roaduser66:
danthetrucker:
I am a cyclist. Been cycling on the road since I was 5. I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists accordingly and say the below as a cyclist and not as a driver.
That said, and even before I became a driver, I have always said that the quickest and cheapest way to cut lorry related cyclist deaths is to teach cyclists under no circumstances whatsoever do you go anywhere near the nearside of a lorry. Ever, full stop.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this myth, it is simply not true. Undertaking is not what’s killing cyclists. Lack of lights is not what’s killing cyclists. Illegal or risky cycling is the causal factor in less than 6% of KSI RTCs. Usually it’s the driver’s fault.
More lives would be saved if lorry drivers stopped playing with mobile phones than if cyclists stopped filtering injudiciously.
This offensive rubbish about cyclists being the agents of their own death has to stop, you should know it is untrue or at least check before coming out with nasty stuff like that.
Sounds like you have stood watching them like I have.
It’s unbelievable how some use little or no observation while sitting at a junction and before moving off.
I know the cyclists are not blameless but if more drivers did what they should do many accidents would be avoided.
Any driver that does not think this is true needs to stand at a busy junior and watch.
I guarantee 5 out of 10 will not be doing what they should be.
To the very sad incident of the young woman who lost her life under the wheels of the tipper. I do a fair bit of cycling myself, and tippers do scare me in the way they are driven, (tippers and logging trucks) for me it is all down to the pay structure. Most lorries are fine, no problems, usually the bigger the better, would far rather have an artic passing than a ridgid, and ridgids are more considerate than puddle jumpers, and even puddle jumpers are better than the big white vans (sprinters). But tippers and Loggers seem to be a law to themselves, I have got to the stage now that if I see one coming behind I sometimes get off the road, and if I see two coming I definitely get off the road, the first one will give a few feet and his idiotic tailgating mate won’t have time to react and will come within a few inches.
I always thought the law was clear about not structuring pay that would encourage higher speeds or faster driving, so how come load bonus etc are so rife in certain sectors how do they justify it?
Bluey Circles:
I always thought the law was clear about not structuring pay that would encourage higher speeds or faster driving, so how come load bonus etc are so rife in certain sectors how do they justify it?
I can tell you how two tipper firms I worked for get away with paying it;
Firm 1 take any bonuses back from you if you are caught speeding, running red lights etc. Note the key word is CAUGHT.
Firm 2 don’t actually tell you how the system is worked, you get some random bonus amount on your wage slip. An example of how unfair this method is is that me and a mate did the same number of loads to the same jobs every day all week. I earned £15 he earned £10.
Total fiddle, any wonder they’re known as “The Red Arrows”…
Firm I work for now pay hourly and that is it, no bonus so no rush. We have none of this cycle safety stuff on the trucks, and according to my boss he’s had no complaints from the public or customers about my driving.
If you read my posts correctly when I say watch them into your mirrors etc,I mean that you are approaching them,then once you are passed it depends on the flow of traffic will depend on how much attention you need to pay once you have safely negotiated the hazard.
If you stop or are turning further up the road then you start again knowing that their might be a pedal cycle around.
Again no need to concentrate on one area but you have to prioritise the hazard information that you have gained from the previous stretch of road,so,it is equally as important for all other road users to take note f what you are doing by giving them sufficient information back via what ever means available to you.
This is why it is important that we all re educate ourselves in the way we drive not just LGVs or Buses.
The majority of REPORTED incidents seem to occur on areas with cycle lanes .
If there us a cycle lane then it is a space allocated on road exclusively for cyclists use .
If you are turning , check yr mirrors and procede with caution .
If you accidently hit a cyclist at walking pace they are unlikely to die .
Once turned and road is clear put your foot down !
In the case above it appears the vehicle involved was a rigid tipper !! How he could ever claim to be unsighted ( like an artic would be ) is a mystery .
Unless he is a plonker who sets his mirrors up so he can see loading shovel driver waving at him .!!
Also i would be interested to know if vehicle was wearing side guards ■■ Seems no reason for tippers , landfill vehicles and container trailers to be exempt …
But it stands to reason on some occasions will stop cyclists going under wheels
I will be interested when trial starts 2 c if he enters a defence or pleads not guilty
I cannot imagine what that defence might be
Hope he likes porridge
Stefluc:
If you read my posts correctly when I say watch them into your mirrors etc,I mean that you are approaching them,then once you are passed it depends on the flow of traffic will depend on how much attention you need to pay once you have safely negotiated the hazard.
If you stop or are turning further up the road then you start again knowing that their might be a pedal cycle around.
Again no need to concentrate on one area but you have to prioritise the hazard information that you have gained from the previous stretch of road,so,it is equally as important for all other road users to take note f what you are doing by giving them sufficient information back via what ever means available to you.
This is why it is important that we all re educate ourselves in the way we drive not just LGVs or Buses.
That is total bollox.If you mean overtaking a cyclist a long way and well before any turn using the mirrors correctly and have then cleared the cyclist by a country mile.Anything after that point can only mean a situation of watching for the cyclist then making an undertaking move later.Which is the problem.In which case you need to re educate the cyclists not the drivers because trust me if you really think that mirror checks are the answer to ‘that’ problem you are as deluded as the cyclists.Especially when you’re also adding to that with the idea that such mirror checks won’t need to compromise on all round observation in order to maximise attention given to the nearside. 
boredwivdrivin:
The majority of REPORTED incidents seem to occur on areas with cycle lanes .
If there us a cycle lane then it is a space allocated on road exclusively for cyclists use .
If you are turning , check yr mirrors and procede with caution .
If you accidently hit a cyclist at walking pace they are unlikely to die .
Once turned and road is clear put your foot down !
In the case above it appears the vehicle involved was a rigid tipper !! How he could ever claim to be unsighted ( like an artic would be ) is a mystery .
Unless he is a plonker who sets his mirrors up so he can see loading shovel driver waving at him .!!
Also i would be interested to know if vehicle was wearing side guards ■■ Seems no reason for tippers , landfill vehicles and container trailers to be exempt …
But it stands to reason on some occasions will stop cyclists going under wheels
I will be interested when trial starts 2 c if he enters a defence or pleads not guilty
I cannot imagine what that defence might be
Hope he likes porridge
Feel free to point out any place where cycle lanes go across junctions bearing in mind that the collisions in question usually involve left turning trucks at junctions.As for your final points pre trial if we had a decent union mindset amongst drivers your bs comments would now be facing a national truck drivers’ strike.On the basis that his ( justified ) ‘defence’ might well be having been undertaken through a junction while making a left turn.
roaduser66:
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this myth, it is simply not true. Undertaking is not what’s killing cyclists. Lack of lights is not what’s killing cyclists. Illegal or risky cycling is the causal factor in less than 6% of KSI RTCs. Usually it’s the driver’s fault.
More lives would be saved if lorry drivers stopped playing with mobile phones than if cyclists stopped filtering injudiciously.
This offensive rubbish about cyclists being the agents of their own death has to stop, you should know it is untrue or at least check before coming out with nasty stuff like that.
Well the majority of cycle deaths will probably be driver fault I grant you. But how many downright dangerous cycling manouvres result in no death or injury because the driver HAS been vigilant? Thousands. You cant take the incidents of a driver who wasnt paying attention and decide that cyclists are all innocent and all drivers are dangerous.
I personally have supplied you and the boring one with countless videos all showing reckless and dangerous cycling manouvres and neither one of you has properly aknowledged that there are idiotic cyclists with no regard for the law, the highway code or even their own safety. Both of you skirt round the direct questions I always ask (you with a barrage of statistics and the boring one with a whole load of insults) but you always will always ignore it and instead use the deaths as the reason for more regulations and rules for drivers and ignore the fact there are lots of cyclists out there who have no regard whatsoever for other road users or the law.
Ive asked BOTH of you countless times if you think there should be a test and licensing to be allowed to cycle on the roads yet you both ignore it and as per usual skirt round it and never actually answer it or supply your reasons as to why not
Carryfast in particular has brought up many MANY times about stationary vehicles at lights and questioning why a cyclist would move into their nearside. Yet every time instead of saying “well yes, thats dangerous and they shouldnt do it and should wait behind the vehicle” you come back with the the old “they should be checking their mirrors” chestnut.
Every death is tragic and if it is driver error or recklessness then they deserve everything that is coming to them. But to say that it is only drivers who are reckless and dangerous when in fact thousands of drivers save lives and avoid injuries by anticipating cyclist manouvres which are dangerous is wrong.
Most drivers will say there is faults on both sides but most cyclists always blame “dangerous” driving. Yes you are the most vulnerable mode of transport but using it means you need to aknowledge the responsibility for your own safety.
Based on past experience, Im going to assume you will ignore the reasonable parts of this post and come back with a whole load of facts and figures which conveniently ignore most of the real world incidents and bring up YOUR offensive myths about drivers viewing ■■■■ on laptops etc and the boring one will more than likely supply a whole load of insults. (You might prove me wrong by at least admitting dangerous cycling since even though I might disagree with you on it all you come across as being pretty intelligent. Boringone I doubt will supply anything that isnt name calling)
Your missing the point and not reading what I say fully the education is for everyone not just drivers.
It would appear that you do not know anything about good driving practises as if you did you would understand exactly what I was saying,everyone has a duty of care to each other on the road irrespective to who gas right of way.
The mirror checks are what will keep you out of the brown stuff,check your mirrors and see but still contact then Why? Don’t check them properly and make contact then Why? You as a driver have to justify any contact the same way as others involved.
I’ve said all that I can on the subject of good driving the phrase of learn by experience springs to mind and a lot of drivers have got years of experience but nothing else.
Stefluc:
Your missing the point and not reading what I say fully the education is for everyone not just drivers.
It would appear that you do not know anything about good driving practises as if you did you would understand exactly what I was saying,everyone has a duty of care to each other on the road irrespective to who gas right of way.
The mirror checks are what will keep you out of the brown stuff,check your mirrors and see but still contact then Why? Don’t check them properly and make contact then Why? You as a driver have to justify any contact the same way as others involved.
I’ve said all that I can on the subject of good driving the phrase of learn by experience springs to mind and a lot of drivers have got years of experience but nothing else.
Your ideas are obviously based on the catastrophically deluded idea that the mirrors are the answer to the undertaking cyclist v left turning truck problem.On that note it is obvious that unless we’re dealing with criminally dangerous driving,it is actually a case of check your nearside mirrors,to the point of compromising all round observation,but even that still isn’t guaranteed to work because mirrors don’t provide 100% nearside coverage and compromising all round observation isn’t the same thing as totally removing it.
As for your ideas they are obviously just more of the same old driver guilty unless proven innocent.With the combination of undertaking cyclists and nearside mirror coverage flaws not being considered as a case of proving innocence.
On that note,as I said,if we had a decent union mindset among drivers and unions which weren’t crippled by the same bs biased pro cycling political agenda of their Labour Party masters.You would now be facing a national truck drivers’ strike until the issue of potentially innocent drivers facing wrongful conviction regards cyclist casualties is sorted out.
Meanwhile just go on telling cyclists that it’s the driver’s responsibility to see them when undertaking potentially turning trucks through junctions.That’ll work.
Carryfast , im sure you have noticed the large box in the front of traffic at most junctions with cycle lanes .
It has a symbol of a bicycle in it and is deemed a safe refuge for cyclists from traffic
To get to these boxes you must cycle down n/s of traffic , hopefully on a cycle path .
I know you know this , you are just being obtuse in support of your defence that cyclists are always at fault and truckers are sainted professionals who do no wrong
boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast , im sure you have noticed the large box in the front of traffic at most junctions with cycle lanes .
It has a symbol of a bicycle in it and is deemed a safe refuge for cyclists from traffic
To get to these boxes you must cycle down n/s of traffic , hopefully on a cycle path .
I know you know this , you are just being obtuse in support of your defence that cyclists are always at fault and truckers are sainted professionals who do no wrong
why do you want to go in front of a lorry on a little bicycle ?
when cycling I’m always glad when they are safely past me, and I would have no wish to then get past them so we could repeat the experience of been overtaken again
boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast , im sure you have noticed the large box in the front of traffic at most junctions with cycle lanes .
It has a symbol of a bicycle in it and is deemed a safe refuge for cyclists from traffic
To get to these boxes you must cycle down n/s of traffic , hopefully on a cycle path .
I know you know this , you are just being obtuse in support of your defence that cyclists are always at fault and truckers are sainted professionals who do no wrong
As I said,other than criminally dangerous driving,generally in the case of the left turning truck scenario it’s actually a case of the cyclist and the vehicle being at the ‘turning point’ ‘within the junction’ not ‘on the approach to it’,at the same time because the cyclist has tried to undertake and outrun the truck across the junction.The cycle lane and box idea itself being a flawed appeasement of that suicidal idea.If there are any trucks around a cyclist on the approach to a junction or a roundabout they need to stay back without entering the junction and let the truck/s go first and don’t try to outrun it/them.The fact is,with the exception of the entry to roundabouts,trucks or in fact any vehicles,can’t/don’t start turning from the straight ahead position until they are well within the junction not on the approach to it.
Bluey Circles:
boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast , im sure you have noticed the large box in the front of traffic at most junctions with cycle lanes .
It has a symbol of a bicycle in it and is deemed a safe refuge for cyclists from traffic
To get to these boxes you must cycle down n/s of traffic , hopefully on a cycle path .
I know you know this , you are just being obtuse in support of your defence that cyclists are always at fault and truckers are sainted professionals who do no wrong
why do you want to go in front of a lorry on a little bicycle ?
when cycling I’m always glad when they are safely past me, and I would have no wish to then get past them so we could repeat the experience of been overtaken again
It’s worse than that because it actually creates the potential for a cyclist to go along the nearside while the driver is looking elsewhere and then get into a blind spot ahead or at the nearside together with the situation of being at the side of the truck if/when it turns in the junction without the driver knowing.
The only way that this issue can be sorted is by removing or at least minimising the potential for cyclists to be occupying the same piece of road at the same time that trucks are using to turn in.Just as elf and safety wouldn’t allow transport yards to be used as cycling areas.That will take a change in the mindset of cyclists not more use of the nearside mirrors. 
I’ll repost this picture as the position of my mirrors cause so much offence to Boredwivdrivin.
I think some drivers need to pay more attention ,
Particularly to marked cycle lanes and priority boxes
Some interesting comments.
What does worry me to a certain degree is how the authorities seem hell bent on always blaming the driver, yes we should always check our mirrors before we turn, but cyclists MUST stop comming up the inside.
Someone mentioned buses;
I’m a bus driver, and when you think how many buses there are on the roads in london, it’s very rare for a cyclist to be killed by a bus, why?
Because, as a bus driver i’ve got a camera on me whilst i’m driving, and the outside of the bus has cameras, and any incident/crash will result in the cctv being viewed by my manager, and it changes the way you drive.
Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a bus driver on the phone whilst driving?-very very rarely, because if we are caught on the phone=instant dismissal.
When was the last time you saw a lorry driver on the phone? I see it everyday.
boredwivdrivin:
I think some drivers need to pay more attention ,
Particularly to marked cycle lanes and priority boxes
How do marked cycle lanes and boxes have any connection with cyclists colliding with the side of turning trucks in the middle of junctions.While ironically in most cases cycle lanes have no relationship to the amount of seperation actually required.While cyclists conveniently seem to be happy enough to reduce that clearance by riding outside of them anyway.
rambo19:
Some interesting comments.
What does worry me to a certain degree is how the authorities seem hell bent on always blaming the driver, yes we should always check our mirrors before we turn, but cyclists MUST stop comming up the inside.
Someone mentioned buses;
I’m a bus driver, and when you think how many buses there are on the roads in london, it’s very rare for a cyclist to be killed by a bus, why?
Meanwhile back in the real world.
standard.co.uk/news/transpor … 56452.html
As for why don’t they run over cyclists etc as often as trucks.Maybe because trucks don’t have bodywork that extends to ground level the full length of the vehicle including well ahead of the front axle.
