Yet again another cyclist dies

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
61

Carryfast:

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 don’t 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 don’t think cycling proficiency is worth it speaks volumes.

So what you’re 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 it’s 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 they’d 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 it’s 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 don’t think that there’s 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 I’m not defending as part of this particular issue whatsoever.Nor do I think that there’s 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 I’ve said I think my case shows a lot more knowledge and professionalism in that regard than yours.

From understanding your repeated post x5 your saying you want all cyclists of the roads and pavements and stop people from using cycles?

if so, what time of year are you living in?

62

Cyclists are increasing in numbers for a variety of reasons, this is irrelevant to you because the biggest thing you’ve driven this century is your sofa. Nobody is going to force cyclists onto the pavement, you don’t have to agree with it, just accept it as fact. You seem to see it as luck that most drivers don’t hit cyclists & that it will happen sooner or later, again it’s just as well you arent allowed to drive with that attitude. I prefer to put it down to a little skill and patience, a professional outlook if you will. You don’t hold some of your fellow drivers in very high regard if you put it down to luck. As you don’t drive trucks or ride bikes on the road how can you have any knowledge or idea of what either are like?

63

Slackbladder:
Cyclists are increasing in numbers for a variety of reasons, this is irrelevant to you because the biggest thing you’ve driven this century is your sofa. Nobody is going to force cyclists onto the pavement, you don’t have to agree with it, just accept it as fact. You seem to see it as luck that most drivers don’t hit cyclists & that it will happen sooner or later, again it’s just as well you arent allowed to drive with that attitude. I prefer to put it down to a little skill and patience, a professional outlook if you will. You don’t hold some of your fellow drivers in very high regard if you put it down to luck. As you don’t drive trucks or ride bikes on the road how can you have any knowledge or idea of what either are like?

As I said your idea is all about telling cyclists to carry on as they are doing in ever increasing amounts while at the same time telling them that they’ll be fine because it’s all about how good that you’d like to think you are behind the wheel of a wagon and you’re also going to impose that view on all drivers :unamused: .Good luck with that and as they say be careful what you wish for.The sad part of all that is that many of those other drivers might be the ones who have to pay the price of that type of thinking while your luck holds.However if they’re stpid enough to believe all that bs then that’s obviously their problem too.

64

mickyblue:
Check my posts with you Mr ■■■■, no personal attacks from me. Tell you what though, I blame Thatcher

Not calling him “Mr ■■■■” might be a good first step to a more grown up and cordial conversation. Name calling like that just lowers this to a primary school play ground level.

In my own opinion, this whole cyclist vs truck malarky is now hugely political. Since my departure from the UK in 2009 there appears to have been a huge increase either in these accidents, or at least in the publicity they generate as there seems to be at least one making headlines every week, often in London but also elsewhere.
I think I read a while back that Scotland is, or is thinking about introducing a law which makes motorists automatically at fault in any accident involving a cyclist. How can that be right and just? As truck drivers we’ve all seen the idiocy that some cyclists demonstrate around trucks and now, in Scotland at least, they appear to have the full endorsement of the law to carry on as they like.

All road users should abide by the same rules and be at fault for their own wrong doings. Having a two tier system where one group can carry on and do as they like and another who are automatically at fault for absolutely any action that the other commits is lunacy. Its no better than how it used to be in Turkey years ago when foreign vehicles were automatically at fault in any accident by virtue of the fact if they were not there in the first place, the accident could not have happened.

65

I’m in favour of all road users abiding by the laws on the road. I’m well aware of how bad some cyclists perform on the roads and, I’ve said many times, they can be their own worst enemies. As truck drivers we are aware of this & should take appropriate action. Just because someone is riding like a tool doesn’t give a driver the right to run them off the road. Let’s face it some driving leaves a lot to be desired and falls way below what is expected. Too many drivers in too much of a hurry.

66

I think the idea that in law any accident between a cyclist and a motor vehicle that the motorist is always at fault would seem to imply that in law a person is guilty and won’t be proved innocent. I would think that would go against the basic right of innocent until proven guilty. We don’t hear of any big campaigns regarding horse riding on the roads. There’s not as many accidents involving horses, probably because horse riders are aware that if anything happens involving a truck or car their horse will probably have to be destroyed. You don’t hear much about accidents with people on bikes who are also carrying their children in a bike seat. Maybe they consider their child’s life as very important. Maybe the people who ride alone should realise that there disregard for their own safety is not the responsibility of others.

67

The fact of the matter is, it’s far too easy to be a truck driver. It’s been realised for some time now that a great number of HGV drivers are very poorly educated, lacking the academic skills that could make them better professionals, with a greater understanding of wider issues. This is demonstrated time and again by the likes of Carryfast, who generally does become very abusive of people that disagree with him or people with which he has no sympathy - he clearly has no respect for cyclists. It’s for those reasons he’s on my ignore lists.

There are others who cannot reason with the logic behind why the word accident, is inappropriate, or can’t think deep enough to realise that the word accident is and historically always has been a copout, and people who attack others for taking action or making a legitimate claim with labels like ‘Ambulance Chasers - or the claim culture’… these are the types of people that in my opinion need to be re-trained, better educated, re-tested and booted out if they fail a much more stringent test.

Several here have already provided very good reasoning why arrest is justified, it’s a procedure and not a conviction, just imagine the headline if the cops let the driver go after mowing down a family member - only to discover that a false name and address was provided. I asked a police officer only yesterday about automatic arrest and he said… words to the effect of: There’s no automatic arrest - it depends on the circumstances, when there is a death, we wouldn’t let the driver or drivers involved drive away, we generally make sure they are well, not in severe shock, this is done through medical examination with a doctor or paramedic. Then we interview them, some under caution - after being offered legal advice, get a statement while the detail is fresh in their mind, then usually we take them home.

In my opinion an HGV test should include academic exams, personal and character suitability. The DCPC, is a nod in that direction, but it’s not enough, the least well educated can still snooze their way through what is essentially a pointless box ticking exercise.

I would like to see a basic understanding of language, mathematics, science, geography. Then courses and testing on all of the main issues - such as all potential loading techniques, weight distribution, load securing etc. I’ve no doubt the test has changed a bit since I took it, but not that much, you still can and apparently we have - monkeys passing the test and driving HGVs around.

It will probably come as no surprise to hear me say that pedestrians and cyclists should have rights on roads and that people using motor vehicles should not. People using motor vehicles should understand that their presence on the road is a privilege - not a right.

68

Dave keep taking the happy pills ive never seen so much drivel come out of one persons account

If a truck is turning left and a cyclist decides to undertake who needs educating ■■? Alot of these incidents are happened because cyclists are putting themselves in harms way more often than not due to ingnorance.

Alot of the proposed measure to reduce this fall on the driver and none on the cyclist may of these measure will again increase the cognitive load on the driver which isn’t the best idea considering the cognitive load on drivers these days anyway.

69

alix776:
Dave keep taking the happy pills ive never seen so much drivel come out of one persons account

Thank you. A very important point there, on the topic and made so eloquently. You clearly want to engage in adult discussion.

alix776:
If a truck is turning left and a cyclist decides to undertake who needs educating ■■?

Both, but not you apparently!

alix776:
Alot of the proposed measure to reduce this fall on the driver and none on the cyclist may of these measure will again increase the cognitive load on the driver which isn’t the best idea considering the cognitive load on drivers these days anyway.

Waffle.

There is no such thing as a single example that matches the cognitive load placed on all drivers. All drivers are different and deal with their differing experiences accordingly. A better educated driver will deal better with more mentally taxing challenges.

Show me where I have said that cyclists should not be better trained or educated. You can’t, in other threads on similar topics I have said the complete opposite and this thread unless you have missed the point - isn’t about your opinion on what is or not drivel.

But if you want to discuss responsibility and apportion of blame - then ask yourself who should take more responsibility, the cyclist in charge of a tiny bit of kit, or the professional in charge of huge and dangerous kit powered by huge engines. One might scratch the truck - the other is all too often taking the other’s life.

Looking at your reasoning, I can see why you would object to re-educating and more stringent testing of HGV drivers. Well mate, like it or not - the writing is on the wall and it’s definitely coming. For far too long the classroom dunce has been able to pass an HGV driving test based on a very short and easy to pass test, then put in charge of equipment that is now ‘every day’ killing and maiming people.

70

Look Dave I am a cyclist and a truck driver so get off you pedestal

For your information i do think ALL drivers should be retest every 5 years and there should be a test licencing and insurance system to be able to ride a bike on the road

To make statement about when you don’t even know me makes your statement totally irrelavent

71

alix776:
To make statement about when you don’t even know me makes your statement totally irrelavent

Where?

I think you’ll find - was you making a statement about me.

72

Boomerang Dave I quite agree with your post about how easy it is to become an LGV driver and the fact the test is far too easy.
What you write is not drivel despite what others say.
There are not many on here that agree the test is far too easy but the fact of the matter is the actual test is very basic and there is far too much luck involved in passing.
Re testing or assesment every 3 to 5 years would do wonders for cutting the accident rate and raising standards but will probably never happen because of the cost.
The test has not really changed much since it was introduced.The theory test and hazard perception was a backward step in my view.Again they are talking about putting some weight on the vehicle but some of us can remember the disaster when they tried that before.
What is really needed is a far strickter driving test or rather an assessment that is carried out over a number of weeks(say 12 hours) in a variety of different situations.
Saying all that I still wonder why driving standards have gone downhill so much in recent years?

73

albion1971:
Boomerang Dave I quite agree with your post about how easy it is to become an LGV driver and the fact the test is far too easy…etc

Thank you. I often wonder what people think they achieve by throwing personal attacks into a discussion. Even more unusual to come across one with wafer thin skin - ready to take personal insult… at the drop of a hat - where none is intended. The mind boggles.

I have had the good fortune of working alongside well educated and good drivers at most points in my on-off driving career. But I’ve also met far too many that I wouldn’t let push a pram.

These days, we rarely see roping and sheeting used to secure a load, but it always used to make me wonder why a driver could pass his test in an unladen artic - towing a 20ft trailer, would potentially be allowed to drive around abnormal loads the next day.

I remember delivering a load of steel to a firm in Glasgow, this would be late 80s. The driver (from another outfit) in front of me had tipped and was reloading with pallets. These weren’t your bog standard pallets, they were a variety of shapes, sizes and build quality. I could see the driver was making a ‘pigs ear’ of the roping, so offered some assistance… basically asked him if he would like me to show him how to rope and sheet. “No, I know what I’m doing.” he said. He clearly didn’t, anyway a bit later… heading down the M6 suddenly the traffic starts backing up. Yes… Chummy (not his real name) had thrown his load of pallets all over the place, causing a pile-up in which 5 innocent people were killed. Chummy got a prison sentence for manslaughter… can’t remember how long he got, but it was years not months. One thing for certain, his cognitive load wasn’t the issue, it was his attitude, pride or whatever… just didn’t want to admit he didn’t know what he was doing.

If he’s allowed himself 30 mins, I would have shown him how to do the job right and I would have thrown a sheet over the pallets and roped over that as a bonus.

It wasn’t an accident, it was an error of judgment, most likely pride or embarrassment that cost those lives and the other injuries, the destruction to those poor bloody families. So yes, better all around training and testing not: just as you say - luck of the draw in some respect. And why not much longer tests over days in a variety of situations - makes perfect sense to me. After all - each week we have the equivalent of a disaster taking place on our roads in terms of the casualty count and people with pride in their profession would surely want to be the best they can be.

74

The problem is Dave you post one example of poor HGV driving and call for more stringent education for all but don’t seem keen to acknowledge the fact that some have called for better education of cyclists to reduce fatalities and give an example of poor cycling behaviour, but they apparently are wrong. The only people who should be allowed total freedom to go about their business without testing or training are pedestrians.

75

Diversion2:
The problem is Dave you post one example of poor HGV driving and call for more stringent education for all but don’t seem keen to acknowledge the fact that some have called for better education of cyclists to reduce fatalities and give an example of poor cycling behaviour, but they apparently are wrong. The only people who should be allowed total freedom to go about their business without testing or training are pedestrians.

It’s not a problem to me, I have called exhaustively - (as already stated above) for better training for cyclists… even though they are NOT qualified professionals. I’ve also argued to the point of ad-nauseum the need for better cycle lanes.

And also see: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=102239

76

Boomerang Dave:
I remember delivering a load of steel to a firm in Glasgow, this would be late 80s. The driver (from another outfit) in front of me had tipped and was reloading with pallets. These weren’t your bog standard pallets, they were a variety of shapes, sizes and build quality. I could see the driver was making a ‘pigs ear’ of the roping, so offered some assistance… basically asked him if he would like me to show him how to rope and sheet. “No, I know what I’m doing.” he said. He clearly didn’t, anyway a bit later… heading down the M6 suddenly the traffic starts backing up. Yes… Chummy (not his real name) had thrown his load of pallets all over the place, causing a pile-up in which 5 innocent people were killed. Chummy got a prison sentence for manslaughter… can’t remember how long he got, but it was years not months. One thing for certain, his cognitive load wasn’t the issue, it was his attitude, pride or whatever… just didn’t want to admit he didn’t know what he was doing.

If he’s allowed himself 30 mins, I would have shown him how to do the job right and I would have thrown a sheet over the pallets and roped over that as a bonus.

Just out of interest - Did you offer a report of that conversation with the driver to the police?
I would have thought that would have been important evidence bearing the incident was a fatal one.

I wonder how many of us have witnessed malpractice that we just know could lead a fatal accident ?

77

Thanks Dave for your reply.Nice to get a reply that is not full of abuse for a change.I think we tend to agree on a lot of things but unfortunately I fear things will get worse before they get better.
I suppose you cannot really blame todays drivers for being able to become a lorry driver so easily but you can blame some of them for their unprofessional driving.
Cheers Albion…

I wonder how many of us have witnessed malpractice that we just know could lead a fatal accident ?

Every day on the roads we witness driving that could well lead to a fatal accident and it seems to be happening with far more regularity these days especially involving LGV’s.

78

Boomerang Dave:
The fact of the matter is, it’s far too easy to be a truck driver. It’s been realised for some time now that a great number of HGV drivers are very poorly educated, lacking the academic skills that could make them better professionals, with a greater understanding of wider issues.

Realised by whom? You? I’m certain you’ll find poorly educated people in any profession you care to mention, not just truck driving. A poor education is not a reason to suggest someone cannot behave in a professional manner, or recognise right from wrong.

Boomerang Dave:
This is demonstrated time and again by the likes of Carryfast, who generally does become very abusive of people that disagree with him or people with which he has no sympathy - he clearly has no respect for cyclists. It’s for those reasons he’s on my ignore lists.

What makes you think Carryfast is in anyway representative of currently working truck drivers. Or for that matter, retired truck drivers? And why do you even think Carryfast is a truck driver?

Boomerang Dave:
There are others who cannot reason with the logic behind why the word accident, is inappropriate, or can’t think deep enough to realise that the word accident is and historically always has been a copout, and people who attack others for taking action or making a legitimate claim with labels like ‘Ambulance Chasers - or the claim culture’… these are the types of people that in my opinion need to be re-trained, better educated, re-tested and booted out if they fail a much more stringent test.

They need to be retrained by who? It seems you can’t accept there may be other opinions than your own. And your suggestion that people should be deprived of their livelihood on your say so, is not only absurd, it smacks of latent fascism!

Apart from your questionable English grammar, it also appears you want to tar every truck driver as uneducated whilst making schoolboy grammatical errors yourself. Hypocrisy par excellence!

Boomerang Dave:
Several here have already provided very good reasoning why arrest is justified, it’s a procedure and not a conviction, just imagine the headline if the cops let the driver go after mowing down a family member - only to discover that a false name and address was provided. I asked a police officer only yesterday about automatic arrest and he said… words to the effect of: There’s no automatic arrest - it depends on the circumstances, when there is a death, we wouldn’t let the driver or drivers involved drive away, we generally make sure they are well, not in severe shock, this is done through medical examination with a doctor or paramedic. Then we interview them, some under caution - after being offered legal advice, get a statement while the detail is fresh in their mind, then usually we take them home.

In response to this comment, I refer you to my earlier point about being a self appointed judge and jury of your peers! You undermine your own arguments by such ill considered comments!

Boomerang Dave:
I would like to see a basic understanding of language, mathematics, science, geography. Then courses and testing on all of the main issues - such as all potential loading techniques, weight distribution, load securing etc. I’ve no doubt the test has changed a bit since I took it, but not that much, you still can and apparently we have - monkeys passing the test and driving HGVs around.

There are monkeys passing far more difficult testing procedures in many other walks of life. Policemen for example, who proceed to shoot innocent civilians without good reason! Or who deliberately perjure themselves for their own advantage. The list of professional misconduct in the police service is unfortunately, endless. Those are the monkeys we need to re-educate first. Truck drivers, as usual, will come a long, long way down the list.

Boomerang Dave:
It will probably come as no surprise to hear me say that pedestrians and cyclists should have rights on roads and that people using motor vehicles should not. People using motor vehicles should understand that their presence on the road is a privilege - not a right.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that every “incident” as you’d prefer to call them, must have at least two guilty parties. (Assuming a two party “incident”.) After all, using your logic, there would be no incident if at least one of those involved, had not been there. (Which by the way, is exactly the road traffic philosophy in Japan!)

On the basis of joint responsibility, in a case of alleged careless/dangerous driving, both parties would be subject to equal investigation, and potentially, equal fault.

So in the case of a cyclist who causes a truck to have an acci…, sorry, “incident” and “maybe” stops to be questioned by the police, how are we to ascertain the cyclist gives his/her correct name and address? After all, they are not required to have any licence, insurance or registration. They have no tachograph, and they rarely have any training, much less “a basic understanding of language, mathematics, science or geography.” And even fewer courses and testing on all of the main issues of riding a bike in traffic!

Before reading your post, I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I myself have written at length about how it is the responsibility of truck drivers to care for other road users, including cyclists. Unfortunately, I have rarely seen a post that more comprehensively shoots the writer’s arguments so successfully in both feet, and on that basis, before criticising the people who respond to your diatribes, I would suggest you examine your own inadequacies first.

79

Turbovision:
Did you offer a report of that conversation with the driver to the police?

Can’t say it was the most enjoyable experience in my life, but yes, the police came to my home - where I gave a signed statement. AFAIK, he pleaded guilty to the charges, so no witnesses for the prosecution were called.

I realise he will have been traumatised, no doubt had time in prison to reflect on his refusal to receive the help offered. If I’m bluntly honest, my sympathies were and remain entirely with the victims and their families. His only credit is he admitted fault.

80

EastAnglianTrucker:

Boomerang Dave:
The fact of the matter is, it’s far too easy to be a truck driver. It’s been realised for some time now that a great number of HGV drivers are very poorly educated, lacking the academic skills that could make them better professionals, with a greater understanding of wider issues.

Realised by whom? You? I’m certain you’ll find poorly educated people in any profession you care to mention, not just truck driving. A poor education is not a reason to suggest someone cannot behave in a professional manner, or recognise right from wrong.

Boomerang Dave:
This is demonstrated time and again by the likes of Carryfast, who generally does become very abusive of people that disagree with him or people with which he has no sympathy - he clearly has no respect for cyclists. It’s for those reasons he’s on my ignore lists.

What makes you think Carryfast is in anyway representative of currently working truck drivers. Or for that matter, retired truck drivers? And why do you even think Carryfast is a truck driver?

Boomerang Dave:
There are others who cannot reason with the logic behind why the word accident, is inappropriate, or can’t think deep enough to realise that the word accident is and historically always has been a copout, and people who attack others for taking action or making a legitimate claim with labels like ‘Ambulance Chasers - or the claim culture’… these are the types of people that in my opinion need to be re-trained, better educated, re-tested and booted out if they fail a much more stringent test.

They need to be retrained by who? It seems you can’t accept there may be other opinions than your own. And your suggestion that people should be deprived of their livelihood on your say so, is not only absurd, it smacks of latent fascism!

Apart from your questionable English grammar, it also appears you want to tar every truck driver as uneducated whilst making schoolboy grammatical errors yourself. Hypocrisy par excellence!

Boomerang Dave:
Several here have already provided very good reasoning why arrest is justified, it’s a procedure and not a conviction, just imagine the headline if the cops let the driver go after mowing down a family member - only to discover that a false name and address was provided. I asked a police officer only yesterday about automatic arrest and he said… words to the effect of: There’s no automatic arrest - it depends on the circumstances, when there is a death, we wouldn’t let the driver or drivers involved drive away, we generally make sure they are well, not in severe shock, this is done through medical examination with a doctor or paramedic. Then we interview them, some under caution - after being offered legal advice, get a statement while the detail is fresh in their mind, then usually we take them home.

In response to this comment, I refer you to my earlier point about being a self appointed judge and jury of your peers! You undermine your own arguments by such ill considered comments!

Boomerang Dave:
I would like to see a basic understanding of language, mathematics, science, geography. Then courses and testing on all of the main issues - such as all potential loading techniques, weight distribution, load securing etc. I’ve no doubt the test has changed a bit since I took it, but not that much, you still can and apparently we have - monkeys passing the test and driving HGVs around.

There are monkeys passing far more difficult testing procedures in many other walks of life. Policemen for example, who proceed to shoot innocent civilians without good reason! Or who deliberately perjure themselves for their own advantage. The list of professional misconduct in the police service is unfortunately, endless. Those are the monkeys we need to re-educate first. Truck drivers, as usual, will come a long, long way down the list.

Boomerang Dave:
It will probably come as no surprise to hear me say that pedestrians and cyclists should have rights on roads and that people using motor vehicles should not. People using motor vehicles should understand that their presence on the road is a privilege - not a right.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that every “incident” as you’d prefer to call them, must have at least two guilty parties. (Assuming a two party “incident”.) After all, using your logic, there would be no incident if at least one of those involved, had not been there. (Which by the way, is exactly the road traffic philosophy in Japan!)

On the basis of joint responsibility, in a case of alleged careless/dangerous driving, both parties would be subject to equal investigation, and potentially, equal fault.

So in the case of a cyclist who causes a truck to have an acci…, sorry, “incident” and “maybe” stops to be questioned by the police, how are we to ascertain the cyclist gives his/her correct name and address? After all, they are not required to have any licence, insurance or registration. They have no tachograph, and they rarely have any training, much less “a basic understanding of language, mathematics, science or geography.” And even fewer courses and testing on all of the main issues of riding a bike in traffic!

Before reading your post, I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I myself have written at length about how it is the responsibility of truck drivers to care for other road users, including cyclists. Unfortunately, I have rarely seen a post that more comprehensively shoots the writer’s arguments so successfully in both feet, and on that basis, before criticising the people who respond to your diatribes, I would suggest you examine your own inadequacies first.

That is the post I would have made if I had paid more attention at school! :smiley: