wildfire:
I know what you mean micky done to many fatal accidents I my time on recovery, so I know exactly how the system works, to many people seem to have a bee in their bonnet thinking there is some alterative agenda on arresting someone at the scene of a fatal 
The issue has nothing to do with the fact that involvement in a fatal collision might result in arrest etc on âsuspicionâ of having caused it.Itâs actually all about what happens after that point and the unbiased nature and objectivety or not of,and the motivation behind,the resulting investigations concerning as to how the collision took place then the question as to wether the driver in question is cleared of blame at that point.Or the type and nature/severity of any possible charges which follow assuming that the driver is charged,where that collision and fatatlity involves a so called âvulnerableâ road user like a cyclist.In which case it seems obvious that the âvulnerabilityâ issue is being allowed to take precedence in the decision making process concerning all those factors for politically driven reasons rather than blame just being apportioned on a totally unbiased basis without any regard whatsoever to that vulnerability issue.
In addition to which is the dangerous and unsustainable idea of mixing cycle traffic with motor traffic in ever increasing amounts on the road when whatâs needed is a policy of the opposite in getting cyclists off the road space and onto the pavement space instead.Assuming that truck drivers donât want to support that and prefer the status quo then they can just keep acting like turkeys voting for christmas instead.In which case expect to see an ever increasing rate of flattened cyclists and jailed truck drivers. 
Slackbladder:
Carryfast you are like a broken record. You blather on about some imaginary cyclist agenda despite no proof, thatâs because there is none. I was thinking of staying on this forum until one of two things happen. You admit that a trucker might, just might, have been at fault in some small way in the killing of a cyclist, or the hole in my arse heals up.
Get it into your head, nobody is going to force cyclists to ride on the pavement. The police in certain areas, Cambridge I believe, have been charging cyclists for doing it recently, at 5am! If thatâs the cycling lobby at work then there is something drastically wrong. I cannot believe people come on here spewing out the same guff and expecting things to change. If you want something done, get in touch with people that can do something. The rha or fta etc, they must be lining the politicians pockets given the amount of cash they want to spend on roads and the motor industry.
This is actually âsupposedâ to be a forum âforâ drivers in which case where better to put those ideas to those like the RHA,FTA and the transport unions and the law makers who âshouldâ be doing something in that regard instead of just allowing the situation of flattened cyclists and convicted scapegoat drivers to continue.However the idea that the cycling lobby are actively trying to solve the issues is total bs bearing in mind the documented examples of cyclists preferring to use the roads even in those cases where pavement space has been given over to seperate cyclists from motor traffic in dangerous situations.
Mmm not even close there, oh well onward & upward. But by your own admission youâre not a driver anymore, not driven trucks this century, but an ex driver. They arenât convicted scapegoat drivers until its been proved in a court of law that they were to blame. Why is that so hard to understand? You kill someone, itâs found to be your fault, you get convicted. Itâs not your fault and youâre let go. Good grief that happens in all walks of life, they donât get picked on because theyâre truckers.
If you think the trucking lobby take any notice of what goes on in these forums then you really are deluded.
Slackbladder:
you really are deluded.
Is he still rattling on about scapegoat drivers?
You can just imaging that one canât you. â â â â 1. Letâs make drivers a scapegoat chaps. â â â â 2. Brilliant idea sir!.. why though⌠what will that achieve?
Sounds like it could have been written by: General Melchett himself.
You are right, he is delusional and if you think youâll ever reach through with an ounce of common sense, forget it. Iâve tried reasoning with this type before. Heâs right because he knows he right and nothing else in the world makes any sense at all to him⌠itâs all just a cunning plan against truckers.
Slackbladder:
Mmm not even close there, oh well onward & upward. But by your own admission youâre not a driver anymore, not driven trucks this century, but an ex driver. They arenât convicted scapegoat drivers until its been proved in a court of law that they were to blame. Why is that so hard to understand? You kill someone, itâs found to be your fault, you get convicted. Itâs not your fault and youâre let go. Good grief that happens in all walks of life, they donât get picked on because theyâre truckers.
If you think the trucking lobby take any notice of what goes on in these forums then you really are deluded.
The argument is actually all about what constitutes âblameâ as opposed to innocence and itâs obvious that the level and type of proof only needs to reflect what the accepted standards of what makes a driver to blame happen to be at the time.As weâve seen thereâs plenty of idiots who think that a cyclist applying double standards,in the case of undertaking a truck with very little clearance is ok,while itâs not ok if that driver then uses the same amount of clearance when re passing the cyclist.Then to add insult to injury itâs also considered as ok in that case for cyclists to ignore road markings and signs directing them off the road for their own safety at that point anyway.
As for whoâs deluded itâs not me whoâs going to end up being nicked for flattening a cyclist with a truck in such situations.If truck drivers are really deluded enough to support that situation then thatâs their problem not mine.
Boomerang Dave:
Slackbladder:
you really are deluded.
Is he still rattling on about scapegoat drivers?
You can just imaging that one canât you. â â â â 1. Letâs make drivers a scapegoat chaps. â â â â 2. Brilliant idea sir!.. why though⌠what will that achieve?
Sounds like it could have been written by: General Melchett himself.
You are right, he is delusional and if you think youâll ever reach through with an ounce of common sense, forget it. Iâve tried reasoning with this type before. Heâs right because he knows he right and nothing else in the world makes any sense at all to him⌠itâs all just a cunning plan against truckers.
Not exactly.More like a bunch of idiot cyclist supporting tossers,coming onto a truck drivers forum,saying how good it is for the situation in which drivers are held to blame,for the suicidal actions of cyclists,to continue.Because cyclists are âvulnerable road usersâ .While blocking anyone who dares to disagree.
Carryfast why is it you result to personal attacks when people donât agree with you
An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said the cyclist died at the scene and officers are appealing for witnesses.
Why, sounds like they got their man, the motorist. If theyâve arrested him they must have evidence, why the need for witnesses.
mickyblue:
Carryfast why is it you result to personal attacks when people donât agree with you
Strictly only on a if the cap fits wear it basis.Unlike usually all the times Iâve got the same treatment from those like you in which case I donât give a zb anyway. 
Terry T:
An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said the cyclist died at the scene and officers are appealing for witnesses.
Why, sounds like they got their man, the motorist. If theyâve arrested him they must have evidence, why the need for witnesses.
Hoepefully the jury wonât be made up of those with your views in that case.Itâs âsupposedâ to be a case of innocent until âprovedâ guilty.Although thatâs obviously too much for the cyclist supporting lobby to understand.
Carryfast:
Terry T:
An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said the cyclist died at the scene and officers are appealing for witnesses.
Why, sounds like they got their man, the motorist. If theyâve arrested him they must have evidence, why the need for witnesses.
Hoepefully the jury wonât be made up of those with your views in that case.Itâs âsupposedâ to be a case of innocent until âprovedâ guilty.Although thatâs obviously too much for the cyclist supporting lobby to understand.
Steady on fella, was being sarcastic. The auto arrest of motorists in these cases is wrong in my opinion and causes many faultless drivers unnecessary stress at an already stressful time.
Some are guilty obviously but at least get some idea of guilt before arresting someone.
Terry T:
Carryfast:
Terry T:
An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said the cyclist died at the scene and officers are appealing for witnesses.
Why, sounds like they got their man, the motorist. If theyâve arrested him they must have evidence, why the need for witnesses.
Hoepefully the jury wonât be made up of those with your views in that case.Itâs âsupposedâ to be a case of innocent until âprovedâ guilty.Although thatâs obviously too much for the cyclist supporting lobby to understand.
Steady on fella, was being sarcastic. The auto arrest of motorists in these cases is wrong in my opinion and causes many faultless drivers unnecessary stress at an already stressful time.
Some are guilty obviously but at least get some idea of guilt before arresting someone.
It should really be a case of âhelping police with their enquiriesâ at that stage.But that wouldnât fit the agenda of the raving cyclist lobby and their cronies in government which is all about retribution based on their âvulnerabilityâ regardless of whoâs actually really to blame for the collision in question.In most cases those collisions being the result of the basic incompatibility between motor traffic and large scale cycle use of the road space when those cyclists should be seperated by turning over pavement space to them.But of course they donât want that.
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast why is it you result to personal attacks when people donât agree with you
Strictly only on a if the cap fits wear it basis.Unlike usually all the times Iâve got the same treatment from those like you in which case I donât give a zb anyway.
Check my posts with you Mr â â â â , no personal attacks from me. Tell you what though, I blame Thatcher
Carryfast:
Slackbladder:
Mmm not even close there, oh well onward & upward. But by your own admission youâre not a driver anymore, not driven trucks this century, but an ex driver. They arenât convicted scapegoat drivers until its been proved in a court of law that they were to blame. Why is that so hard to understand? You kill someone, itâs found to be your fault, you get convicted. Itâs not your fault and youâre let go. Good grief that happens in all walks of life, they donât get picked on because theyâre truckers.
If you think the trucking lobby take any notice of what goes on in these forums then you really are deluded.
The argument is actually all about what constitutes âblameâ as opposed to innocence and itâs obvious that the level and type of proof only needs to reflect what the accepted standards of what makes a driver to blame happen to be at the time.As weâve seen thereâs plenty of idiots who think that a cyclist applying double standards,in the case of undertaking a truck with very little clearance is ok,while itâs not ok if that driver then uses the same amount of clearance when re passing the cyclist.Then to add insult to injury itâs also considered as ok in that case for cyclists to ignore road markings and signs directing them off the road for their own safety at that point anyway.
As for whoâs deluded itâs not me whoâs going to end up being nicked for flattening a cyclist with a truck in such situations.If truck drivers are really deluded enough to support that situation then thatâs their problem not mine.
unfortunately we are classed in the eyes of the law as professional drivers, we have to have eyes in our arses, we have to anticipate the cyclists every move.
I go in and out of London (Wimbledon) most weeks, if you want a challenge try driving around there at rush hour. you just got to hold back at junctions when having to wait for the lights to change constantly watch your nearside mirror, just to see the idiot try and get up past you to stop right below your door in the blind spot. I try and stay right against the kerb but that donât stop them trying.
No disrespect to other drivers but some do leave themselves open to problems by their attitude to cyclists, now I DONâT cycle, but they are going to be there sharing the roads with us, its a fact of life and its is only going to get worse as the number of vehicles increases and as more people find it difficult or nearly impossible to afford insurance and will turn to cycling.
unfortunately they can get on a bike with no training and away they go, most have no concept of blind spots on trucks they donât even know the highway code, perhaps there should be a test!!! will it ever happen I donât think so. I donât know if the cycling proficiency test still exists? (did it when I was at school many moons ago), I personally think they should have third party insurance
Of course it wonât be you convicted of flattening a cyclist while driving a truck carryfast, as I said earlier you donât drive anymore and havenât held an entitlement for some time. Hereâs a thought, why donât you let the people onsite decide what to do with the driver? Thatâs their job after all.
Nobody said it would be easy driving trucks, we are called professional because we get paid for it and are supposed to achieve a higher skill level. Iâve never driven around London since 1980 and I wouldnât want to, but, you get cyclists all over the place and yes, some of them are their own worst enemy, but we should still try our best to avoid them. It shouldnât be that hard.
They still do the cycling proficiency in schools, my granddaughter did it a couple of weeks ago. You will find that there are plenty cyclists have insurance, that doesnât stop you getting hit though.
Slackbladder:
Of course it wonât be you convicted of flattening a cyclist while driving a truck carryfast, as I said earlier you donât drive anymore and havenât held an entitlement for some time. Hereâs a thought, why donât you let the people onsite decide what to do with the driver? Thatâs their job after all.
Nobody said it would be easy driving trucks, we are called professional because we get paid for it and are supposed to achieve a higher skill level. Iâve never driven around London since 1980 and I wouldnât want to, but, you get cyclists all over the place and yes, some of them are their own worst enemy, but we should still try our best to avoid them. It shouldnât be that hard.
They still do the cycling proficiency in schools, my granddaughter did it a couple of weeks ago. You will find that there are plenty cyclists have insurance, that doesnât stop you getting hit though.
With that entitlement remains the same professional outlook which I held then.Professionalism to me meant/means recognising an untenable safety issue on the roads when I saw/see one.The idea that any driver can compensate for that safety situation ( by trying to ) make allowances for the stupidity of cyclists and the basic incompatibility of having cyclists mixed with road traffic is just dangerous delusion and complacency.Which will inevitably lead to ever more casualties amongst cyclists together with their calls for ever more draconian penalties against drivers in a vain attempt to stop that situation.
As for wanting children to follow cycle profiency instruction as I remember it that was and still is just yet more of the idea of putting cyclists in harms way on the roads rather than putting them on the pavements where they are safer and where they belong.
Therin lies a problem, its been so long since you drove a truck you admit you cannot see how you could avoid hitting a cyclist, just as well you arent allowed on the road in a one. I, and many others appear to be able to co exist with all other road users. Given that some of your precious truckers donât seem to be able to read bridge heights, manage load restraints or have much idea about the basics of tacho hours & the WTD, maybe you should concentrate on getting them up to scratch before bothering with cyclists. Your other problem is that you think all cyclists are lunatics & all truckers are angels, you are so wrong on both. The fact you donât think cycling proficiency is worth it speaks volumes.
Slackbladder:
Therin lies a problem, its been so long since you drove a truck you admit you cannot see how you could avoid hitting a cyclist, just as well you arent allowed on the road in a one. I, and many others appear to be able to co exist with all other road users. Given that some of your precious truckers donât seem to be able to read bridge heights, manage load restraints or have much idea about the basics of tacho hours & the WTD, maybe you should concentrate on getting them up to scratch before bothering with cyclists. Your other problem is that you think all cyclists are lunatics & all truckers are angels, you are so wrong on both. The fact you donât think cycling proficiency is worth it speaks volumes.
So what youâre saying is that cyclists should just carry on doing as they are doing now.While government policy increases their numbers in ever greater amounts and continues with itâs policy of putting those cyclists in harms way on the roads supported by the cycling lobby who prefer to continue that situation rather than get off the roads.All based on the bs complacent assumption that truck drivers are supposed to make allowances for that ridiculous situation because some of them would like to think they can and will always see and avoid the cyclist,or never meet a cyclist who takes offence at being overtaken with the same clearance that theyâd been happy enough with when they undertook moments before having chosen to ignore a posted cycleway instruction and then carries out a similar stunt to that contained in the video posted recently elsewhere,and who wish to impose that view on others.Until that fateful day when they find out that they were wrong.Unfortunately in many cases itâs often another one of those other unfortunate drivers who end up at the wrong end of that bs when their luck inevitably runs out and they meet the wrong cyclist,in the wrong place,at the wrong time.
While I donât think that thereâs any connection,between my disagreement with your bs ideas,concerning the cyclist menace,and bad drivers hitting bridges,or not securing loads,etc etc who Iâm not defending as part of this particular issue whatsoever.Nor do I think that thereâs any inconsistency between knowing how to drive a truck safely while at the same time also pointing out the ever increasing untenable nature of the ever increasing numbers of cyclists sharing the roads with motor traffic like trucks and buses.As Iâve said I think my case shows a lot more knowledge and professionalism in that regard than yours.