Bike vs HGV

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1647862, member: 3143"]It's not the same as blind spots though is it Doris? You've played a blinder, going on about blind spots, I've corrected you, you've then taken what I've said and passed it off as your own saying that I now agree with you!!

What an idiot.[/quote]


He deliberately "killed " cyclist knowing he was there, or he "killed" the cyclist because it was a blind spot, make up your mind how he was at fault... either way it shows the callous attitude of the haulage industry, "It's only a cyclist and it was his own fault" , you might even say that cyclists are the bane of the industry, never mind the industry is doing it's best to get rid of them.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1647868, member: 3143"]You're an idiot who knows nothing. Stop it now before you humilate yourself furthur.[/quote]

So which was it "you knew they were there and drove over them anyway, or they were in a blind spot and forget about them..."

 

[DresdenDoom]

Make your choice, you knew they were there and drove over them anyway, or they were in a blind spot and forget about them...

well?

A Keep Left sign can take its chances. People are more important. In reality the truck is stuck there until the cyclist moves off. When you get into that 'you go, no YOU go' routine, this may take a while. Perhaps until the lights change

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

A Keep Left sign can take its chances. People are more important. In reality the truck is stuck there until the cyclist moves off. When you get into that 'you go, no YOU go' routine, this may take a while. Perhaps until the lights change

Really? The 8 cyclist deaths, in London , this year, shows that you aren't correct. Unless of course you are trying to say that the whole raisondetre of the original post was incorrect? Maybe you had better let TfL know that their video was incorrect and "In reality the truck is stuck there until the cyclist moves off"

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1647874, member: 3143"]The self humilation level has now gone from 7 to 8. We are at DEFCON 4. <Insert suspenseful music here>[/quote]
Nice body swerve, now "He deliberately "killed " cyclist knowing he was there, or he "killed" the cyclist because it was a blind spot, make up your mind how he was at fault..."
Which will it be, or have you some other explanation, unless of course you want to try and rachet the mild abuse level up?

 

[DresdenDoom]

LYB the raison d'etre was entirely correct. We don't know the exact circumstances of the 8 deaths though, and the advert points more to inattention than 'blind spots'. It's just telling everyone to take care, which is exactly the sort of bleeding obvious we expect of these things.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1647888, member: 3143"]None of the above. DEFCON 5...[/quote]


Soo.....


He didn't deliberatley "kill " the cyclist knowing he was there!
He didn't "kill" the cyclist because it was a "blind spot"!
You have no other explanation.


I take it that's what "None of the above" means?

BTW
Defence Conditions start at 5 and work their way up to 1

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

Jeez! I'm off to "Helmet Debates" for a little light relief...

 

[DresdenDoom]

LYB the cyclist was stupid. The driver was also stupid. Stupity is the root cause of 83.85% of all accidents. So don't be stupid and chances are you'll be here for decades yet ...

 

[nwjgoode]

Scary stuff..

 

[nwjgoode]

Scary stuff..

 

[BlackPanther]

So what is it, they forget that they are there or deliberately drive over them, or is there another possibility that I've missed?

Yes, it's all the bloody foreign drivers who don't have the concave mirrors on the n/s. (semi serious point)

I really really wouldn't want to drive a rhd spec lorry in France, and vice versa. Why oh why can't the manufacturers just fit them on both sides? Of course that's a rhetorical question as everyone knows the answer is that if it ain't a legal requirement, then they won't pay the extra 70 or 80 quid!

Another reason for bollard and railing destruction is that on tight roads, it only takes one numpty to park badly and you're forced into going through far tighter gaps than you'd like to. Unlike in a car, it's not easy to just reverse, turn around and find another route, especially if you've got half a dozen cars, 2 vans, a bus, a horse, a hearse and 2 artics behind you. I've not hit or scraped anything serious yet (idiotically parked cars mirrors aside, but they deserve it) but a week doesn't go by where I don't have to pass with an inch to spare on either side, or I have to get out and physically fold the car mirrors in. AND (just getting in to full rant mode now) if you ever come across 2 Vectras parked side by side you're completely screwed 'cos their mirrors don't fold in. Scrapy scrapy time!

My final point (yes, I'm off to bed now) see below.

 

[waggoner]

Yes, it's all the bloody foreign drivers who don't have the concave mirrors on the n/s. (semi serious point)

I really really wouldn't want to drive a rhd spec lorry in France, and vice versa. Why oh why can't the manufacturers just fit them on both sides? Of course that's a rhetorical question as everyone knows the answer is that if it ain't a legal requirement, then they won't pay the extra 70 or 80 quid!

Some do, we got merc's that have the wide angle mirror on both sides,,but then maybe its up to the company if they want them fitted?? They do help on the drivers side.

Your right too about tight corners and obstrutions,, 55' long (62' for wagon and drags), 9' wide,,yes it takes a little more room to maneuver than your average family car.

 

[Loop]

I'll admit to having a degree of sympathy with LYB's arguments.

The things that can never be accounted for are human error and human misjudgement ... which is why, although not directly comparable, other sectors where 'humans' are in control of large machines having the potential to cause damage/injury/loss (... aircraft, trains as examples) have invested billions in removing the unreliable, 'human' element from the equation. More relevantly, even in the motoring sector, car manufacturers have invested in rear sensor technology to prevent people pranging the rear bumpers on their bog standard cars and a reversing truck will alert half the neighbourhood to the fact that it's reversing. Why can't HGV/bus companies invest in sensor technology that would alert in the event of vehicles turning across near-side traffic? Indeed, why can't a left turning HGV make a similar racket to a reversing truck? (... rhetorical questions incidentally because I think I know what the answers are and they are not 'technology' related).

The above said and more immediately ...

My brother drives professionally for a living. The one thing he stressed to me when I first started driving myself was that I should always assume that the other guy would screw up (... that 'human' error/misjudgment thing again) and that I should always drive defensively as a result. I adopt the same philosophy when I'm on a bike. So pragmatically & as things stand, the most pressing thing to be done is to educate cyclists as to what 'defensive cycling' consists of ... which makes it a pity, I suppose, that this particular video was never actually aired.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I'll admit to having a degree of sympathy with LYB's arguments.

Careful, you will get drummed out of the Brownies!