Bike vs HGV

[Little yellow Brompton]

Right, and do you set it up and run it in the middle of a public place with no barriers to stop people approaching and no effective observation of them when they do? If that's not acceptable in your industry, why do we think it's ok for haulage?

(None of this should be taken as advice to go up the inside of one anyway, which I happily agree is a stupid idea. But so is feeding your fingers to a table saw, and yet engineering companies are still required to have rules about their use instead of just saying "you get what you deserve" - why do we not hold road users to the same standard?)

Wot'E said

 

[Dan_h]

Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?

So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible? them for not looking or you for bringing your cycle into that environment and not making sure that you could not possibly hit anyone?

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?

True.

It is also true that anyone choosing to be in the same environment has a responsibility for their own safety. The Health & Safety At Work Act (for example), makes it clear that employees have responsibilities (such as not to put themselves into dangerous situations) as well as that a duty of care exists for employers'.

Either way, it will be no comfort when lying in hospital or the morgue, to know that you were in the right.

Cyclist vs HGV only has one outcome and the smart money isn't on the cyclist.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible? them for not looking or you for bringing your cycle into that environment and not making sure that you could not possibly hit anyone?

You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?


"Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?"

 

[Dan_h]

You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?


"Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?"

No, I believe that they must take reasonable precautions to make it safe, however everyone else choosing to use the road must also take responsibility for their own safety. It is the reason that red light jumping, riding against the flow of traffic and ninja cycling are generally frowned upon. By indulging in these things we are offloading our responsibility onto someone else without their knowledge or agreement, which is basically a selfish act. Filtering inside a heavy vehicle and expecting them to see us is, in my opinion, in much the same category.

If we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion then all forms of road transport (including the bicycle) would have to be banned as they COULD cause injury to other road users. Given that this is clearly not the answer then we must accept that these vehicles can be dangerous if we do not behave properly and responsibly around them and act accordingly.

 

[gaz]

A few points.

1/ There is no blind spot on modern lorries if the mirrors are adjusted properly. The large mirror/smaller convex mirror, and downward facing kerb mirror should cover all angles. The very latest lorries also have a downward facing mirror which covers the front of the lorry so you can spot pedestrians. Mine doesn't, and I think they should be made a legal retrograde requirement. I always lean forward to check, as some numpty pedestrians do cross within inches of your bumper! Suicide!

Claiming there is no blind spot on a lorry is pretty bold. A lorry which has a separate cab unit will have huge blind spots when it is turning.

 

[Dan B]

So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible?

The cyclist. Except in absurdly unlikely scenarios like where the pedestrian is hiding behind a bush and jumps straight in front of you when you're three feet away, perhaps, but in general: it's a place where pedestrians are to be expected, and the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority

 

[Dan_h]

The cyclist. Except in absurdly unlikely scenarios like where the pedestrian is hiding behind a bush and jumps straight in front of you when you're three feet away, perhaps, but in general: it's a place where pedestrians are to be expected, and the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority

I am not convinced that the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority, which bit of the highway code mentions "squishy"?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

No, I believe that they must take reasonable precautions to make it safe, however everyone else choosing to use the road must also take responsibility for their own safety. It is the reason that red light jumping, riding against the flow of traffic and ninja cycling are generally frowned upon. By indulging in these things we are offloading our responsibility onto someone else without their knowledge or agreement, which is basically a selfish act. Filtering inside a heavy vehicle and expecting them to see us is, in my opinion, in much the same category.

If we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion then all forms of road transport (including the bicycle) would have to be banned as they COULD cause injury to other road users. Given that this is clearly not the answer then we must accept that these vehicles can be dangerous if we do not behave properly and responsibly around them and act accordingly.

Your argument (and it's extrapolation to the ridiculous) is the same one that has been used by engineering, mining,papermaking, contruction and myriad other industries for decades, if not centuries " Oh we can't make it safer it would be too expensive/hard/time consuming, etc etc, etc... And any way it's the victim's fault, they should have been more careful..."

Why is the haulage industry the only one to have apologists ?

Of the 15 or so cyclists killed this year, over half of them have been victims of lorries in London. Considering how many other vehicles there are in this country,that tells me that there is a problem with lorrys not cylists. The crushed barriers and toppled bollards that have been destroyed by lorrys ( where no cyclist is invloved) also reinforces this. The problem is not one that cyclists end up in a "blind spot" ( whether they get there themselves or are put there by ovetaking) , the root of the problem is that there is a "blind spot" and that the operators ( in both senses of the word) of the vehicle are quite sanguine about moving the vehicle without checkignn that it is safe to do so. Safe in this instance for anything in the so called "blind spot" whether that thing is a bollard, a railingor a cyclist.

Now you can go on blaming the victim ( especially as they may not be alive to speak up for themselves) or you can stand back and look at what causes the problem, and lay the onus upon that to resolve it. I prefer the go for the latter, the problem is HGVs being moved without the operator knowing 100% that it is safe to do so, and the problem is owned by the owners of the HGVs and their employees, any other interpritation is a retrograde step in hundreds of years of safety legislation.

 

[Dan B]

I am not convinced that the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority, which bit of the highway code mentions "squishy"?

You don't need a highway code to tell you that, a moral code will do fine.

 

[subaqua]

Right, and do you set it up and run it in the middle of a public place with no barriers to stop people approaching and no effective observation of them when they do? If that's not acceptable in your industry, why do we think it's ok for haulage?

(None of this should be taken as advice to go up the inside of one anyway, which I happily agree is a stupid idea. But so is feeding your fingers to a table saw, and yet engineering companies are still required to have rules about their use instead of just saying "you get what you deserve" - why do we not hold road users to the same standard?)

reasonably practicable taking into account time cost benefit and effort. thats why we don't in industry got to the nth degree to make something safe we asses the risks and control measures .

the control measure here is the warning signs and people not being twonks,thinking going up the inside of a HGV is in any way, shape or form a sensible course of action. even with the do not pass in the inside signs you still get idiots doing it who then have all ands sundry saying how dangerous it is that lorries are on the roads. its a really simple action to take DO NOT RIDE UP THE INSIDE OF THE HGV , regardless of what the cyle lane directs you to.
sadly as in industry there are those who think the rules do not apply to them and will do what they can to remove the control measure. people who defeat these mechanisms really do "get what they deserve".

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

reasonably practicable taking into account time cost benefit and effort. thats why we don't in industry got to the nth degree to make something safe we asses the risks and control measures .

the control measure here is the warning signs and people not being twonks,thinking going up the inside of a HGV is in any way, shape or form a sensible course of action. even with the do not pass in the inside signs you still get idiots doing it who then have all ands sundry saying how dangerous it is that lorries are on the roads. its a really simple action to take DO NOT RIDE UP THE INSIDE OF THE HGV , regardless of what the cyle lane directs you to.
sadly as in industry there are those who think the rules do not apply to them and will do what they can to remove the control measure. people who defeat these mechanisms really do "get what they deserve".

its a really simple action to take DO NOT MOVE THE HGV UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO , regardless of what the employer/customer directs you to.

Why is your version any more valid?

 

[Dan_h]

You don't need a highway code to tell you that, a moral code will do fine.

No, however squishy you are there are situations where you DO NOT have priority. Pulling out onto a roundabout for example. Cars coming from your right have priority, you should stop regardless of which moral code you subscribe to. Failure to stop could lead to your injury or even death but if you are convinced that the fact that you are a vulnerable road user gives you priority then by all means keep right on going!

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Easy answer - As of tomorrow morning, all HGV's are banned.
Reason being that the drivers don't have 360 degree vision.

Just gives us time to run to the shops before all deliveries are cancelled.

 

[gaz]

Of the 15 or so cyclists killed this year, over half of them have been victims of lorries in London. Considering how many other vehicles there are in this country,that tells me that there is a problem with lorrys not cylists.

I'm not sure if this is just the way it reads or if it was a mistake.
But the deaths in London cyclists alone are at 16 mark. There have been many deaths of cyclists over the whole country.