tomo3607:
And will you stop saying that there usually hit from behind when there notSent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
The paper analysed 704 accidents involving heavy goods vehicles and found that 31% of road fatalities were caused by drivers pulling away, 19% were caused by left turns, 7% by right turns, and 25% from drivers reversing.
roaduser66:
The “Hang Back” message explains that the nearside of an HGV is THE DANGER ZONE and cyclists must never, ever , enter THE DANGER ZONE. Which means that every time an HGV driver overtakes a cyclist the cyclist is placed slap bang in THE DANGER ZONE. So, using thier own logic, these vehicles must never overtake cyclists and place them in danger. Either the HGV overtakes or the cyclist filters on the nearside. End result is the same, the person on the bike is in THE DANGER ZONE.Except cyclists undertaking isn’t what’s hurting the riders. Usually they’re hit from behind or the HGV overtakes then cuts in. Left hook. HGV drivers playing with phones have killed more people than cyclists have in ANY r so any sensible policy would tackle the danger at source. HGV drivers.
Unlike bicyclists, who never cycle through traffic with earphones, listening to their music. Or cycle around, talking to their phone. Or give a running commentary to go with their go pro you tube footage. (I personally like the over and over screaming of “legally allowed” and " you are being filmed for legal purposes "… )
I think you are confusing “annoying” with “lethal”. Not one of those behaviours has been cited as the cause of a fatality, so you are desperately scrabbling around to heap blame on cyclists with duff information. Those cyclists are annoying, I get it. They are not lethal. Big difference. We can make the roads safer or we can tackle annoying cyclists. Up to you.
Yes when we’re reversing cos the loud beeping is obviously not loud enough to be heard over there ipod, and i notice how you emphasise that its my fault for not having a rear facing dashcam to stop there stupidity, hence the reason for more training for cyclists we have enough already, i dont see cyclists paying £575 over five years to keep riding the push bikes
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
found that 31% of road fatalities were caused by drivers pulling away, 19% were caused by left turns, 7% by right turns, and 25% from drivers reversing.
Death happened while the vehicle was doing those manouveres, It doesn’t say that the cause/fault of the accident was the driver or the cyclists- you can try to spin statistics . we may be thick lorry drivers but we know lies ■■■■ lies and statistics
Rikki-UK:
cav551:
Er No, It’s London’s waste they can keep it inside their boundaries thank you very much.Oh don’t be petty
think of all the benefits, 1000’s of warehousing and cross decking jobs just outside London, of course TFL would have to charge the end user for the service, but having a self legislated monopoly they could , unhindered by market forces set the rate to ensure they employ enough civil servants to thoroughly administer the scheme, More jobs inside London, another benefit. Of course the prices inside London for just about everything would go through the roof, but I am sure that the residents will be happy to pay to keep our killer juggernauts off their streets
Hopefully that idea will run into the conditions of the Green Belt in that warehousing space for Khan’s trans shipment depots won’t satisfy those conditions just like his housing plans.Having said that I’m sure we could find some suitable areas for the plan by letting him have back what remains of Middx in and around Staines and in the Thames Estuary in which case transhipment onto barges and then rickshaws sounds a great idea. 
Most of these lorries would be banned from the Low Emissions Zone anyway, which means Sadiq Khan doesn’t actually need to do much to manage this change.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The worst thing to happen was ‘Boris bikes’. They pay their money,take a bike,then wobble around gawping at parliament oblivious to what’s around them
roaduser66:
Except cyclists undertaking isn’t what’s hurting the riders. Usually they’re hit from behind or the HGV overtakes then cuts in. Left hook. HGV drivers playing with phones have killed more people than cyclists have in ANY circumstances so any sensible policy would tackle the danger at source. HGV drivers.
Which suggests to me,having seen it with my own eyes,a bunch of lying zb’s.Who are deliberately going out to put themselves in danger.With the intention of wrecking the lives of the innocent drivers who are unlucky enough to meet a cyclist who thinks that undertaking through a junction is ok.
How are cyclists such a retarded bunch?? Roaduser posted the statistics and yet cyclists still get to close to an HGV. If u posted jimmy savilles statistics u would put an ocean between u and him.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Most of these lorries would be banned from the Low Emissions Zone anyway,
I don’t know what fairy story book your getting your info from, but even under the proposed ULEZ most trucks built in the last couple of years will conform- the limit is Euro 5 we have had Euro 6 in for a few years now.
if you going to continue to ignore the discussion and just spout rhetoric at least try to be somewhat accurate please
tomo3607:
i dont see cyclists paying £575 over five years to keep riding the push bikes
It’s not an issue of of payment.It’s more a case of the inevitable result of an unlicenced,couldn’t care less,ignorant,road user group who think that undertaking vehicles through junctions isn’t a problem.
Carryfast:
tomo3607:
i dont see cyclists paying £575 over five years to keep riding the push bikesIt’s not an issue of of payment.It’s more a case of the inevitable result of an unlicenced,couldn’t care less,ignorant,road user group who think that undertaking vehicles through junctions isn’t a problem.
And red lights, zebra crossings, riding on pavements
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
bubsy06:
How are cyclists such a retarded bunch?? Roaduser posted the statistics and yet cyclists still get to close to an HGV. If u posted jimmy savilles statistics u would put an ocean between u and him.Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
because in roadusers world there is no concept of personal responsibility, the blame must lay with another,
You and me driving down the motorway in a snow storm would get the orange flashing advisory speed limit of 50 mph, not wanting to die we would slow down even though legally we could still drive at 70 mph- why because its a bloody good idea not to put ourselves at risk, Roaduser on the other hand is offended because a haulier put a sign on the back of his truck advising that going up the inside when they are turning left could be a bad idea for a cyclist. not sure why he is offended, I still don’t understand that one
that to me shows the difference between the two standpoints.
Carryfast:
tomo3607:
i dont see cyclists paying £575 over five years to keep riding the push bikesIt’s not an issue of of payment.It’s more a case of the inevitable result of an unlicenced,couldn’t care less,ignorant,road user group who think that undertaking vehicles through junctions isn’t a problem.
Was just reiterating the point that some if not most of ushave to pay for our own training where as they just pay for there bikes and thats it of they go
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
roaduser66:
Of course not. It would be hugely expensive to administer and police and wouldn’t do much good for anyone. It’s a pointless and stupid suggestion, you think the police have time to check bicycle registrations? Why are you waffling on about bike licences when the story’s about killer trucks? Can you find any evidence, from anywhere, that registering a bike stops HGV drivers from hitting it? It’s a bloody stupid idea.Most victims are women, most of the women are middle aged. These aren’t BMX bandits or lycra warriors, they’re professional women who may be rather more timid than their male colleagues. Ying Tao and Moira Gemmell, for instance. Characterising middle aged women as suicidal lycra racers is just silly.
Your problem is youre so prejudiced its blinding you from whats right infront of you
roaduser66:
I think you are confusing “annoying” with “lethal”. Not one of those behaviours has been cited as the cause of a fatality, so you are desperately scrabbling around to heap blame on cyclists with duff information. Those cyclists are annoying, I get it. They are not lethal. Big difference. We can make the roads safer or we can tackle annoying cyclists. Up to you.
How do we make the roads safer when you think that undertaking vehicles through junctions isn’t a lethal killer of cyclists.In addition to obviously defying the Highway Code in that regard.
When will cars buses other cyclists get banned■■?
cycling-intelligence.com/fatal- … in-london/
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I think we all know it is all about votes.
Rikki-UK:
Roaduser on the other hand is offended because a haulier put a sign on the back of his truck advising that going up the inside when they are turning left could be a bad idea for a cyclist. not sure why he is offended, I still don’t understand that onethat to me shows the difference between the two standpoints.
+1
If it looks and quacks like a militant reclaim the streets agenda duck there has to be a point where the industry realises it’s a duck and reacts accordingly.IE there’s no reasoning with these people it’s time to start thinking about turning down London work in the hope that it will concentrate minds at TFL.Although like the GLA personally I’d prefer to see TFL shut down as being unfit for purpose anyway.Then return the situation to the position as it stood pre GLC in the form of LCC and the outer boroughs returned to their relevant counties. 