Press release from the FTA

[Ern1e]

Must be awful for them, balancing the price of a couple of mirrors against another person's life.

I am not defending them when I say this but don't blame the driver's ! most of the time with the big haulage companies it's the accountants pinching pennie's from here and there, I do agree with you it is sh*t to ballance a life against a few quid for the sake of saftey ! Also most of the new trucks seem to leave the factory with them fitted as standard so again a plus. Still more to be done though so any and every thing that can or will help should be looked at, and again if it only saved one person then again worth it IMO.

 

[Moda]

OT but why can't this apply to the whole of the EU ?
http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/04/Transport/Lorry__ban__dates.html

Would it make any difference?

When rules came in to limit the length of trucks the consequence was that truck design changed to sticking the engine under the cab raising the driver up high with disastrous results. If they limit trucks to under a certain weight all that will happen is that instead of 1 large lorry you'll get multiple smaller ones and higher prices. Safer????

 

[Moda]

Must be awful for them, balancing the price of a couple of mirrors against another person's life.

You can have all the safety equipment in the world fitted to a vehicle unless the driver uses them its pointless.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

If fitted it is potentially pointless. If not fitted it is definitely pointless. Which is less pointless?

The industry approach, as illustrated so ably by Miss Dee, is that not fitted is cheaper and removes responsibility from the driver. And with less responsibility, particularly in the classes of vehicles that routinely kill cyclists in London, this means they can be paid less. Win-win with the profits.

 

[Moda]

HGV drivers cannot be blamed it seems. We, as cyclists are at fault, no one else.
http://www.rha.uk.net/campaigning/press_releases/content/16179/tfl_targets_trucks_over_cycle_safety

I believe that we are all responsible for road safety but seems like I'm in a minority of 1 so I'll shut up..... the question was asked which was more dangerous 1 or 2 take a look at 'Silly Cyclist 44' on YouTube. It a great series for those that think all cyclist are innocent victims.

 

[classic33]

I believe that we are all responsible for road safety but seems like I'm in a minority of 1 so I'll shut up..... the question was asked which was more dangerous 1 or 2 take a look at 'Silly Cyclist 44' on YouTube. It a great series for those that think all cyclist are innocent victims.

IF we are to be taken as a serious means of transport on the roads, then getting professional bodies to recognise that we have a legal right to use the roads & them passing that down to their members is one way of doing it.
When professional bodies decide that what happens to us, as cyclists, on the roads is our fault alone, you have to question just how hard do we have to try to get the others on the roads to accept their share of the blame?

 

[dellzeqq]

I believe that we are all responsible for road safety but seems like I'm in a minority of 1 so I'll shut up..... the question was asked which was more dangerous 1 or 2 take a look at 'Silly Cyclist 44' on YouTube. It a great series for those that think all cyclist are innocent victims.

you're in a minority of one in knowing very little about the circumstances that lead to the Mayor of London taking this action.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I believe that we are all responsible for road safety but seems like I'm in a minority of 1 so I'll shut up..... the question was asked which was more dangerous 1 or 2 take a look at 'Silly Cyclist 44' on YouTube. It a great series for those that think all cyclist are innocent victims.

No one deserves to die because they make a mistake on the way to work. No matter what the mistake.

 

[Moda]

No one deserves to die because they make a mistake on the way to work. No matter what the mistake.

Nobody, deserves to have the life long guilt of killing someone for a split seconds inattention.

If the vehicle driver concentrates, the cyclist/pedestrian don't put themselves in dangerous positions then I think it'll go a long way to making sure every one is safe.

 

[dellzeqq]

Nobody, deserves to have the life long guilt of killing someone for a split seconds inattention.

If the vehicle driver concentrates, the cyclist/pedestrian don't put themselves in dangerous positions then I think it'll go a long way to making sure every one is safe.

read and learn
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...bEZ1NVctVTBVeFRqTmNVbGZnbXc&pli=1&hl=de#gid=0

if you have any questions feel free to ask. The author is a regular here

 

[Dan B]

Nobody, deserves to have the life long guilt of killing someone for a split seconds inattention.

And in any other work environment, a split seconds inattention would not lead to killing someone because appropriate safety measures and procedures are mandated and followed.

 

[Moda]

you're in a minority of one in knowing very little about the circumstances that lead to the Mayor of London taking this action.

Even 1 death is too many but having groups who believe that it's for others to look out for them is in my view dangerous.

 

[Dan B]

Even 1 death is too many but having groups who believe that it's for others to look out for them is in my view dangerous.

If I'm carrying an extension ladder down Oxford St on a Saturday afternoon, it is for me to look out for others.

If I'm walking along minding my own business, it is for the guy with the extension ladder to look out for me.

If you bring the risk, you shoulder the responsibility. If you're not happy with that, don't bring the risk

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Nobody, deserves to have the life long guilt of killing someone for a split seconds inattention.

If the vehicle driver concentrates, the cyclist/pedestrian don't put themselves in dangerous positions then I think it'll go a long way to making sure every one is safe.

Your logic is flawed.

If the drivers drove appropriately, and with the care and attention due to more vulnerable road users demanded by law, then even if a cyclist/pedestrian puts themselves inadvertently in a dangerous position the possibility of them becoming a KSI approaches zero.

"But she wobbled/went up the inside/ran a red light/etc., your honour"
"Sigh. Yes, it is what cyclists do, why did you not take that possibility into account?"

EDIT: On a more serious point, can you point to an example of a cyclist being killed in London by a goods vehicle as a result of the driver's split second of inattention?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Even 1 death is too many but having groups who believe that it's for others to look out for them is in my view dangerous.

I firmly believe it is up to the staff at the nearest nuclear power station/processing plant to look out for me and the general population. They are the source of risk, not me.