Yet again another cyclist dies

[carryfast]

Scanner:

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:

MisterStrood:
Let me guess…

Do you have more detailed information than Avon & Somerset Police are releasing? do spill the beans - like exactly where was this? which way were they travelling etc? what happened?

Here’s the official press release from the police - doesn’t tell us if there was a cycle lane to the side or which way they were heading - no real details: Keep in mind that the driver has been released and no mention of a charge as yet!

Media Release: 26/07/2013 8:21
We are appealing for witnesses and information following a fatal road traffic collision in Avonmouth last night (Thursday 25th July 2013). 


The incident occurred on the A403 St Andrews Road/Kingsweston Lane at around 7pm. 


A male cyclist was in collision with a lorry and died at the scene. 

The driver of the lorry, a 37-year-old man, has been arrested and has been released on bail pending further enquiries. 


Anyone who was in the area at the time and witnessed this collision is asked to contact the collision investigation unit on 101 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Than be bothered and look at the picture in the link - what do you see ? I see a cycle-path that is hardly noticeable for 99.90% of cyclists I see every day. I just judge from the experience.

This sort of signs actually means something
0

We’ve been here before on this topic but the biased ■■■■■■,just like all the majority of the cyclist supporting lobby,just ignores anyone who beats him on that argument so you’re probably wasting your time.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=102239&start=240#p1522958

What do you mean “cyclist supporting lobby”? Road users have an equal right to use roads. There is a whole other debate over right vs licence to use public highways, in that pedestrians and cyclists are there by right, whilst motor vehicles are there by licence.

It’s the idea that cyclists should be on the roads mixed with heavy motor traffic,because it’s their bs ‘right’ to put themselves in harms way,when there’s usually plenty of alternative pavement space available,often even marked for shared cyclist/pedestrian use as in that example,which is actually the problem.Until that idea changes then cyclists will continue to get flattened in ever increasing numbers together with calls for drivers to face ever more severe penalties in a vain attempt to stop the inevitable.

So if I cycle from Brent Cross to Ealing for example, I can either:

Use the cycle paths, which are sub-standard, incomplete, strewn with litter, shared with people and animals, cross many side-roads, force me to use a footbridge to the opposite side that I want to be, then force me to use a subway to get back on track.

Or

Use the A406, which is usually heavily congested and where I find motor vehicles holding me up for most of the journey.

Which would you choose?

Assuming that you’re obviously saying that you choose not to use offroad alternatives regardless of the inconvenience and that you value that convenience more than becoming a potential casualty on the roads at some point then it’s no good blaming truck or bus drivers if/when it all goes pear shaped.With a few exceptions you’ve more or less described my journey by cycle to from school years ago having at that time chosen to ignore the bs laws concerning the use of cycles on pavements in favour of staying alive.No surprise you probably agree with Boomerang Dave that the cyclist did nothing wrong here both in regards to getting involved with truck having undertook it and then ignoring the marked cycleway provision thereby causing the so called ‘issue’ with the truck from 1.27 on.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_em … xEquA2dVoU

[scanner]

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:

MisterStrood:
Let me guess…

Do you have more detailed information than Avon & Somerset Police are releasing? do spill the beans - like exactly where was this? which way were they travelling etc? what happened?

Here’s the official press release from the police - doesn’t tell us if there was a cycle lane to the side or which way they were heading - no real details: Keep in mind that the driver has been released and no mention of a charge as yet!

Media Release: 26/07/2013 8:21
We are appealing for witnesses and information following a fatal road traffic collision in Avonmouth last night (Thursday 25th July 2013). 


The incident occurred on the A403 St Andrews Road/Kingsweston Lane at around 7pm. 


A male cyclist was in collision with a lorry and died at the scene. 

The driver of the lorry, a 37-year-old man, has been arrested and has been released on bail pending further enquiries. 


Anyone who was in the area at the time and witnessed this collision is asked to contact the collision investigation unit on 101 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Than be bothered and look at the picture in the link - what do you see ? I see a cycle-path that is hardly noticeable for 99.90% of cyclists I see every day. I just judge from the experience.

This sort of signs actually means something
0

We’ve been here before on this topic but the biased ■■■■■■,just like all the majority of the cyclist supporting lobby,just ignores anyone who beats him on that argument so you’re probably wasting your time.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=102239&start=240#p1522958

What do you mean “cyclist supporting lobby”? Road users have an equal right to use roads. There is a whole other debate over right vs licence to use public highways, in that pedestrians and cyclists are there by right, whilst motor vehicles are there by licence.

It’s the idea that cyclists should be on the roads mixed with heavy motor traffic,because it’s their bs ‘right’ to put themselves in harms way,when there’s usually plenty of alternative pavement space available,often even marked for shared cyclist/pedestrian use as in that example,which is actually the problem.Until that idea changes then cyclists will continue to get flattened in ever increasing numbers together with calls for drivers to face ever more severe penalties in a vain attempt to stop the inevitable.

So if I cycle from Brent Cross to Ealing for example, I can either:

Use the cycle paths, which are sub-standard, incomplete, strewn with litter, shared with people and animals, cross many side-roads, force me to use a footbridge to the opposite side that I want to be, then force me to use a subway to get back on track.

Or

Use the A406, which is usually heavily congested and where I find motor vehicles holding me up for most of the journey.

Which would you choose?

Assuming that you’re obviously saying that you choose not to use offroad alternatives regardless of the inconvenience and that you value that convenience more than becoming a potential casualty on the roads at some point then it’s no good blaming truck or bus drivers if/when it all goes pear shaped.With a few exceptions you’ve more or less described my journey by cycle to from school years ago having at that time chosen to ignore the bs laws concerning the use of cycles on pavements in favour of staying alive.

Not at all. I’m just asking to be shown the same respect as a person in a motorised vehicle, not any more or any less. Your opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

[carryfast]

Scanner:

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:

MisterStrood:
Let me guess…

Do you have more detailed information than Avon & Somerset Police are releasing? do spill the beans - like exactly where was this? which way were they travelling etc? what happened?

Here’s the official press release from the police - doesn’t tell us if there was a cycle lane to the side or which way they were heading - no real details: Keep in mind that the driver has been released and no mention of a charge as yet!

Media Release: 26/07/2013 8:21
We are appealing for witnesses and information following a fatal road traffic collision in Avonmouth last night (Thursday 25th July 2013). 


The incident occurred on the A403 St Andrews Road/Kingsweston Lane at around 7pm. 


A male cyclist was in collision with a lorry and died at the scene. 

The driver of the lorry, a 37-year-old man, has been arrested and has been released on bail pending further enquiries. 


Anyone who was in the area at the time and witnessed this collision is asked to contact the collision investigation unit on 101 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Than be bothered and look at the picture in the link - what do you see ? I see a cycle-path that is hardly noticeable for 99.90% of cyclists I see every day. I just judge from the experience.

This sort of signs actually means something
0

We’ve been here before on this topic but the biased ■■■■■■,just like all the majority of the cyclist supporting lobby,just ignores anyone who beats him on that argument so you’re probably wasting your time.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=102239&start=240#p1522958

What do you mean “cyclist supporting lobby”? Road users have an equal right to use roads. There is a whole other debate over right vs licence to use public highways, in that pedestrians and cyclists are there by right, whilst motor vehicles are there by licence.

It’s the idea that cyclists should be on the roads mixed with heavy motor traffic,because it’s their bs ‘right’ to put themselves in harms way,when there’s usually plenty of alternative pavement space available,often even marked for shared cyclist/pedestrian use as in that example,which is actually the problem.Until that idea changes then cyclists will continue to get flattened in ever increasing numbers together with calls for drivers to face ever more severe penalties in a vain attempt to stop the inevitable.

So if I cycle from Brent Cross to Ealing for example, I can either:

Use the cycle paths, which are sub-standard, incomplete, strewn with litter, shared with people and animals, cross many side-roads, force me to use a footbridge to the opposite side that I want to be, then force me to use a subway to get back on track.

Or

Use the A406, which is usually heavily congested and where I find motor vehicles holding me up for most of the journey.

Which would you choose?

Assuming that you’re obviously saying that you choose not to use offroad alternatives regardless of the inconvenience and that you value that convenience more than becoming a potential casualty on the roads at some point then it’s no good blaming truck or bus drivers if/when it all goes pear shaped.With a few exceptions you’ve more or less described my journey by cycle to from school years ago having at that time chosen to ignore the bs laws concerning the use of cycles on pavements in favour of staying alive.

Not at all. I’m just asking to be shown the same respect as a person in a motorised vehicle, not any more or any less. Your opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

It seems obvious that you’re either going to have to get used to not being able to cycle everywhere at tour de france competitive event type speeds which of course are carried out on closed roads or put up with the risks of sharing the roads with trucks and buses all to save yourself a few minutes in journey times.

[dipper_dave]

Although I’m bored of all the cyclists threads it is a neccesary evil and I believe cyclists need some extra training qualification and not to mention insurance when cycling on busy roads, most can handle the situations with intelligence and respect for other road users by not trying to undertake them in free flowing traffic.

But the Wiggins/Froome wannabees peddling like the clappers at speeds unsuitable for the road and traffic conditions around them and also inconveniencing other cyclists they pass by need bringing to task.

The LCC needs to get its own house in order before going after trucks which already have or should have at least 3-4 mirrors trying to cover their blind spot, cyclists also need to be aware foreign registered vehicles have a totally opposite blindspot.

Cyclists should be aware that they are handing their safety to other road users when they behave in an inconsiderate and stupid manner (i.e. undertaking vehicles at speed) as its something akin to bringing a ■■■■ to a [zb] fight.

I’m all for sharing the roads and driving as safe as possible, but f-me lets try and get cyclists to at least read from the same page and not go round thinking they have a right to different set of rules than other road users.

[scanner]

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

Scanner:

Carryfast:

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:

MisterStrood:
Let me guess…

Do you have more detailed information than Avon & Somerset Police are releasing? do spill the beans - like exactly where was this? which way were they travelling etc? what happened?

Here’s the official press release from the police - doesn’t tell us if there was a cycle lane to the side or which way they were heading - no real details: Keep in mind that the driver has been released and no mention of a charge as yet!

Media Release: 26/07/2013 8:21
We are appealing for witnesses and information following a fatal road traffic collision in Avonmouth last night (Thursday 25th July 2013). 


The incident occurred on the A403 St Andrews Road/Kingsweston Lane at around 7pm. 


A male cyclist was in collision with a lorry and died at the scene. 

The driver of the lorry, a 37-year-old man, has been arrested and has been released on bail pending further enquiries. 


Anyone who was in the area at the time and witnessed this collision is asked to contact the collision investigation unit on 101 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Than be bothered and look at the picture in the link - what do you see ? I see a cycle-path that is hardly noticeable for 99.90% of cyclists I see every day. I just judge from the experience.

This sort of signs actually means something
0

We’ve been here before on this topic but the biased ■■■■■■,just like all the majority of the cyclist supporting lobby,just ignores anyone who beats him on that argument so you’re probably wasting your time.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=102239&start=240#p1522958

What do you mean “cyclist supporting lobby”? Road users have an equal right to use roads. There is a whole other debate over right vs licence to use public highways, in that pedestrians and cyclists are there by right, whilst motor vehicles are there by licence.

It’s the idea that cyclists should be on the roads mixed with heavy motor traffic,because it’s their bs ‘right’ to put themselves in harms way,when there’s usually plenty of alternative pavement space available,often even marked for shared cyclist/pedestrian use as in that example,which is actually the problem.Until that idea changes then cyclists will continue to get flattened in ever increasing numbers together with calls for drivers to face ever more severe penalties in a vain attempt to stop the inevitable.

So if I cycle from Brent Cross to Ealing for example, I can either:

Use the cycle paths, which are sub-standard, incomplete, strewn with litter, shared with people and animals, cross many side-roads, force me to use a footbridge to the opposite side that I want to be, then force me to use a subway to get back on track.

Or

Use the A406, which is usually heavily congested and where I find motor vehicles holding me up for most of the journey.

Which would you choose?

Assuming that you’re obviously saying that you choose not to use offroad alternatives regardless of the inconvenience and that you value that convenience more than becoming a potential casualty on the roads at some point then it’s no good blaming truck or bus drivers if/when it all goes pear shaped.With a few exceptions you’ve more or less described my journey by cycle to from school years ago having at that time chosen to ignore the bs laws concerning the use of cycles on pavements in favour of staying alive.

Not at all. I’m just asking to be shown the same respect as a person in a motorised vehicle, not any more or any less. Your opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

It seems obvious that you’re either going to have to get used to not being able to cycle everywhere at tour de france competitive event type speeds which of course are carried out on closed roads or put up with the risks of sharing the roads with trucks and buses all to save yourself a few minutes in journey times.

I never said I had a problem with sharing the roads with trucks and buses, that’s because I don’t.

However, it’s obvious that some truck and bus drivers have a problem sharing the road with me.

[billybigrig]

Scanner:
our opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

You see the irony here Scanner ? I’m not anti cyclist at all but …

I regularly hit 56mph in the truck, and and a ■■■■ sight more in my car, so therefore is it unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with me ■■? Or for that matter anyone in a poxy eco box type car when my big ■■■ snarling V8 accelerates and travels faster ■■

When I cycled to work many moons ago, before I discovered cars and cigarettes I preferred to cycle certain “pedestrian areas” at an appropriate speed to avoid several iffy road junctions.

[dipper_dave]

Scanner:
However, it’s obvious that some truck and bus drivers have a problem sharing the road with me.

I tend to agree with that as I cycled 6 mile a day for 2 years and have seen the best and the worst of truck driver actions around cyclists, I was only knocked off once by a puddle jumper but in general I would happily pop onto the pavement to let the truck past, and in most cases was given more than enough room.

Course on a busy city street this maybe unfeasible and I like to think most professional drivers if in doubt will let the cyclist proceed if the traffic is slow moving, but put the minority of lets say selfish cyclists and equally selfish truck/bus drivers in the same roadspace and an incident is going to occur.

We also have cyclists under some illusion that they can take up the entire roadspace to pass parked cars because of this door danger zone which is odd as they don’t seem to worry about it when flying past and splitting lanes of slow moving/stationary traffic.

I’m no expert but I would think there is more likelyhood of a car door opening when there are people actually in the car than a parked car that is chuffing empty.

[boomerang_dave]

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:

MisterStrood:
Let me guess…

Do you have more detailed information than Avon & Somerset Police are releasing? do spill the beans - like exactly where was this? which way were they travelling etc? what happened?

Here’s the official press release from the police - doesn’t tell us if there was a cycle lane to the side or which way they were heading - no real details: Keep in mind that the driver has been released and no mention of a charge as yet!

Media Release: 26/07/2013 8:21
We are appealing for witnesses and information following a fatal road traffic collision in Avonmouth last night (Thursday 25th July 2013). 


The incident occurred on the A403 St Andrews Road/Kingsweston Lane at around 7pm. 


A male cyclist was in collision with a lorry and died at the scene. 

The driver of the lorry, a 37-year-old man, has been arrested and has been released on bail pending further enquiries. 


Anyone who was in the area at the time and witnessed this collision is asked to contact the collision investigation unit on 101 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Than be bothered and look at the picture in the link - what do you see ? I see a cycle-path that is hardly noticeable for 99.90% of cyclists I see every day. I just judge from the experience.

This sort of signs actually means something
0

I looked at your link - what is not clear from the police report and your link, is where the cyclist was. I see there is a set of traffic lights, at one side there is a cycle path that appears to come to an abrupt end, possibly in the worst possible place. But on the other side of the road - and on the other side of the junction there is no cycle path. Providing a link without background information doesn’t tell us anything new - other than the cycle path that is there on the left, is extremely badly designed.

[scanner]

billybigrig:

Scanner:
our opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

You see the irony here Scanner ? I’m not anti cyclist at all but …

I regularly hit 56mph in the truck, and and a ■■■■ sight more in my car, so therefore is it unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with me ■■? Or for that matter anyone in a poxy eco box type car when my big ■■■ snarling V8 accelerates and travels faster ■■

When I cycled to work many moons ago, before I discovered cars and cigarettes I preferred to cycle certain “pedestrian areas” at an appropriate speed to avoid several iffy road junctions.

Anywhere you can legally hit 56MPH in a truck or a “■■■■ sight more” in a car, you will not find cyclists.

I don’t know if it’s unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with your big ■■■ snarling V8, personally I’m fine with it, there’s nothing like the sound of a V8, music to my ears!

One thing nobody should have to do, is share with poxy eco type cars though!

[boomerang_dave]

Most seem to acknowledge that better awareness and training on both sides is critical in the immediate to short term.

But if we really want to save lives, then the ultimate answer is separation of the two modes. Bicycles should be in properly designed cycle lanes - that should be compulsory. The problem with the existing cycle lanes is they are worse than riding on the road.

[billybigrig]

Scanner:

billybigrig:

Scanner:
our opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

You see the irony here Scanner ? I’m not anti cyclist at all but …

I regularly hit 56mph in the truck, and and a ■■■■ sight more in my car, so therefore is it unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with me ■■? Or for that matter anyone in a poxy eco box type car when my big ■■■ snarling V8 accelerates and travels faster ■■

When I cycled to work many moons ago, before I discovered cars and cigarettes I preferred to cycle certain “pedestrian areas” at an appropriate speed to avoid several iffy road junctions.

Anywhere you can legally hit 56MPH in a truck or a “■■■■ sight more” in a car, you will not find cyclists.

I don’t know if it’s unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with your big ■■■ snarling V8, personally I’m fine with it, there’s nothing like the sound of a V8, music to my ears!

One thing nobody should have to do, is share with poxy eco type cars though!

I live in a rural area with a few undulating dual carriageways so 40 or 50 in a truck which leaves the potential for rapidly meeting a 15-20 mph cyclist around a bend or cresting a hill. That said you’re just as likely to meet a rickety old tractor, old duffers out on a garden centre/National trust jolly or horse riders doing the same sort of speed so I drive accordingly, defensively and with anticipation.
We’re horsey people ourselves and this “territorial” argument is the same as the horsey set repeat. Drivers not giving enough space when passing etc bridleways they won’t use for a multitude of reasons i.e. they aren’t kept up, are uneven/slippy
It’s as much a human nature thing as anything else

[scanner]

Boomerang Dave:
Most seem to acknowledge that better awareness and training on both sides is critical in the immediate to short term.

But if we really want to save lives, then the ultimate answer is separation of the two modes. Bicycles should be in properly designed cycle lanes - that should be compulsory. The problem with the existing cycle lanes is they are worse than riding on the road.

They certainly are, when the choice is certain pain from riding a road bike on a cyclepath or potential pain from being hit by another vehicle on the carriageway, I’ll take my chances on the road every time.

[eastangliantrucker]

Boomerang Dave:
Can’t be arsed responding to the rest of the misinterpreted senseless bollox to be honest.

Have a nice day.

Your only response is to insult me and my opinions! Is that all you’ve got?

You’ve been found out haven’t you Dave! You think you’re superior to the people you’re trying to wind up, and for whom you have no respect. In fact, you’re just another troll with a keyboard attached to the internet! And as such, your opinions are worthless.

[scanner]

billybigrig:

Scanner:

billybigrig:

Scanner:
our opinion of cycling on the pavement is going to be very different from a pedestrian who has a guide dog, is elderly or infirm, has young children etc etc. I average 15MPH on my bike and hit 30-35MPH regularly, it’s not fair to expect pedestrians to share the same path as me.

You see the irony here Scanner ? I’m not anti cyclist at all but …

I regularly hit 56mph in the truck, and and a ■■■■ sight more in my car, so therefore is it unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with me ■■? Or for that matter anyone in a poxy eco box type car when my big ■■■ snarling V8 accelerates and travels faster ■■

When I cycled to work many moons ago, before I discovered cars and cigarettes I preferred to cycle certain “pedestrian areas” at an appropriate speed to avoid several iffy road junctions.

Anywhere you can legally hit 56MPH in a truck or a “■■■■ sight more” in a car, you will not find cyclists.

I don’t know if it’s unfair to expect cyclists to share the road with your big ■■■ snarling V8, personally I’m fine with it, there’s nothing like the sound of a V8, music to my ears!

One thing nobody should have to do, is share with poxy eco type cars though!

I live in a rural area with a few undulating dual carriageways so 40 or 50 in a truck which leaves the potential for rapidly meeting a 15-20 mph cyclist around a bend or cresting a hill. That said you’re just as likely to meet a rickety old tractor, old duffers out on a garden centre/National trust jolly or horse riders doing the same sort of speed so I drive accordingly, defensively and with anticipation.
We’re horsey people ourselves and this “territorial” argument is the same as the horsey set repeat. Drivers not giving enough space when passing etc bridleways they won’t use for a multitude of reasons i.e. they aren’t kept up, are uneven/slippy
It’s as much a human nature thing as anything else

Absolutely, in a rural area I drive very differently too. I have a little experience of farming and horses and I do make an extra effort around horses. When I drove a lowloader I always turned the beacons off and slowed down as quietly as I could and the horsey peeps would always give a wave and a smile. Even now if it’s dark and I come across Police horses in London I always put my hand over the flashing light on my bicycle as i’m passing. Horses see danger everywhere and are unpredictable, so i try my best to help my fellow road users out. It’s nice when someone helps me out too, whatever I’m driving or riding

[billybigrig]

Scanner:

Boomerang Dave:
Most seem to acknowledge that better awareness and training on both sides is critical in the immediate to short term.

But if we really want to save lives, then the ultimate answer is separation of the two modes. Bicycles should be in properly designed cycle lanes - that should be compulsory. The problem with the existing cycle lanes is they are worse than riding on the road.

They certainly are, when the choice is certain pain from riding a road bike on a cyclepath or potential pain from being hit by another vehicle on the carriageway, I’ll take my chances on the road every time.

Out of interest Scanner, what would be the “certain pain from a cyclepath” ■■

When I cycled to work, some 5 miles or so, it was over rough terrain so I chose an appropriate bike. We live in the country so one of our cars is a big diesel 4x4. If I’m going to certain places or the roads are bad I take that for comfort and durability. If I was going 40 miles into the city or a decent distance I take mine.

I guess what I’m saying is, in the interests of self preservation would it not be smarter to choose a more suitable cycle to deal with the cycle paths than put yourself in a potentially dangerous road ■■
Surely that would be a quick easy fix rather than wait for government legislation and investment in a silken cycle path network which lets be honest, if it ever happened would be done wrong at the mercy of quangos and consultants.

[billybigrig]

Scanner, you realise we are having a genuine, sensible and productive discussion here, on the internet

Maybe the idea will catch on ■■?

[scanner]

billybigrig:
Scanner, you realise we are having a genuine, sensible and productive discussion here, on the internet

Maybe the idea will catch on ■■?

Bloody hell! Gimme a second and I’ll think of something daft!

[eastangliantrucker]

Boomerang Dave:

EastAnglianTrucker:
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:
Yes, but we’re talking about truck driving and truck drivers. Pay attention!

Oh, I’ve paid attention. Possibly more than you realise. Why does my comment have no validity in this context? On your say so? I bet your neighbours love you!

EastAnglianTrucker:
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:
Where have I said that? To save you looking - I haven’t - ever!

i didn’t say you had said Carryfast is/was a truck driver. Your comment about Carryfast being an example of why truck drivers need to be persecuted by your little Englander attitudes, makes it apparent that you consider him one of the ill educated drivers you seem to despise!

EastAnglianTrucker:
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!

Boomerang Dave:
That’s really funny mate… really: Where have I said other people are not entitled to their opinion? Mentioning the word fascism in this context is stupidity of the highest order - get a grip.

Why? I don’t think you have any concept of the ■■■■■■■■ you’re spouting. If you had, you would realise the term i chose was very appropriate. If this country was subject to the sort of law making you seem to advocate, it would be even more of a dictatorship than it currently is.

EastAnglianTrucker:
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:
I think you’ll find I have used my words carefully, noting ‘some’ and have already said I have worked with many intelligent drivers. You are starting to sound a bit like a ■■■■. I didn’t realise this was a Grammar test… oh - it isn’t. That’s ok then!

Yes Mr Pot. If you feel able to criticise truck drivers educational standards, you shouldn’t be surprised when someone picks you up on your own mistakes… The problem is, you don’t even recognise your own grammatical mistake do you?

EastAnglianTrucker:
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:
Nope not judge and jury… but certainly in the instance I agree with the Judges, Juries, Solicitors, Barristers, Law Makers, Police Officers… do you? Because as sure as eggs are eggs… that’s is what they think and that is why they are sending HGV drivers to prison. Slow down mate - breathe a little and think about it.

And there we have it in black and white! You believe all of the people you listed all agree with each other! And it would appear you also believe they are all on the same side in their attempts to "send HGV drivers to prison. Not only do you have no proof of what you say, it patently cannot be true. It is just your own delude belief isn’t it?

EastAnglianTrucker:
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:
Yes, but we’re talking about truck driving and truck drivers.

And why does that mean there can be no comparisons drawn with other professions? Because you say so?

It doesn’t work like that, no matter how hard you stamp your foot!

Boomerang Dave:
Can’t be arsed responding to the rest of the misinterpreted senseless bollox to be honest.

Have a nice day.

As I’ve already noted, you’ve been exposed as someone who isn’t interested in hearing any opinion unless it agrees with your own. For some reason you haven’t yet chosen to reveal, if you even know yourself, you’ve decided to come here and insult people because they don’t agree with you, and you feel able to do that because many of them are not as articulate as you pretend to be.

Which works well until someone argues back. Then you simply avoid answering their individual points, and insult them instead. How grown up of you.

It is unfortunate, because the issue of drivers, trucks and cyclist co existing deserves better, and more intelligent discussion than you seem to able to manage.

[albion1971]

I guess what I’m saying is, in the interests of self preservation would it not be smarter to choose a more suitable cycle to deal with the cycle paths than put yourself in a potentially dangerous road ■■

Sorry to be pedantic but there is nothing dangerous about the roads.It is the drivers and the cyclists that are the problem.
Attitudes on both sides need to change for a start!

[scanner]

billybigrig:

Scanner:

Boomerang Dave:
Most seem to acknowledge that better awareness and training on both sides is critical in the immediate to short term.

But if we really want to save lives, then the ultimate answer is separation of the two modes. Bicycles should be in properly designed cycle lanes - that should be compulsory. The problem with the existing cycle lanes is they are worse than riding on the road.

They certainly are, when the choice is certain pain from riding a road bike on a cyclepath or potential pain from being hit by another vehicle on the carriageway, I’ll take my chances on the road every time.

Out of interest Scanner, what would be the “certain pain from a cyclepath” ■■

When I cycled to work, some 5 miles or so, it was over rough terrain so I chose an appropriate bike. We live in the country so one of our cars is a big diesel 4x4. If I’m going to certain places or the roads are bad I take that for comfort and durability. If I was going 40 miles into the city or a decent distance I take mine.

I guess what I’m saying is, in the interests of self preservation would it not be smarter to choose a more suitable cycle to deal with the cycle paths than put yourself in a potentially dangerous road ■■
Surely that would be a quick easy fix rather than wait for government legislation and investment in a silken cycle path network which lets be honest, if it ever happened would be done wrong at the mercy of quangos and consultants.

It’s the awful pounding my poor arse gets! Especially with a rucksack holding all my bits and bobs, ouch!

It would indeed, but then I think of people years ago who had no choice but to ride around on horrible old boneshakers and I feel a bit ashamed to be honest, moaning about stuff Plus I’m hoping to cycle to Spain next year, on the very same bike, so I might as well get used to it…

As for quangos and consultants… I know what you mean