A1 Southbound (Grantham) Cyclist Near Miss.

[glasgowcyclist]

Sorry, but what? The definition of a professional is being paid for an activity.

Because they earn a living whilst driving? Then they're no more a professional driver than my local pizza delivery boy on his moped, or some of the cycling courier nutters I see in the city...

Driving a bus or a lorry only means you've passed a test of basic competence to handle that class of vehicle safely, it's not an award of an advanced driving qualification.

They are commercial drivers.


GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If you saw the cyclist 3 seconds ahead they would be 306 feet away and in the dark, then I think that is pretty good going.

Actually he may only have been 210 feet away, assuming he was travelling at his max permissible speed of 50mph, which, if your link in your subsequent post is correct, would have left him 10ft short in his stopping distance.

GC

 

[davester65]

I would imagine that although you can afford to own and fuel a pedal cycle, the same cannot be said of the 44 tonne Heavy Good Vehicle that you and everyone else in a similar drivers cabs consider themselves to be professional drivers. Whilst you may drive for a profession that does not make you a professional driver.

The fact remains that the cyclist was not contravening any road traffic act / legislation, and I would suggest that it was the responsibility of all other road users to modify their behaviour to accommodate the cyclist. It is often suggested that the strength of any team is determined by the weakest link; in this case pedestrians or cyclists. Therefore all vehicles on the road should make allowances for all possible occurrences and modify their behaviour to enable them to effectively respond to actions undertaken by these weak member of the team. I would suggest that a disproportionate volume of adverse road traffic incidences involves commercial vehicles (including company cars). As in the cases involving tipper trucks in the capital. I return to the stance that whilst these people may driver for a profession that does not make them professional drivers.

I deliberately waited a few days before replying to this post, so...Mr MattyKo here's some food for thought

Am i a Professional Driver......that i cannot answer......but here's some stats for ya......I passed my car driving test in 1984, I passed my Taxi driving test in 1998, I passed my Class 2 and Class 1 HGV Driving tests in 2004. I have been driving for a living since 1998, during that time i have driven in excess of 1 Million Miles, i have NEVER been involved in a RTA of any description and in 29 years of driving i have only had 2 licence endorsements for speeding first one in 1985 and second one in 2004.
I have a C&G qualification in safe loading and load security, i have already attained the Drivers CPC qualification which comes into effect in Sept 2014. I am also S.A.F.E.D qualified.
Does that make me a professional driver? You decide.

If you read my original post you will note that i concede he was not breaking the law, and i WILL accommodate ALL other road users....providing i can SEE THEM!

With regards to the rest of your post,

firstly, can you provide evidence to back up your claims about traffic incidents involving commercial vehicles?
secondly, this near miss didn't happen in London, it happened in rural Lincolnshire, so why refer to London?
Before you ask...yes, i do drive in London...fairly frequently.....usually with Abnormal Loads.....like this one.........if you recognise the building in the background you will know that i was in EC1.



So what do you do for a living?................apart from Trolling.

 

[davester65]

I’m confused, why you only had 3 seconds to react? If the visibility is poor why is traffic flowing at 70mph? Should they adjust the speed to suit the conditions i.e. it’s too dark to see other road users slow down. Am I missing something?

Visibility wasn't poor, it was a clear night...his bike lights were VERY poor and his Hi Vis Vest was...let's say grubby. I wasn't travelling at 70mph, HGV speed restriction is 50mph, it wasn't that i didn't see him....I couldn't see him until i was very close....i.e. 3 seconds away.
Yes...other road users should adjust their speed....but try telling that to a car driver who can legally do 70mph.

 

[davester65]

At 70mph, 3 seconds is about 90 meters.

Multiply that by a factor of between 3 and 10 depending on load weight to get HGV stopping distance!

 

[davester65]

Actually he may only have been 210 feet away, assuming he was travelling at his max permissible speed of 50mph, which, if your link in your subsequent post is correct, would have left him 10ft short in his stopping distance.

GC

My point exactly....had i not been wide awake, he was toast........i was only able to avoid this rider by squeezing my truck across the white lines and part way into the outside lane, which gave the car driver passing me at the time a bit of a fright.........good quality lights and a clean hi vis vest would have given me ample warning to avoid or slow down.

 

[mcshroom]

Or as a 'professional driver' you could have driven within the limits of your own vehicle and not palmed off your responsibility for safety onto other road users.

 

[stu9000]

Rules and laws only go so far. Its judgement that keeps us all alive.

When I'm sailing there are no police and still relatively few regs. If I get it wrong I could wreck the boat and maybe even drown. So I think about the choices I and where they might put me .

When I'm cycling there are some roads that I just know are very dangerous. Even though it Is technically legal that point would be cold comfort to myself and my family in the event of an accident.

 

[buggi]

Seems to me that the OPs anger has arisen out of the fright he had that he was going to hit the cyclist, and then almost the car next to him.

There's nothing wrong with cycling on a A road if you are legally allowed. It takes guts, but if it's legal, it's legal and driver's should expect them. What is wrong is to do it at night with substandard lights that can't reasonably be seen by a driver doing 70mph (or even 50mph) and thus give the said reasonable driver enough time to slow and take action.

If he was lit up like a Christmas tree I would say to the driver you need to be aware they are allowed on there and adjust your driving accordingly. However, if he had crap lights that can only be seen from 50 yards on a 70mph road, then i'd be saying to the cyclist, you need to do better!

i do sometimes wonder though why authorities don't provide a segrated lane on A roads that are clearly much like motorways. They have allowed this speed limit because the road is straight and there is a most likely a "no stopping" rule allowing the road to effectively become a motorway. If they want it to be like a motoraway, why do they not provide a segregated lane or alternative route alongside? There is a road like this by me, but it has an alternative route provided for cyclists. Although its not illegal to use it on a bike, i've never seen a bike on there. It's 3 lanes wide in some places with a 70mph limit.

 

[mcshroom]

Simple reason. If they make it a motorway then they have to provide an alternative for prohibited vehicles, so they need a full alternative road. Just making a 'motorway-lite' A-road is significantly cheaper.

 

[glenn forger]

...had i not been wide awake, he was toast..

You treat being "wide awake" as some kind of freak bonus.

 

[screenman]

So what started off as a warning to cyclist on the A1 now seems like an attack on some posters, sad.