it does equate to risk if you don't know what the risk is. That's what I'm saying... That the cyclist doesn't understand the risk... The risk that lays with the vehicle and driver. And how can they avoid it if they don't know? You're having a go at me for wanting to educate cyclists, Yet you admit you wouldn't be "dumb" enough to ride up the side of one, you tell your own group not to ride up them and you admit you head for safety when you see one? Its completely contradictory. I never said there were no other risks, like lorries coming up from behind, or cars hitting cyclists, its not a false analysis just bcoz you talk about about one element of danger.
21/10/13 - female cyclist down in Camden - Tipper lorry
- Thread starter Beebo
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
it does equate to risk if you don't know what the risk is. That's what I'm saying... That the cyclist doesn't understand the risk... The risk that lays with the vehicle and driver. And how can they avoid it if they don't know? You're having a go at me for wanting to educate cyclists, Yet you admit you wouldn't be "dumb" enough to ride up the side of one, you tell your own group not to ride up them and you admit you head for safety when you see one? Its completely contradictory. I never said there were no other risks, like lorries coming up from behind, or cars hitting cyclists, its not a false analysis just bcoz you talk about about one element of danger.
[QUOTE 2735052, member: 9609"]I'm not here to defend the haulage industry. It is a hard pushed industry and hard pushed business often need to cut corners to survive, low paid drivers pressed to get that extra load in, probably haven't got time to give a sh1t about other people.
The two companies you mention. Is one carrying it's own products (ie its business is not haulage) and is the other a hire and reward haulier (carrying other peoples goods)?
From my own experiences as a cyclist, I think the "carrying our own goods companies" are usually better driven than the hire and reward boys.[/quote]
Sort of. Cemex is basically a mixtures and aggregates business, but they do haul a lot of bulk around. Thames Materials do have an aggregates business, but they are, as you say, at the dirty end of the industry. The real difficulty is that the construction industry is made up of subcontractors on short length contracts, and that main contractors don't manage them well. There is also the question of (this is the best word I can come up with and I may return and change it) machismo. There's a lot of it about, and it takes effort on the part of management to eliminate it - it's a fact that a good number of skip and tipper truck drivers are aggressive in a personal way.
And then.......the HSE hasn't been interested in off-site risks.
The two companies you mention. Is one carrying it's own products (ie its business is not haulage) and is the other a hire and reward haulier (carrying other peoples goods)?
From my own experiences as a cyclist, I think the "carrying our own goods companies" are usually better driven than the hire and reward boys.[/quote]
Sort of. Cemex is basically a mixtures and aggregates business, but they do haul a lot of bulk around. Thames Materials do have an aggregates business, but they are, as you say, at the dirty end of the industry. The real difficulty is that the construction industry is made up of subcontractors on short length contracts, and that main contractors don't manage them well. There is also the question of (this is the best word I can come up with and I may return and change it) machismo. There's a lot of it about, and it takes effort on the part of management to eliminate it - it's a fact that a good number of skip and tipper truck drivers are aggressive in a personal way.
And then.......the HSE hasn't been interested in off-site risks.
well, that's all right then.....
take a look at this "swiss cheese model". Companies use this to protect themselves against disasters occurring. Its called process safety. Its where they risk assess what could happen and put a procedure in place to stop it.
http://patientsafetyed.duhs.duke.edu/module_e/swiss_cheese.html
however, by design, no procedure can be fool proof, so they add layers of protection ensuring that "holes" in each procedure don't line up, so that if the first measure fails, the next measure hopefully prevents the disaster.
now if you apply that to what we're talking about you could label each measure as follows:
lorry equipment (mirrors)
driver training (human factors)
lorry equipment (sensors)
road design
so... You improve the visibility of the driver by making the mirrors bigger, but you know on its own, that's not enough, so you target your drivers with specific training, but in case they fail to look you add in some new technology that senses cyclists and warns the driver. Meanwhile road design is improved. Hopefully, these layers of protection working together prevent a cyclist getting run over a killed.
but what if they don't? What if one of these layers missing and holes in the procedures line up? And next thing another cyclist is dead?
wouldn't it be sensible to have another layer of protection called cyclist education?
this is what I'm saying. Its not victim blaming, it's adding in another layer of protection...so that if all the other processes fail, or are missing, then hopefully disaster is avoided because the cyclist knew of the risk and decided to wait behind.
and my original suggestion was all around what we, as a cycle community could do, to ensure that layer was there, although some people chose to have a go at me ... even though they admit they wouldn't be dumb enough to cycle up the side of a tipper and they already tell their own group not to do it.
i would suggest the reason he isn't "dumb" enough to do this (his words not mine) is because of his experience as a cyclist and the fact he's been educated about the dangers of tippers. Something not all cyclists have had the luxury of; there have been plenty of posts in the beginner section asking for "commuting advice" bcoz the last time they were on a bike was when they were 10.
so don't tell me I'm victim blaming.
http://patientsafetyed.duhs.duke.edu/module_e/swiss_cheese.html
however, by design, no procedure can be fool proof, so they add layers of protection ensuring that "holes" in each procedure don't line up, so that if the first measure fails, the next measure hopefully prevents the disaster.
now if you apply that to what we're talking about you could label each measure as follows:
lorry equipment (mirrors)
driver training (human factors)
lorry equipment (sensors)
road design
so... You improve the visibility of the driver by making the mirrors bigger, but you know on its own, that's not enough, so you target your drivers with specific training, but in case they fail to look you add in some new technology that senses cyclists and warns the driver. Meanwhile road design is improved. Hopefully, these layers of protection working together prevent a cyclist getting run over a killed.
but what if they don't? What if one of these layers missing and holes in the procedures line up? And next thing another cyclist is dead?
wouldn't it be sensible to have another layer of protection called cyclist education?
this is what I'm saying. Its not victim blaming, it's adding in another layer of protection...so that if all the other processes fail, or are missing, then hopefully disaster is avoided because the cyclist knew of the risk and decided to wait behind.
and my original suggestion was all around what we, as a cycle community could do, to ensure that layer was there, although some people chose to have a go at me ... even though they admit they wouldn't be dumb enough to cycle up the side of a tipper and they already tell their own group not to do it.
i would suggest the reason he isn't "dumb" enough to do this (his words not mine) is because of his experience as a cyclist and the fact he's been educated about the dangers of tippers. Something not all cyclists have had the luxury of; there have been plenty of posts in the beginner section asking for "commuting advice" bcoz the last time they were on a bike was when they were 10.
so don't tell me I'm victim blaming.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
If there is an accident between two road users it is common sense to examine the behaviour of both parties.
Calling that victim blaming is stupid, but there are some members on here who are so hidebound by their own ideology they are unable to apply an open mind to certain topics.
Don't believe me?
Pop over to current affairs and debates and start a thread about immigration.
Calling that victim blaming is stupid, but there are some members on here who are so hidebound by their own ideology they are unable to apply an open mind to certain topics.
Don't believe me?
Pop over to current affairs and debates and start a thread about immigration.
Boris Bajic
Guest
Excellent post. Many drivers are dreadful, but in some cyclists one sees an innocence about defensive behaviour that is alarming. We all see it regularly. Advocating training 'to prevent the taking of unnecessary risks in ignorance' is not tantamount to blaming victims. Nor is it ignoring the other (perhaps more damaging) side of the issue.
As to the 'immigration row', there's no need to start anything. Look at the thread below. Plenty of welcoming attitudes to someone with non-native English.
Some egregious piffle now deleted in embarrassment, but the core of the sentiment can still be detected. Sorry to go OT:
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/woman-pushed-of-bike-by-police-officer.142415/
NEO
Active Member
- Location
- lancashire
Best wishes for a swift recovery.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Aperitif
Meme bar
- Location
- ...I don't have much idea - really.
I was thinking about this thread, during quieter moments on my ride to work this morning, and sizing up vehicles etc. and one thing came to mind - no two actually. One. Do any statistics exist on the original training of lorry drivers ie: Driving test passed in the UK, or are EU (for example) qualified drivers of HGVs allowed to drive anywhere in Europe without 'retraining' to drive on 'our' side of the road...first in a small vehicle, then in a lorry..? It just made me wonder a bit - and I'm not doubting competence. Two. Just calm down everyone. It seems wherever I poke my nose into a thread on here, there is animosity developing, or someone trying to 'win' a point. Sure, we all have experience - unique experience often, so let's share and learn for the most part, rather than confront each other, but collectively confront issues of safety and simple road sense that keeps cyclists safe.
I seriously can't be bothered. And to be clear - my horror was a composite in the sense that the ignorance of the real circumstances, the lack of analysis and the individual were all of a piece. Still and all - if this mission for repentance ever comes off I doubt that any of us will ever notice. Leaflet away!
no, i didn't, you just interpreted how you wanted to, no one but you or Dell interpreted it that way. Dell i can understand, he obviously has an issue with me judging by the uncalled for abusive message he once sent (which after someone told me he was actually quite nice i was prepared to forgive, but now i think my first instincts were right). But you came in late and seem to have just jumped on his bandwagon. You obviously don't disagree with my last post showing the process safety model and how it can apply to us as the best you can do is tell me i have misinterpreted the fact he's telling cyclists to undertake (when in fact all that does is make me laugh that you see the dangers around cyclists but then don't give a toss about lorries). You should have read my conversation in the context of everyone else's, not waded in after him and tried to gang up on me, when in fact i totally support the full responsibility being on drivers and don't think cyclists should have to wear hi viz or helmets just to frickin survive! i think drivers should open their frickin eyes! But everyone is human, and they make mistakes, so while it would be nice to be able to go about our daily business without worrying we're going under the wheels of a truck, this is reality and what i really want, in the real world, is for everyone to get home safe, uninjured, untraumatised (and that includes drivers) and if we can all work together to achieve that then all the better. Obviously i wasn't really planning on coming to London ( i think i actually said "it makes me want to...") what i was suggesting is that cyclists take a more proactive stance in educating other less experienced cyclists (Dell himself admits he heads for safety when he sees a tipper). But now he so rudely tells me to stay away like owns the place i might just pop down!!2735454 said:
And if you really want to get a measure of what I'm really like, i hear you ride with swansonj... Well ask him. I'm sure he'll fill you in on all the work i do for the cyclists across the company, in my own time, to make their commute a little bit safer, which includes driver training and I'm also pushing for the new technology, plus the other stuff with other companies he probably doesn't know about. Across-the-board my company has spent over £12k this year just on cyclists, and i haven't even added in the costs of a refurb of cycle facilities at one site coz i don't yet know them, or the training costs for the next year for the rest of the cyclists to teach them the cycling techniques that we are all well versed in. And that is down to me. I may not be on here much and i do tend to stick to the light hearted banter but it doesn't mean i don't know what I'm talking about, am any less experienced than you or Dell, and yes actually I AM qualified too, so next time you should maybe think a little harder before ganging up with your mates and picking on someone. The bottom line is, the current system is failing us and i don't really want to see another one of us have to "take one for the team" (surprisingly that includes you) so until the system is fixed i will continue to look out for my fellow cyclists and if i can persuade someone to think a little bit harder before under or overtaking a lorry, and possibly save them from this awful fate, then yea, I'll put myself out there.
I'm a little sick of being bullied and made out to be the bad person, so I'm probably gonna leave this thread now. I think the majority of people know where I'm coming from and i know longer care if you or Dell "get me" or understand what I'm saying. I actually like to think i have a life outside of this thread.
Buggi
you might not like what I've written in your thread, but I'm telling you this - I'm really surprised that you started the thing off without asking me. Really surprised.
Simon
HI Simon.
We have asked Buggie to change the heading of the post to take out FNRttC.
Cheers.
The mods.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/night-ride-to-coast-from-solihull-warwick-area.74150/
(obviously I can do abusive, but the message was written more in pity than in anger)
Last edited:
o yea that's right, you had a go at me in the thread followed by the message and then reported me to the mods. It may surprise you to know you don't own Friday nights and you don't own the coast and you can't own a phrase, but yea report it to the mods coz that's not petty! Not that it ever once occured to you that perhaps i didn't know it was "your" thing and maybe just a polite request would have been sufficient. It may also surprise you i don't need your permission to arrange an FNRttC although if you'd asked politely i probably would have never used the catchphrase again. But no, you just had to go over the top, as you've done in this thread. Well.. I don't like being told rudely what to do so I'll use it when i want.
by the way you don't own London either so when i stay away it will be be bcoz i cant be arsed to drag my ass 120 miles to hand out a leaflet, and not bcoz you told me to stay away.
- Status
