Another HGV death in London (split from original thread)

[Linford]

Linf.

I don't see it as an acceptable risk and I try not to do it. I leave a gap in front to position myself at the rear of the HGV.

My point which has been lost in my rambling posts is that car drivers have accidents where they position themselves next to the HGV. I don't see a huge outcry about stupid drivers going up next to HGVs - in fact when the popular media gets hold of the story the talk is all about blind spots. Not one story had about how cars shouldn't go near HGVs. Now with cyclists because the media and establisment is anti-cycling to a large degree (just hear what our mayor is saying about us at the moment) it is easy to blame cyclists and everyone nods wisely.

I guess my point is that it isn't that simple. I avoid HGVs and especially tippers like the plague. But there are times when one has to interact with them and a mistake by me shouldn't mean death because the vehicle is being operated half blind.

Believe me, I thought that I had a very close brush with death when the Bablake wine lorry skimmed my elbow a few months ago at 50+mph...it really put the shytes up me. I had to stop when I could pull in to gather my courage to continue...it totally spoiled the ride. You don't get this in a car or on a motorbike as you can always stay ahead of them.

We are very vulnerable from overtaking vehicles, we both agree on this, but this wasn't the point I was disagreeing on.

 

[theclaud]

'They still kill' is a fairly unambiguous statement. If that isn't specifically what you mean, would you like to reword it ?

It's an unambiguous statement, because it's an unambiguous fact. Lorries/drivers/construction companies/hauliers are killing cyclists and pedestrians - crushing their flesh and bones. No amount of poisonous trolling makes any difference to this fact.

 

[Linford]

No it doesn't. You can kill someone yet not be at fault. How would you word it? I cannot think of another word for kill that means... well... kill.

To kill implies responsibility for the death of someone. You cannot make that claim if the person has deliberately put themselves in harms way....would you say that a train driver is responsible for the death of someone who lies down on the track and waits for it to roll over them ?

 

[totallyfixed]

A little balance here I think, drivers of large vehicles obviously do not start the day with the intention of killing a cyclist, the impact on the life of a driver that has been involved in a fatality is massive and will be with them for the rest of their lives. Some of these drivers may never get behind the wheel again even if they were not to blame.

I personally would like to see a scheme where cyclists spent a few hours in the cab of a truck / bus and drivers had to ride a bike in London. Not the complete answer I know, but at least it would be a start to appreciating each others problems, whether there would be the political will to do something like this is another question. At the very least we could have TV programmes airing short documentaries of the problems road users face in London [and elsewhere for that matter].

If there is little or no understanding of each others problems on the road there will always be friction between road users. I have never cycled in London but when I have been there as a driver or on foot it always seemed that everyone was in a rush to get somewhere and sod everyone else. I never experienced this in any other city in Europe where cycling levels are much higher.

 

[Linford]

It's an unambiguous statement, because it's an unambiguous fact. Lorries/drivers/construction companies/hauliers are killing cyclists and pedestrians - crushing their flesh and bones. No amount of poisonous trolling makes any difference to this fact.

I'd say you have just joined in this thread for the specific purpose of trolling Claudine.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

A little balance here I think, drivers of large vehicles obviously do not start the day with the intention of killing a cyclist, the impact on the life of a driver that has been involved in a fatality is massive and will be with them for the rest of their lives. Some of these drivers may never get behind the wheel again even if they were not to blame.

I personally would like to see a scheme where cyclists spent a few hours in the cab of a truck / bus and drivers had to ride a bike in London. Not the complete answer I know, but at least it would be a start to appreciating each others problems, whether there would be the political will to do something like this is another question. At the very least we could have TV programmes airing short documentaries of the problems road users face in London [and elsewhere for that matter].

If there is little or no understanding of each others problems on the road there will always be friction between road users. I have never cycled in London but when I have been there as a driver or on foot it always seemed that everyone was in a rush to get somewhere and sod everyone else. I never experienced this in any other city in Europe where cycling levels are much higher.

See, if I got into one of those trucks, I'd be thrown headlong into the question ''How on Earth did these trucks get to mix with urban traffic when the driver can't see what's going on?''

 

[stowie]

Believe me, I thought that I had a very close brush with death when the Bablake wine lorry skimmed my elbow a few months ago at 50+mph...it really put the shytes up me. I had to stop when I could pull in to gather my courage to continue...it totally spoiled the ride. You don't get this in a car or on a motorbike as you can always stay ahead of them.

We are very vulnerable from overtaking vehicles, we both agree on this, but this wasn't the point I was disagreeing on.

I have actually forgotten what we disagreeing about!

Here is the summary of my thoughts. I realise that my thing about car drivers in HGV space and cyclists in HGV space is a bit of a red herring, I was just trying to illustrate how the narrative changes when the victim changes.

So here is my summary

I try to cycle defensively using cyclecraft as best as I can as it may help me not get into a situation where my life is threatened. I urge any cyclist or pedestrian or car driver to do the same. But I think phrases like "cyclists have a responsibility not to go up HGVs" is transferring responsibility from the company/driver who has chosen to operate a large and dangerous machine in close proximity to people to the people it is affecting. If a company/driver chooses to drive a lorry in central London from which they cannot survey the perimeter of their vehicle then they have responsibility for this.

If I was Mayor (without having to worry about things like legislation) I would say that lorries can operate in cities in two ways. They can fit equipment to eliminate blind spots or they can employ a banksman to aid the lorry negotiate every turn. Oh, and if your company is caught employing people without licenses or violating health and safety codes then you will get fined until you change or get shut down. As will whoever contracts you. But I am not the Mayor and our Mayor appears to be believing that earphones are the greatest danger on our roads. I think that is because he is an idiot.

 

[Davidsw8]

If there is little or no understanding of each others problems on the road there will always be friction between road users. I have never cycled in London but when I have been there as a driver or on foot it always seemed that everyone was in a rush to get somewhere and sod everyone else. I never experienced this in any other city in Europe where cycling levels are much higher.

I don't know if it's really unique to London but I have noticed this rush mentality and the irony of it is that rushing, be it by RLJ'ing, speeding, cutting corners (for all road users) doesn't get you anywhere any quicker. There will always be a set of lights or heavy traffic that will catch you and you'll end up waiting with the others who have got to the same place at the same time but they've got there much more safely and with a fraction of the stress.

The amount of RLJ'ing drivers and cyclists I've caught up with just by going at my own pace and stopping when I'm supposed to is testament to that for me.

 

[stowie]

To kill implies responsibility for the death of someone. You cannot make that claim if the person has deliberately put themselves in harms way....would you say that a train driver is responsible for the death of someone who lies down on the track and waits for it to roll over them ?

I would say they were killed by a train. It implies no responsibility. What would you say? This is semantics I know but I am struggling to think of a way of saying "A cyclist was killed in a collision with a HGV" than "a cyclist was killed in a collision with a HGV".

 

[theclaud]

I'd say you have just joined in this thread for the specific purpose of trolling Claudine.

I was participating in the original thread when you weighed in with your repellent victim-blaming. I indulge you in P&Lite because it doesn't matter much. Here it is grotesque.

 

[Davidsw8]

At the risk of appearing harsh here, good. I am comfortable with a one strike and you are out policy for all drivers involved in another person's death.

Even if they did absolutely nothing wrong? That is very harsh Adrian. They're just trying to earn a living.

 

[Davidsw8]

To turn the argument around, in the same way that people are only too happy to say, based on little to no evidence, that the cyclists could or should have done something different to protect themselves, so the driver could always have been a little more careful to protect that livelihood.

I wouldn't place blame on anyone without any evidence and I think those people who make an assumption that a cyclist who got killed did something wrong merely by virtue of them being a cyclist are idiots.

To get back to the point, there are circumstances when it's impossible to be any amount more careful when another road user does something suddenly and irrationally.

 

[Davidsw8]

True but it is not as though we are at all short of drivers is it? So we can easily afford to discard some.

Some people would say the same about cyclists and they'd be just as wrong.

 

[Davidsw8]

Big difference though. I walk and cycle on our roads by right. I drive by licence. In the same way that we have no problem about excluding people on medical grounds, I have no problem with extending that to attitudinal ones and even to any instance of having been unlucky enough to run someone over.

Interesting... So, would you extend that judgement to tube or train drivers that killed a suicidal individual?

 

[Davidsw8]

Once I start riding my bike on the train track, I'll give this one all due consideration.

Ah ok, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant but I get the gist of this anyway.

Thanks