Reply to: Sensible !

[d000hg]

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it.

"stupidity or misunderstanding caused it" sounds rather like the definition of an accident to me.

[BrilloPad]

Did anyone see the clip on BC News website where they put a cyclist in the driving seat of a big tipper truck and challenged her to see the policeman in full hi viz cycling around the truck? She was more than shocked about how little she could actually see, especially when the bike was in front of the truck where it would be using those stupid cycle boxes at the lights.

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it. Some lives may be saved if the cyclist worked under the assumption that (a) they haven't been seen and (b) the truck will turn into them...

+1

Also, most of the victims are women. As they are less aggressive. Cyclists need to be far more aggressive. Lots of red light jumping, use pavements, etcetc.

[original PM]

Did anyone see the clip on BC News website where they put a cyclist in the driving seat of a big tipper truck and challenged her to see the policeman in full hi viz cycling around the truck? She was more than shocked about how little she could actually see, especially when the bike was in front of the truck where it would be using those stupid cycle boxes at the lights.

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it. Some lives may be saved if the cyclist worked under the assumption that (a) they haven't been seen and (b) the truck will turn into them...

Well seeing as when you drive you work on the assumption that everyone else is going to do something completely unexpected and prepare for that it seems like as a cyclist you should do to.

Mainly because in a car you may get a dent in your door but on a bike you may get a dent in your head.

I think at times some cyclists work on the assumption that they are special and fragile so everyone should take extra care to avoid them. But when you consider no one crashes their car on purpose then that is a pretty stupid view to take.

[malvolio]

Did anyone see the clip on BC News website where they put a cyclist in the driving seat of a big tipper truck and challenged her to see the policeman in full hi viz cycling around the truck? She was more than shocked about how little she could actually see, especially when the bike was in front of the truck where it would be using those stupid cycle boxes at the lights.

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it. Some lives may be saved if the cyclist worked under the assumption that (a) they haven't been seen and (b) the truck will turn into them...

[vetran]

Just legalise squashing them. Much simpler.

costs a blooming fortune to police & send ambulances.

[xoggoth]

Just legalise squashing them. Much simpler.

[NickFitz]

If I undertake a lorry on the motorway and they crash into me, its my fault.

Why is it not the same if you are on a bike

If you're driving down the road and a lorry in the adjacent lane suddenly turns while half-way past you, thereby scooping your car on to the pavement or the other side of the road or maybe even crushing the car beneath its trailer, is that your fault?

[SueEllen]

If I undertake a lorry on the motorway and they crash into me, its my fault.

Why is it not the same if you are on a bike

Actually your first point isn't true.

I regularly "undertake" vehicles including lorries on A roads and motorways around London due to congestion.

Cyclists, pedestrians and horses are seen as vulnerable road users so it's the faster vehicle drivers fault until proven otherwise.

[fullyautomatix]

Corbyn would definitely ban all lorries from London and provide a safe dedicated route for all cyclists. He is the only politician who we can rely on to tackle issues sensibly.

[SimonMac]

If I undertake a lorry on the motorway and they crash into me, its my fault.

Why is it not the same if you are on a bike

[NickFitz]

FFS. "Insisting that I ensure that I don't crush people under my massive lorry and can see what's around me is a blunt regulatory tool." Bunch of s

[vetran]

I would be interested to see the back up to the stats:

Who caused the accident? I am not saying that all drivers are innocent but having seen how some of the cyclists act on roads: I believe both sides can be at fault.

The side guards: how many accidents would have been prevented / minimised if these were in place & if it’s worth regulation then fine but let’s make it UK wide.

Doesn't matter who caused it, someone is still dead. By all means prosecute muppet cyclists many of them need it.

The side guards also prevent cars & other road users going under them, having been between 2 lorries who decided to overtake me both sides it was a real threat.

I agree UK wide and applying to every lorry regardless of origin would be great.

I suspect as its London only then enforcement will be via camera & police stops. Would love to See VOSA (as mentioned above) inspecting and certifying lorries as complying so ANPR can be used.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I would be interested to see the back up to the stats:

Who caused the accident? I am not saying that all drivers are innocent but having seen how some of the cyclists act on roads: I believe both sides can be at fault.

The side guards: how many accidents would have been prevented / minimised if these were in place & if it’s worth regulation then fine but let’s make it UK wide.

Who is enforcing the regulation? Or is it only in the event of an accident that the guards are looked for?

VOSA will enforce it with large penalties for not complying if past history is anything to go by. HGV's have to have regular inspections (used to be every 6 weeks) and this requirement will be added to the list of things that need to be checked. The costs for complying will probably be quite high as the 'guards' will, more than likely, have to come straight from the manufacturers. Again, if past history is anything to go by foreign lorries won't have to comply.

The side guards may prevent cyclists or pedestrians being dragged under an HGV but I wonder what other types of accidents they will cause - same applies to the new mirrors - both will add to the width of the vehicle.

[NibblyPig]

I would be interested to see the back up to the stats:

Who caused the accident? I am not saying that all drivers are innocent but having seen how some of the cyclists act on roads: I believe both sides can be at fault.

The side guards: how many accidents would have been prevented / minimised if these were in place & if it’s worth regulation then fine but let’s make it UK wide.

Who is enforcing the regulation? Or is it only in the event of an accident that the guards are looked for?

Mostly lorries turning left at junctions apparently, partially mitigated with advance cycle boxes but they only help when they have room to put them down and you have room to cycle into them and no bmw/audi twats have parked in them

[DimPrawn]

But lorries are still free to squash cyclists in every other UK town and city?

Don't want dead cyclists putting of Chinese and Russian dirty money from the London property market.