Carryfast:
snip…
I’ve never been a biker but in the car or truck world the last thing I’d want to do in the case of vehicles slowing down ahead and I don’t know why is to even think about overtaking them.
The issue of cyclists being collected by turning vehicles seems to be a case of sheer stupidity based on ignorance of basic common sense and survival instincts of never running alongside to overtake a vehicle that’s possibly about to turn at the side of you.Therefore it’s that stupidity that needs to be sorted not the doubtful issue of truck drivers arguably turning without sufficient use of mirrors before and during the turn in many cases.As I’ve said if the problem was one of such a basic lack of driving skills,on the part of truck drivers,it would logically result in many more different types of collisions, between trucks and many other types of vehicles,street furniture,and pesestrians not just cyclists.With motorcyclists obviously being involved in such collisions to a large degree not just cyclists.The problem is more one of bad overtaking on the part of cyclists not one of bad observation while turning on the part of truck drivers.
I have been a cyclist and, many years ago, a RoSPA instructor/examiner. I am aware that practice/advice has changed since my time but we never advised passing a vehicle on the side of an indicator that was active.
Albion makes some very valid points with road positioning and, when you see how often no indicator is used road position may be the ONLY clue as to a driver intent. A real scenario: On the road into my estate you turn off an arterial road and I, more often than not, turn right. I have lost count of the number of times, having left a roundabout 50m before the turning, people try and pass as I am slowing & indicating to make that turn. So much so that I will now position my off side wheels on the center white line closing the available overtaking space when there is no oncoming traffic. I should also state that this is a residential street with vehicles parked on the road side, driveways, a bus stop, a school and shops within a 1/2 mile radius so there are always going to be potential hazards to address.
Final comment on your suggestion about joint pedestrian/cycle paths. While cycles are entitled to use the road we really should expect to meet them and drive accordingly. The idea of [zb] them they have most to lose is as repulsive to me as the “i’m environmentally responsible get out of my way” some of the lycra warriors seem to have adopted.
The issue of cyclists getting collected by turning trucks in many cases seems to be a combination of total ignorance of that simple important bit of advice don’t try to pass or run alongside a vehicle with an active indicator and that flawed sense of entitlement to use the roads as they wish,often still using roads when there are marked cycle lanes and/or shared pedestrian/cycle facilities,in that every journey is a race with the need to get ahead at all costs.
Assuming that it’s obviously considered ok by the authorities to have shared cycle and pedestrian ways in certain places why not just widen that to include all pavements and road crossings wherever possible thereby removing the problem.It seems obvious that it’s that sense of entitlement amongst cyclists,even at the expense of safety,that is the cause of a lot of the problem.However I think that the fact that most drivers are looking for a solution to the problem proves that they aren’t saying zb the cyclists they have the most to lose at all.The possibility a prison sentence for knocking down a cyclist isn’t exactly nothing to lose for the average driver.
It’s more a case that the cyclists aren’t interested in looking for that solution being that all that matters to them is how fast they can ride a cycle from A to B together with that dangerous sense of entitlement to use the roads as they wish even if that means trying to overtake or running alongside a truck without sufficient room to do so let alone one that has an indicator showing indicating a turn in many cases.
There’s no place like this forum for the odd generalisation is there? All cyclists this and all cyclists that, total bs of course, but don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.
I myself have no problem using bike lanes or shared lanes. What do you suggest should happen to vehicles that park in them? Currently it’s nothing. My ride into work takes me along plenty of cycle lane, the trouble is every single one has vehicles parked in it, forcing me to move into the road so often I usually just stay there.
Carryfast your one eyed views are laughable. Most drivers are looking for a solution! I take it not many of those drivers come on this forum. Yeah cyclists aren’t looking for a safer way to use the roads, well apart from that big thing going on in parliament about cycle safety. On the chances of going to jail, forget it, there’s just been another case where a driver admitted killing a cyclist on the road due to careless driving, I’ve said before the CPS won’t use dangerous driving where cyclists are involved, he got a suspended sentence and a 2 year ban, yes that’s tough justice and should stop others, my arse.
Slackbladder:
There’s no place like this forum for the odd generalisation is there? All cyclists this and all cyclists that, total bs of course, but don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.
I myself have no problem using bike lanes or shared lanes. What do you suggest should happen to vehicles that park in them? Currently it’s nothing. My ride into work takes me along plenty of cycle lane, the trouble is every single one has vehicles parked in it, forcing me to move into the road so often I usually just stay there.
If that was the case there’d be loads of vehicles parked all over the pavements,which is actually illegal,in the case of allowing shared pedestrian and cyclist use of pavements.France there often might be but definitely not here.Vehicles parked on pavements and pedestrian ways is a rarity in the uk.While in many cases the pedestrian walkway space is actually as much if not more than that available for cyclists combined with car and truck traffic on the road.
Says everything about the stupidity of the present situation of having suicidal cyclists sharing the road with large vehicles when there’s loads of redundant space on the pavement that could be used to seperate the two conflicting,totally incompatible,modes of transport.However that obviously doesn’t suit the raving cyclist agenda of keeping their ‘entitlement’ to be stupid and/or having to show the type of responsibility towards pedestrians,on shared walkway/cycleways,that they expect from drivers in the currently unnacceptable situation on the roads.
There you go again, you cannot even bring yourself to accept that not all cyclists are raving loonys hell bent on diving under trucks, anymore than you could say that some truckers are poor drivers that don’t take due care and attention while driving. Try taking you blinkers off for once, you’re embarrassing.
Slackbladder:
There you go again, you cannot even bring yourself to accept that not all cyclists are raving loonys hell bent on diving under trucks, anymore than you could say that some truckers are poor drivers that don’t take due care and attention while driving. Try taking you blinkers off for once, you’re embarrassing.
It’s a good bet that many of those who end up in a collision with a truck are exactly those types of raving suicidal idiots.While those examples in the videos show the stupidity of the present situation of allowing those idiots to mix with road traffic when there’s loads of room on the pavements for shared pedestrian/cyclist use thereby removing the problem.
Carryfast:
It’s a good bet that many of those who end up in a collision with a truck are exactly those types of raving suicidal idiots.
So that is a BET, a wager on an event, rather than a fact.
Carryfast:
While those examples in the videos show the stupidity of the present situation of allowing those idiots to mix with road traffic when there’s loads of room on the pavements for shared pedestrian/cyclist use thereby removing the problem.
No it shows the stupidity of some cyclists and there are likely to be as many videos of drivers behaving equally as badly. Your persistent mantra of bikes and pedestrians sharing footpaths is no more credible simply because of the number of times it is repeated more so when my own, and others, are able to make a judgement and consider the many situations when there is simply no room for shared pathways, even if a pathway exists. Take a chill pill because unless you have blue lights and sirens I doubt there is any cargo that you carry so important that you can’t consider another group of road users, live and let LIVE.
Carryfast:
It’s a good bet that many of those who end up in a collision with a truck are exactly those types of raving suicidal idiots.
So that is a BET, a wager on an event, rather than a fact.
Carryfast:
While those examples in the videos show the stupidity of the present situation of allowing those idiots to mix with road traffic when there’s loads of room on the pavements for shared pedestrian/cyclist use thereby removing the problem.
No it shows the stupidity of some cyclists and there are likely to be as many videos of drivers behaving equally as badly. Your persistent mantra of bikes and pedestrians sharing footpaths is no more credible simply because of the number of times it is repeated more so when my own, and others, are able to make a judgement and consider the many situations when there is simply no room for shared pathways, even if a pathway exists. Take a chill pill because unless you have blue lights and sirens I doubt there is any cargo that you carry so important that you can’t consider another group of road users, live and let LIVE.
I think those examples shown in the videos are reasonable proof that the idea of not putting cyclists on the pavements wherever possible has absolutely nothing to do with there not being sufficient room and everything to do with the raving majority of suicidal cyclists wanting to take their ideas,of their so called ‘entitlement’,to use the road,to extreme lengths just as shown in those cases.It seems obvious which group of ‘road users’ aren’t considering other road users and their own safety and that,in the majority of cases,is cyclists,and the minority of cases possibly the drivers of trucks.Although maybe that situation would obviously change if,like cyclists,drivers were allowed to drive vehicles without any form of licencing and testing and ability of the authorities to take sanctions against them,up to at least removing them from the road,in the event of breaking road traffic laws.
It takes two idiots to create an accident collision. One for being somewhere making a fatal error, and the other for not anticipating, and therefore unable to avoid it.
How many fatalities are caused by ‘rear-ending’, ‘pulling across the front of’, or ‘veering off half asleep’ - as opposed to the wheels falling off, a sink hole opening up, or something that can truly be classed as “not the driver’s fault on both sides”.?
Looking at the picture, like someone else said on here, that truck may, have come across the junction and klapped the cyclist who was travelling along the main road, just a thought.
I can shed some light on why the driver may have been arrested. The truck had no o licence and was a mobile gv9.
The owner ir it has gone to ground since this happened
