1 and expecting traffic to slow up yeah right good luck with that.:unamused:

maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … 8,0,10.93

As I said for the cyclists it’s all about martyrdom in making some bs point about them wanting to control and ‘command’ the road space at the expense of road traffic and the unfortunate drivers who are unlucky enough to get involved in the inevitable results. :imp:

157

ROG:
I live near an industrial estate where there are 3 council yards and many who work for the council cycle to work and use the pavements without any incidents at all probably because there are very few pedestrians on them

It would not always be safe for cycles to use pavements but where it is safe they should be encouraged to do so

Safe cycling on pavements = plod not interested

If that’s the case then why doesn’t ‘plod’ and TFL make that very clear to everyone concerned and then go a step further by nicking cyclists for not using pavements where plod considers it safe to do so :question: :question: . :bulb:

158

Ever noticed how there is usually only RECOMMENDED routes for cycles but no legal signs preventing them going where the planners have deemed it unsafe for them to go ?

There is only one reason for this - without identification on cycles it is virtually impossible to prosecute them

159

ROG:
Ever noticed how there is usually only RECOMMENDED routes for cycles but no legal signs preventing them going where the planners have deemed it unsafe for them to go ?

There is only one reason for this - without identification on cycles it is virtually impossible to prosecute them

Probably because the ‘authorities’ are in fact controlled by a load of raving loony lefty motor transport hating nutters who’d prefer to make matyrs of cyclists for their bonkers cause. :unamused:

160

Carryfast:

ROG:
I live near an industrial estate where there are 3 council yards and many who work for the council cycle to work and use the pavements without any incidents at all probably because there are very few pedestrians on them

It would not always be safe for cycles to use pavements but where it is safe they should be encouraged to do so

Safe cycling on pavements = plod not interested

If that’s the case then why doesn’t ‘plod’ and TFL make that very clear to everyone concerned and then go a step further by nicking cyclists for not using pavements where plod considers it safe to do so :question: :question: . :bulb:

To do that cycles would need identification plates as most would be caught doing wrong on cctv

Once cyclists know they can be easily identified then and only then will the ones taking silly risks etc start to behave correctly