FarnboroughBoy11:
Silver_Surfer:
Lol @ the Charlie Brown vid.Carryfast & Albion arguing on the same thread could go to 20 pages…
do you reckon it will beat the jimmy saville thread■■?
That would depend on wether the cyclist was a fit looking teenaged bird in a mini skirt in which case I agree with albion. 
I think CF is ill. 2 full pages and he hasn’t blamed it on Thatcher (yet).
One of our drivers who lives about 2 miles from the scene and was at home on the day this tragic event took place, told me today that the cyclist where dragged 300 mtr down the road before the truck stopped!!! My sympathies go out to the poor cyclists trying to raise some money for probably a very worthy cause 
Another question dodged carryfast. The only fact is that you have come up with another couple of possible scenarios in an incident you know nothing about. The fact is you are as likely to get hit by a vehicle on any type of road at any time at any speed, the stationary cyclist and truck turning left to name just one.
More details on this sad event here:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-23157100
I don’t suppose the lorry driver set out that morning thinking this was going to happen.
As someone who uses a bicycle for short journeys I think you are more likely to be hit by another vehicle on an urban road, or country lane than a main road. But any physical contact with a vehicle on a DC is likely to be fatal. I don’t think cyclists should be allowed on roads where there are slip-roads instead of conventional junctions, but cycleways could be run parallel to main routes on some big roads.
I’ve been hit twice by cars on my pedal cycle (fortunately without injury) , but I have always felt that truck drivers gave me a lot of respect/space when I’m on my bike, and have not had an issue with one…ever!
Don’t do yourselves down gents (and ladies), most of you really are heads and shoulders above the rest.
+1
Slackbladder:
Another question dodged carryfast. The only fact is that you have come up with another couple of possible scenarios in an incident you know nothing about. The fact is you are as likely to get hit by a vehicle on any type of road at any time at any speed, the stationary cyclist and truck turning left to name just one.
Nothing has ‘dodged’ my view of the issue at all.Firstly cycling on any type of road is a high risk business.Those risks increase even further when cyclists ride along the near side of trucks in urban areas or ride on dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit in others.In my case I definitely wouldn’t want to ride a cycle on such a dual cartriageway,as I’ve said,because of the potential danger to other road users caused by traffic overtaking me having reduced speed to a level sufficient to maintain seperation distance.Then I’d be worried about the risks to myself.Maybe cyclists need to think about others before themselves for a change and start doing some realistic risk assessments of the type of situations that they seem to want to put themselves and others into and as I’ve said riding a cycle on a fast dual carriageway is no less a risk than riding the thing on a motorway would be.
nickb67:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Have to agree, I’m afraid. I was public enemy number 1 after saying something similar in the bar after 2 brothers were killed by a coach on the 595 at Moota a couple of years ago, albeit not a DC in good conditions/visibility. Middle of the worst winter for years, snow & ice, mid-afternoon, minus god-knows-what, sun slap bang on the horizon, etc. IIRC the coach driver was hauled to Crown Court and found not guilty on all counts, but tragic as it was, they simply shouldn’t have been there, legally or otherwise.
I remember that one, there’s still two bikes at the place they were killed, and now they’ve done the stupid islands there to make it worse!
Carryfast:
albion1971:
Rob K:
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 wellBlimey 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.
carryfast are you completely incapable of understanding English? There seem to be things happening in your head that should not be happening!
Sorry but it seems almost impossible to discuss anything with you.Thread after thread you babble babble babble uncontrollably.
It also seems rob k is not capable as he had not taken my challenge.Some of you are so transparent.
albion1971:
Carryfast:
albion1971:
Rob K:
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 wellBlimey 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.
carryfast are you completely incapable of understanding English? There seem to be things happening in your head that should not be happening!
Sorry but it seems almost impossible to discuss anything with you.Thread after thread you babble babble babble uncontrollably.It also seems rob k is not capable as he had not taken my challenge.Some of you are so transparent.
I don’t see any babbling there.I asked three questions and the answers are relevant to the issues in this case.No surprise you’ve chosen not to answer them all.
Carryfast:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Silver_Surfer:
Lol @ the Charlie Brown vid.Carryfast & Albion arguing on the same thread could go to 20 pages…
That would depend on wether the cyclist was a fit looking teenaged bird in a mini skirt in which case I agree with albion.
Carryfast:
Slackbladder:
Another question dodged carryfast. The only fact is that you have come up with another couple of possible scenarios in an incident you know nothing about. The fact is you are as likely to get hit by a vehicle on any type of road at any time at any speed, the stationary cyclist and truck turning left to name just one.Nothing has ‘dodged’ my view of the issue at all.Firstly cycling on any type of road is a high risk business.Those risks increase even further when cyclists ride along the near side of trucks in urban areas or ride on dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit in others.In my case I definitely wouldn’t want to ride a cycle on such a dual cartriageway,as I’ve said,because of the potential danger to other road users caused by traffic overtaking me having reduced speed to a level sufficient to maintain seperation distance.Then I’d be worried about the risks to myself.Maybe cyclists need to think about others before themselves for a change and start doing some realistic risk assessments of the type of situations that they seem to want to put themselves and others into and as I’ve said riding a cycle on a fast dual carriageway is no less a risk than riding the thing on a motorway would be.
I agree. In fact you could even argue that although both dual carriageway and motorways are ridiculously dangerous for cycles to be on, at least with a motorway you have a 10ft wide hard shoulder to be in if you was a cyclist therefor making motorways actually safer to some degree.
Law is all wrong anyway, push bikes should be on the pavement with pedestrians as the risk factor and consequence of a collision with a pedestrian and bike is far less than a motor vehicle colliding with a bike on the road.
I give cyclists plenty of room, if I can’t, I won’t overtake them.
But, they do put themselves in danger.
I use the A13 to go to work, when i’m on earlies, I see a cyclist regular on the A13 with no lights or hi vi, FFS!!
No-one seeing the bigger picture here? The public will think, “Bloody lorry drivers, killing two cyclists on a cancer charity bike ride!” They weren’t thick, either. Be prepared for some backlash.
And be prepared for cyclists quite legally and legitimately (but maybe not wisely) travelling on the dc ahead of you tomorrow and every day thereafter.
rambo19:
I give cyclists plenty of room, if I can’t, I won’t overtake them.
But, they do put themselves in danger.
I followed one up a very long hill last week. To be fair he did his best to power up it but he could’ve gone on the foot path had he chosen to, I know I would’ve. He thanked me when he got to the top and turned left. Sat behind him for well over a minute. I probably annoyed the long line of cars behind but I considered that a bonus 
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
First off, it’s sad that 2 people have lost their lives and may they rest in peace.
Anyone cycling on a dual carriageway with people wizzing past them at 70mph has a death wish.
The law rightfully bars 49cc scooters capable of 40mph from motorways but allows Granny Smith on her bike doing 5mph onto dual carriageways.
The law cannot allow for every circumstance, but when traffic is likely to be moving 50+mph more than you (legally), then you really should be seeking a safer route to take.
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’sWhy are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’sWhy are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’sWhy are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
I’m aware of the saying and the meaning of the word you refer to.
However, Bader was referring to the breaking or bending of rules. I’m not.
