albion1971:
Missed your point? Train was not really a good example.If a cyclist is cycling along the side of a road who is the one to decide whether he or she is left a safe distance?
Not much the cyclist can do apart from not be there but he or she is quite entitled to be there.
Both parties can be at fault but some of the views on here make out it is all the cyclists fault for just being there.
You say you are unbiased.I would have to disagree.
I am completely unbiased, I’ve never been knocked off by a car neither have I ever been killed by a lorry…,. Why? Because I don’t put myself in stupid negligent situations.
I don’t think anyone on here is saying its the cyclists fault, it’s just that they don’t help themselves in the first place.
I got the right to swim the channel, I am entitled to be there, but I don’t incase a get run over by a boat.
Dear FarnboroughBoy, why are you wasting your time arguing with this tool? You have been here long enough to know that albion1971 only has one outlook on life and that is that truck drivers are responsible for all the world’s problems and deaths.
albion1971:
Missed your point? Train was not really a good example.If a cyclist is cycling along the side of a road who is the one to decide whether he or she is left a safe distance?
Not much the cyclist can do apart from not be there but he or she is quite entitled to be there.
Both parties can be at fault but some of the views on here make out it is all the cyclists fault for just being there.
You say you are unbiased.I would have to disagree.
I am completely unbiased, I’ve never been knocked off by a car neither have I ever been killed by a lorry…,. Why? Because I don’t put myself in stupid negligent situations.
I don’t think anyone on here is saying its the cyclists fault, it’s just that they don’t help themselves in the first place.
I got the right to swim the channel, I am entitled to be there, but I don’t incase a get run over by a boat.
So according to you nobody is saying it is the cyclists fault but they are stupid and negligent for being there?
How does that add up?
Maybe if the stupid negligent drivers stayed off the roads instead of the cyclists things might improve.
albion1971:
rob k the man who cannot give a proper opinion and just ignores questions probably because he does not have a proper answer.
I ignore you because you are a tool and are incapable of a reasoned debate due your blinkered view that truckers are to blame for everything. You have proved this time and time again and the rest of the membership are quickly realising this as well.
albion1971:
Missed your point? Train was not really a good example.If a cyclist is cycling along the side of a road who is the one to decide whether he or she is left a safe distance?
Not much the cyclist can do apart from not be there but he or she is quite entitled to be there.
Both parties can be at fault but some of the views on here make out it is all the cyclists fault for just being there.
You say you are unbiased.I would have to disagree.
I am completely unbiased, I’ve never been knocked off by a car neither have I ever been killed by a lorry…,. Why? Because I don’t put myself in stupid negligent situations.
I don’t think anyone on here is saying its the cyclists fault, it’s just that they don’t help themselves in the first place.
I got the right to swim the channel, I am entitled to be there, but I don’t incase a get run over by a boat.
So according to you nobody is saying it is the cyclists fault but they are stupid and negligent for being there?
How does that add up?
Maybe if the stupid negligent drivers stayed off the roads instead of the cyclists things might improve.
Look I’ve made a voice recording of one of your posts
So are you saying that if i stay in a cycle lane, on a single track road with a max speed of 30mph i would be safe? Some local authorities do indeed ban cycles from areas of dangerous dual carriageways. As said before the route they were on is part of the recognised route, it’s used for about 10 mins and off again.
albion1971:
rob k the man who cannot give a proper opinion and just ignores questions probably because he does not have a proper answer.
I ignore you because you are a tool and are incapable of a reasoned debate due your blinkered view that truckers are to blame for everything. You have proved this time and time again and the rest of the membership are quickly realising this as well.
I do not have a blinkered view at all but there are certainly some on here that do.Some just refuse to believe that a truck driver can be at fault and blame everything else but.
Take carryfast who changes the subject and tries to blame the authorities.The authorities were not riding the bike or driving the truck.
Yes it probably would be a good idea to stop cyclists going on dual carriageways but at the moment they are allowed on and in my view(which may be right or wrong) a lot of drivers do not proper care when passing cyclists.Being a cyclist and a motorcyclist I have lost count of the number of times I have been deliberately passed ridiculously close by trucks and also cut in on.Granted some give plenty of room but some do not.Some cyclists are a danger as well but some attitudes on here regarding them are disgusting.That is why I respond and not because I think truck drivers are always to blame as you seem to dumbly think.
Regarding what you say about the rest of the membership I find that strange because I have had quite a few private messages saying how they agree with my point of view.
I also so find it is the same ones that can just give abuse and cannot accept that the standard of of some drivers is appalling.
You say I am incapable of a reasonable debate. I am very capable of having a debate.You pick a subject and let’s get started.
Never have I seen a reasonable response from you.Usually just abuse or criticising someone else.
albion1971:
rob k the man who cannot give a proper opinion and just ignores questions probably because he does not have a proper answer.
I ignore you because you are a tool and are incapable of a reasoned debate due your blinkered view that truckers are to blame for everything. You have proved this time and time again and the rest of the membership are quickly realising this as well.
I do not have a blinkered view at all but there are certainly some on here that do.Some just refuse to believe that a truck driver can be at fault and blame everything else but.
Take carryfast who changes the subject and tries to blame the authorities.The authorities were not riding the bike or driving the truck.
Yes it probably would be a good idea to stop cyclists going on dual carriageways but at the moment they are allowed on and in my view(which may be right or wrong) a lot of drivers do not proper care when passing cyclists.Being a cyclist and a motorcyclist I have lost count of the number of times I have been deliberately passed ridiculously close by trucks and also cut in on.Granted some give plenty of room but some do not.Some cyclists are a danger as well
Blimey make your mind up you’ve contradicted yourself so much there I don’t think you understand your own argument.I’ll try to make it simple for you.
Do you agree that it would be safe to allow cyclists to use motorways yes or no.If no why.
If a cyclist was using a motorway and got hit by traffic,regardless of wether it’s a truck or a car or maybe even a mixture of both,would the driver/s of the vehicle/s be in any way to blame yes or no.
If the answers to the above questions are both no then why wouldn’t you apply exactly the same logic to dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit.In which case as I’ve said it’s a problem caused by the both the authorities and cyclists,who are more interested in excercising their ‘rights’,to use whatever road the authorities are stupid enough to allow them to use,than looking after their own safety and that of everyone else’s.IE next time a truck driver might just take your advice to slow down to the speed of the cyclist or even less to maintain seperation distance then get hit by a car travelling at 70 mph + which then gets thrown across the central barrier into a head on with another vehicle or more approaching in the opposite direction,as he pulls out to overtake the cyclist at around 15-20 mph having needed around half a mile to accelerate up to sufficient speed to merge safely with fast moving traffic in lane 2.Although it’s not surprising that you don’t seem to understand the issues being that you’ve shown elsewhere that understanding speed differentials isn’t one of your strong points.
The way i see it is that it is ridiculous to allow cyclists to use SOME dual carriageways ,speed restricted stretches would be acceptable as long as they are required by law to have insurance and protection the same as all other road users .
albion1971:
Missed your point? Train was not really a good example.If a cyclist is cycling along the side of a road who is the one to decide whether he or she is left a safe distance?
Not much the cyclist can do apart from not be there but he or she is quite entitled to be there.
Both parties can be at fault but some of the views on here make out it is all the cyclists fault for just being there.
You say you are unbiased.I would have to disagree.
I am completely unbiased, I’ve never been knocked off by a car neither have I ever been killed by a lorry…,. Why? Because I don’t put myself in stupid negligent situations.
I don’t think anyone on here is saying its the cyclists fault, it’s just that they don’t help themselves in the first place.
I got the right to swim the channel, I am entitled to be there, but I don’t incase a get run over by a boat.
Dear FarnboroughBoy, why are you wasting your time arguing with this tool? You have been here long enough to know that albion1971 only has one outlook on life and that is that truck drivers are responsible for all the world’s problems and deaths.
Yes you are right, but he might change his mind one day…
albion1971:
Missed your point? Train was not really a good example.If a cyclist is cycling along the side of a road who is the one to decide whether he or she is left a safe distance?
Not much the cyclist can do apart from not be there but he or she is quite entitled to be there.
Both parties can be at fault but some of the views on here make out it is all the cyclists fault for just being there.
You say you are unbiased.I would have to disagree.
I am completely unbiased, I’ve never been knocked off by a car neither have I ever been killed by a lorry…,. Why? Because I don’t put myself in stupid negligent situations.
I don’t think anyone on here is saying its the cyclists fault, it’s just that they don’t help themselves in the first place.
I got the right to swim the channel, I am entitled to be there, but I don’t incase a get run over by a boat.
So according to you nobody is saying it is the cyclists fault but they are stupid and negligent for being there?
How does that add up?
Maybe if the stupid negligent drivers stayed off the roads instead of the cyclists things might improve.
No one knows who’s fault the actual accident was. But if they had been wiser they wouldn’t have used a dual carriageway with cars passing at 70+ and trucks passing at 50+.
It’s just ridiculous how anyone can condone a push bike riding along a main trunk road. Ridiculous, careless, and dangerous.
albion1971:
Missed your point? Train was not really a good example.If a cyclist is cycling along the side of a road who is the one to decide whether he or she is left a safe distance?
Not much the cyclist can do apart from not be there but he or she is quite entitled to be there.
Both parties can be at fault but some of the views on here make out it is all the cyclists fault for just being there.
You say you are unbiased.I would have to disagree.
I am completely unbiased, I’ve never been knocked off by a car neither have I ever been killed by a lorry…,. Why? Because I don’t put myself in stupid negligent situations.
I don’t think anyone on here is saying its the cyclists fault, it’s just that they don’t help themselves in the first place.
I got the right to swim the channel, I am entitled to be there, but I don’t incase a get run over by a boat.
So according to you nobody is saying it is the cyclists fault but they are stupid and negligent for being there?
How does that add up?
Maybe if the stupid negligent drivers stayed off the roads instead of the cyclists things might improve.
No one knows who’s fault the actual accident was. But if they had been wiser they wouldn’t have used a dual carriageway with cars passing at 70+ and trucks passing at 50+.
It’s just ridiculous how anyone can condone a push bike riding along a main trunk road. Ridiculous, careless, and dangerous.
Sympathy etc.etc. but was it John Prescott planned 6,000 miles of cycle routes.The increased popularity of cycling due to the Olympics and Wiggo’s Tour win means that unless
the authorities address cycle lanes we truck drivers are going to continue to be at risk of having an unfortunate.The road outside my house and into Plymouth was a perfectly
good dual carriageway until the council decided to use one lane as a cycle route[we had a Labour council at the time].This became a parking area for cars,owners too frigging
lazy to park in their drive while the other parts of the road are considered bumpy so cyclists now use the pavement.Early reports…a route between Lands End and John O’Groats…
well seems to me if this route is well known and used the relevant authorities,the H&S freakies should have made sure it was safe.Seemples.
So carryfast what’s your main problem? Is the fact that cyclists can go on dual carriageways or the speed vehicles travel on them? Is it ok for me to cycle on an a single track A road, national speed limit for trucks 40mph, like the A1 for instance? I wouldn’t go on it myself, you’ve got more chance of finding a truck sticking to 40 or less, but I could.
Why do you always feel the need to put in negative scenarios? What ifs are a waste of time. What if a trucker saw a cyclist ahead, slowed down then overtook them with no problem. Happens everyday with no further action. How come nobody on here asks how did the driver not see them?
Nice that the death of two people can be reduced to " having an unfortunate"
Slackbladder:
So carryfast what’s your main problem? Is the fact that cyclists can go on dual carriageways or the speed vehicles travel on them? Is it ok for me to cycle on an a single track A road, national speed limit for trucks 40mph, like the A1 for instance? I wouldn’t go on it myself, you’ve got more chance of finding a truck sticking to 40 or less, but I could.
Why do you always feel the need to put in negative scenarios? What ifs are a waste of time. What if a trucker saw a cyclist ahead, slowed down then overtook them with no problem. Happens everyday with no further action. How come nobody on here asks how did the driver not see them?
Nice that the death of two people can be reduced to " having an unfortunate"
Just as I said to albion do you think cyclists should be allowed to use motorways yes or no.If no why and if yes you’d need to question your sanity.
Having answered that question what’s the big difference between dual carriageways limited to the national speed limit and motorways.As I’ve said no one really knows exactly what happened in this case.But I’d guess that the truck driver possibly got caught out by the speed differential in noticing the cyclist/s ahead in time,maybe having been offsighted by a vehicle or vehicles ahead and what inevitably happened next took place before he’d even managed to react to the situation let alone reduce speed to that or below that of the cyclists to maintain seperation distance.Or he was possibly caught out between trying to balance the need to maintain speed to merge safely with lane 2 while checking the mirrors for a safe gap against the speed of the cyclists.However even if all that had went right there’s no way that you can just overtake a cyclist/s after slowing a truck down sufficiently to maintain seperation distance and then just overtake without the knock on effects of a possible/probable problem concerning the resulting speed differential with fast moving traffic in lane 2.The fact is cyclists using fast dual carriageways are a safety hazard that’s no different to if they were using a motorway.
