I save a lot of my venom for cyclists in appreciating that cyclists have had a dud deal from government agencies for years.
Since WW2 Europe has been investing in properly engineered cycle paths whilst our rabble in the last few years has half awoken to the muck-up in following the American transport model (ie, to include loads of roads for the redundant rail fleet & short-sighted fuel expectations, etc, etc).
Realising the multiple benefits to be gained by cycling, it has recently ‘wedged-in’ ‘shared-use’ paths …which is simply halving the pavement width, putting up some bike signage to further clutter the pavements & expect society to muddle through.
Even now we’re seeing the Labour/Tory brinkmanship in the media …but which of them advocates any proper improvement for us all when we use the roads (…which is a huge wedge of society - daily…!)?
As professionals, we are all reaping what society has voted for in the post-modern era …whilst sending millions of ££’s daily to Brussels to benefit jack-squit nations in Europe.
So, I avoid getting jumpy at some poor sap on a tread-iron but invite others to keep weathered-eyes on the fat Big Brother Controllers giving our money away in Whitehall when they could spend it on road infrastructure and properly defining some meaningful & joined-up policies.
This is about 1% of why it’s a mess out there …whilst we get angry - which has derogatory ‘quality of life impact’ for us. So, I advocate applying a bit of effort in being happy despite our displeasure of lycra muppets…
This argument comes up at least once a month on here, and I think its time we settled it once and for all.
Cyclists V LGV’s
Straight section of road, one start at one end, the other at t’other and both go full chat for the head-but.
The one that comes off with the least damage is declared the winner and the looser’s fraternity has to agree to forever bow down to that of the winner.
Scarab:
This argument comes up at least once a month on here, and I think its time we settled it once and for all.
Cyclists V LGV’s
Straight section of road, one start at one end, the other at t’other and both go full chat for the head-but.
The one that comes off with the least damage is declared the winner and the looser’s fraternity has to agree to forever bow down to that of the winner.
I don’t think that would be a Politically Correct way of doing it
Happy Keith:
So you’ve also joined the other ‘no-win’ fraternity in British society …!
Will ya ride soley on the path; soley on the road, use 'em both with consideration & a polystyrene (gay?) hat …or zig-zag like a tear-a55 wherever you want?
Old Bill hardly cares these daze but the first cheeses off the elderly/disabled/young mums with buggies, etc; The second cheeses-off most white-van thugs; The third are derided beardy liberal lefties but generally mean well and the fourth are in the majority.
Have you accessorised? I understand that mudguards aren’t an option anymore - unless a wet-■■■■ dunks your biscuits whereupon they are Taiwanese bits of stealable plastic stuck-on at daft angles …though lights are an option seemingly only taken up by beardy lefties. Other options include an MP3 so that the traffic is not a distraction and a squeaking ginger chain to warn small dogs of your approach.
Britain, Britain, Britain ; )
I totally see your point keith,
my mate uses the pavements and cycle paths wherever possible, riding steady and always give way to pedestrians by stopping if necc.
he rides a mountain bike now due to amount of punctures on a racer caused by nobody sweeping cycle paths etc.
just to labour the point, I ride I mean he rides on the pavement, always prepared to stop for pedestrians so does’nt tear @rse about
Scarab:
‘…Straight section of road, one start at one end, the other at t’other and both go full chat for the head-■■■■…The one that comes off with the least damage is declared the winner…’
Bladerunner comes to mind …whereby in a ‘scissors, paper, stone’ kind of way, we’d lose out to a missile strike…
The place you definitely don’t want to be is alongside, or slightly in front of, their front wheels at any time but especially at junctions. This is because lorry drivers who have killed cyclists by left-turns (making up more than a quarter of all cyclists killed in London in the last 6 years), even if they signal, often fail to look in their left-hand mirrors to check for cyclists.
this is supposedly from a professional cycling journalist after 15 years in the job…
What an ignorant ZB!
Alex
Read it again, Alex.
That information is taken from evidence given at court cases. Eg, the drivers that killed Emma Foa and Sebastian Lukomski. I didn’t say lorry drivers never look in their mirrors, I said where cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries, often the drivers concerned had failed to check their mirrors…
The 15 years thing - the first death I reported on was that Ed Newstead in 1992. Killed by a driver making an illegal left of Oxford Street. In that time I have received some payment for journalism, but I have never been a full-time journalist. I have been a full-time courier, and am currently employed by courier company, but have been doing Moving Target, in its different forms, for 20 years. In that time 8 London bicycle messengers have been killed by lorries.
I have shown myself willing to engage with the operators and drivers, but I have to tell you that the response has not been overwhelmingly positive.
Which is why I resort to shock tactics as calling for a ban on HGVs. If polite letters to the Freight Transport Assoc, enquiring if they consider cyclists killed by HGVs a problem, elicit no response, what do you expect?
(but first of all I’d like to sincerely thank you for coming on the forum to discuss the point with us, I for one do really appreciate it - its a topic we all think about often)
What cyclists fail to understand each and every day is the even if I look in all my mirrors over and over again a cyclist waiting alongside a LGV is a significant amount of the time, in one of the blind spots.
The main problem is that cyclists simply don’t take into account the significant amount of road we can’t see from our cabs, especially on the left hand side, right about where a cyclist normally sits.
I could be checking my mirrors constantly when sat at lights (as I always do, as do most here I am sure) BUT a cyclist can quite easily come alongside and sit in the blind spot, even though I’m in the left turn lane and/or indicating left.
its dangerous, but apart from putting a multitude of different cameras down the side of the truck, and monitors in the cab, the first thing that needs to be addressed is cyclists awareness of blind spots.
Scarab:
‘…a cyclist can quite easily come alongside and sit in the blind spot, even though I’m in the left turn lane and/or indicating left…’
Especially (despite indicating) when we leave a cosy ‘bike-size gap’ for our left swing. I’m a cycle geek too and often cringe at the carte-blanche and utter disregard for highway discipline that I see from two-wheeled herberts inside the M25…
BillChi: What investigative endeavour has gone into further reducing L/H turn availabilities by creating where feasible, ‘U’ turn opportunities further up the carriageway to then direct heavies (all motorised traffic?) to take right turns only…? (It needs stressing however that it would arguably penalise the planet/innocent* when the guilty are the stupid/squashed/dead/un-trained/un-managed/neglected*…!)
If cyclists would accept the rules of the road like most others have to, and wait in turn at lights there would be less of a problem. It is the weaving and undertaking ban that they insist on being excused from which causes most problems. I doubt it is often because an HGV draws alongside a cyclist already in front of him at the lights.
Spardo:
If cyclists would accept the rules of the road like most others have to, and wait in turn at lights there would be less of a problem. It is the weaving and undertaking ban that they insist on being excused from which causes most problems. I doubt it is often because an HGV draws alongside a cyclist already in front of him at the lights.
We must appreciate that ‘…they…’ (amongst whom I count myself) have had decades of neglect & not least political abuse in the face of much social deregulation.
We have all been ill-served by those that we have elected as our political masters. I know it’s frustrating both as a C+E dude & cyclist too …and it’s as futile as tidying the Titanic deck-chairs to moan. I’d love to see kids out on bikes staying healthy rather than have zillions of the little puddin’s gawp at me from McDonalds strewn back-seats of the cavalcades that choke every by-pass in the land.
But that’s what we’ve inherited …and only our voices to the right political people can alter it.
Spardo:
If cyclists would accept the rules of the road like most others have to, and wait in turn at lights there would be less of a problem. It is the weaving and undertaking ban that they insist on being excused from which causes most problems. I doubt it is often because an HGV draws alongside a cyclist already in front of him at the lights.
What evidence do you have of this? I have already given a few cases where the lorry driver was guilty of at the very least contributory negligence leading to someone else’s death, here’s another one.
I know of at least one case where the lorry driver passed and repassed the cyclist before turning left and killing her. In court he said he had never been trained in the correct use or adjustment of the proximity mirrors, which made his claims that he could not see her as she was in his blind-spot a bit hollow, not to mention that he might have been expected to think that the cyclist might still be close by. The collision took place on London Wall.
That lorry (but not the driver) had been involved another critical collision in the previous weeks. The operator, RMC, now Cemex, is now a model of best practice, with good training for drivers, relating specifically to cyclists, and mirrors, proximity alarms. This after the mother of the dead cyclist bought shares and raised the issue at a shareholders meeting.
Undertaking by cyclists illegal? Sorry, mate, that’s not right. And what’s more, there is heaps of paint in London that encourage cyclists to do exactly that. Not wise in my view, which why I have written to the Mayor to ask him to reconside the whole basis of the London Cycling Network. See here.
I have also made it quite clear what I think cyclists should do to avoid potential conflicts with lorries - stay off the road altogether. But seeing as that isn’t practical or desirable, I think it’s worth trying to work something out. But that means that all parties trying share the road, which means both groups accept that the other has a right to be there. I don’t hear that from you, and I wonder how representative you are of your fellows. I hope that you aren’t, but if you are, then you are in for an almighty shock.
Scarab:
its dangerous, but apart from putting a multitude of different cameras down the side of the truck, and monitors in the cab, the first thing that needs to be addressed is cyclists awareness of blind spots.
Alex
Why should that be first? Why shouldn’t they be both be done at the same time?
You are the ones that are driving the dangerous vehicle, shouldn’t you be making sure that you are doing everything that you possibly can to make sure that it as safe as possible. I am doing as much as I can to make cyclists aware (have a look around Moving Target), what is the haulage business doing to make sure that its drivers have the right equipment and training to avoid these collisions?
Scarab:
‘…a cyclist can quite easily come alongside and sit in the blind spot, even though I’m in the left turn lane and/or indicating left…’
Especially (despite indicating) when we leave a cosy ‘bike-size gap’ for our left swing. I’m a cycle geek too and often cringe at the carte-blanche and utter disregard for highway discipline that I see from two-wheeled herberts inside the M25…
BillChi: What investigative endeavour has gone into further reducing L/H turn availabilities by creating where feasible, ‘U’ turn opportunities further up the carriageway to then direct heavies (all motorised traffic?) to take right turns only…? (It needs stressing however that it would arguably penalise the planet/innocent* when the guilty are the stupid/squashed/dead/un-trained/un-managed/neglected*…!)
*take your pick
This is a good idea, and not one that I have seen explored in any forum that I have been in. However, given that this is a particular problem in the C-charge zone, I am not sure how practical it is, given the narrowness of most of the roads in Central London.
ROG:
Do you believe, as I do, that every driver or rider using any sort of transport on our public highways should be properly trained and tested to do so
Thanks for the welcome!
But no, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Before you ask, I have 3rd party insurance (actually 2 different policies!).
Do you also believe that there should be a law banning ‘jay-walking’?
BillChi:
Why should that be first? Why shouldn’t they be both be done at the same time?
You are the ones that are driving the dangerous vehicle, shouldn’t you be making sure that you are doing everything that you possibly can to make sure that it as safe as possible. I am doing as much as I can to make cyclists aware (have a look around Moving Target), what is the haulage business doing to make sure that its drivers have the right equipment and training to avoid these collisions?
Absolutely nothing.
But as a driver that isn’t my fault, I can’t go round fitting cameras to my companies vehicles - its a big worry to me, I don’t want to hurt anybody, of course I don’t.
My initial suggestion would be to go to truck manufacturers and ask for them to include it in an options package, people might not buy it but the option is there.
The only problem is that the UK doesn’t have a truck industry any more, you’d have to go to the likes of Mercedes-Benz and Volvo who are the big players when it comes to fitting safety gadgets and even then its a lot of expenditure for what would be little return (in a purely business sense - not my arena so can’t comment)
HOWEVER there is something free and instant that could be done and guaranteed to save lives and give everyone piece of mind.
Simply advise cyclists to stay behind the rear-most axle of any large vehicle (above say a 3.5 ton van) and should some idiotic ignorant driver pull up at the right hand side of them, the cyclist should be aware enough not to move forward an inch until the large vehicle has gone past.
Its not ideal of course, BUT it would guarantee that lives are saved. That can’t be argued.
BillChi, if you are campaigning for the safety of cyclists, rather than the demonisation of LGV’s then surely we need to prove to the governments and manufacturers that we’ve tried every cost-free avenue first, before we can implore them to put in the finance?
The campaign can’t be against the drivers surely? we can only see what we see with the equipment we are given.
Saw a prime example today.Was following a tipper in slow moving traffic that was indicating to turn left. In my n/s mirror, i noticed a cyclist coming down the pavement and as the tipper was about to turn, the cyclist was roughly half way down the length of it when the tipper driver had to stop as the cyclist weaved round his n/s.The tipper driver obviously see him as just prior to stopping he gave a blast on his horn.What was the cyclists reaction. . . . “the one finger salute”
Scarab:
HOWEVER there is something free and instant that could be done and guaranteed to save lives and give everyone piece of mind.
Alex
It’s not free and instant. How the hell do you disseminate such a message? Fliers? TV ads, magazine ads? All this costs money and effort and takes time.
100 000 regular cyclists in London. Getting a piece of paper into each of their hands would cost money, even assuming that they would read it. (Which, incidentally is something that I and a friend did last friday at Critical Mass - around 500 cyclists) Fitting a DOBLI mirror to a lorry costs £100.
Why should I and my community spend a lot of time telling cyclists to avoid lorries, if you lot and your employers are doing nothing except saying, ‘oh well, it’s all their own fault anyway’. After all, according to you, I am safe anyway, simply because I stay away from lorries, so why should I bother?
There are hundreds of large UK online communities for cyclists of all types, several hours emailing round those would get the word out to some people.
At least its trying to co-operate rather than just shout at people about how LGV’s are killers.
Anyway Bill, you certainly don’t seem like you are willing to listen so I shan’t bother anymore.
I’m sorry that you seem to have taken such a stance, I thought this was a refreshing opportunity for the communities to discuss how we could possibly save some lives.
You seem more interested in making all us LGV drivers out to be ignorant murderers hell bent on causing destruction to cyclists.
As you are so incomprehensibly wrong in that assumption I can only think that you have made up your mind and have no intention of trying to help anybody.
I hope that you do manage to help save some of your cycling friends, its just a shame that you want to do it in such a militant and hateful manner.
Scarab:
Anyway Bill, you certainly don’t seem like you are willing to listen so I shan’t bother anymore.
I’m sorry that you seem to have taken such a stance, I thought this was a refreshing opportunity for the communities to discuss how we could possibly save some lives.
You seem more interested in making all us LGV drivers out to be ignorant murderers hell bent on causing destruction to cyclists.
As you are so incomprehensibly wrong in that assumption I can only think that you have made up your mind and have no intention of trying to help anybody.
I hope that you do manage to help save some of your cycling friends, its just a shame that you want to do it in such a militant and hateful manner.
All the best,
Alex
Alex, I already HAVE done all of that! I HAVE NOT not ever said that ALL LGV drivers are ignorant murderers. I HAVE quoted examples where lorry drivers were found guilty IN COURT of contributory negligence that led to the death of cyclists, that’s not assumption, those are facts established in court.
I am militant about this issue because I hated seeing the families of dead cyclists, and worried that I wasn’t doing enough to prevent these wholly preventable tragedies from happening again, so I have tried raise the issue again and again in different forums. If you don’t happen to like
I ask the question again, what is it that you lot are willing to do, other than mumble ‘it’s all your own fault’ ■■? And then when presented with some evidence and some possible solutions do the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing■■?
I mean he rides on the pavement, always prepared to stop for pedestrians so does’nt tear 
