Commuter killed this morning, Victoria Street, London (8th April) - RIP

[jonny jeez]

Threads like this depress me.

A talented, successful, contributing, young person has died and we seem to have filled 5 pages arguing amongst ourselves.

I cant imagine how Dr Giles Family are feeling right now but I'm sure they would find little comfort from reading this thread.

*Edit* my apologies to those who have shown their respect, I'm a little grumpy tonight.

 

[Kies]

^^^^ the best post right here folks !!!!

 

[400bhp]

I was about to post the same link about the cyclist and ask if anybody can explain how a woman of such obvious high intelligence can have allowed herself to get into such a dangerous situation despite all the warnings that have been published in recent months. I always though true intelligence was the ability to think in abstract terms about the consequences of one's actions.

worst post of the day

 

[glenn forger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/10/british-scientist-katharine-giles-killed-cycling-accident

 

[dellzeqq]

Which is? I'm not sure what it is nor why it's singular.

through the contract. Consultants have to take control of risk, and some take a decent stab at it on site, but very few worry about off-site risk. We advise clients to seek competent contractors and insist on contractors hiring competent subcontractors, and for the subcontract to be managed in a way that is safe. Why does this advice not extend off site?

It's as clear as clear can be that construction haulage, particularly bulk materials, has the most abysmal record, and yet Consultants take no interest at all in the competence of hauliers, or the way the subcontract is managed.

It's not as if it's particularly difficult. If Cemex can put sensors on their trucks, and train their drivers, why don't Consultants insist that all bulk materials are moved with the same care.

Over and above that there's the question of designing out risk (which I've been attempting to do all day), but, sadly, designers, particularly Architects, aren't as hot on that either

 

[Dan B]

Is it legal to do what you were suggesting then?

Was indeed supposed to say 'lethal'. Posting from phone, sorry

 

[BF-GUN]

I don't see it being mentioned very often, but I think one key area where commercial vehicle safety could be massively improved is pay methods. No owner/driver should ever be allowed to be paid by trip. It's probably slightly more complex than this simplification, but paying by trip encourages impatient speedy driving. Driving should never be subject to this sort of pressure.

Owner / Driver couriers are often paid per delivery and collection. It is intended to make them more efficient. If you get paid per day then there is no drive to deliver any more then you actually want to.

 

[HLaB]

I thought it was obvious?

IIRC there was a case a while back of a tipper driver fiddling with papers and missed the cyclist that wasnt in a blind spot; they subsequently went into the blind spot and they were crushed and Ive seen plenty of scary youtube videos of cyclists being daft enough to go up the left side of hgv's; we just dont know what happened here

 

[Tim Hall]

through the contract. Consultants have to take control of risk, and some take a decent stab at it on site, but very few worry about off-site risk. We advise clients to seek competent contractors and insist on contractors hiring competent subcontractors, and for the subcontract to be managed in a way that is safe. Why does this advice not extend off site?

It's as clear as clear can be that construction haulage, particularly bulk materials, has the most abysmal record, and yet Consultants take no interest at all in the competence of hauliers, or the way the subcontract is managed.

It's not as if it's particularly difficult. If Cemex can put sensors on their trucks, and train their drivers, why don't Consultants insist that all bulk materials are moved with the same care.

Over and above that there's the question of designing out risk (which I've been attempting to do all day), but, sadly, designers, particularly Architects, aren't as hot on that either

Following on from that, I had a letter the other day at work from a company I dealt with a year or so ago. They are a TFL sub-contractor and were writing to all _their_ suppliers (such as my firm), to make sure we complied with the requirements for FORS (Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme). This is normally a voluntary awareness/driver standard scheme

The Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) is an accreditation scheme that aims to improve freight delivery in London and throughout the UK and beyond

But TFL are making it mandatory for all their sub contractors. This is a Good Thing. See link for more info.

 

[BentMikey]

Owner / Driver couriers are often paid per delivery and collection. It is intended to make them more efficient. If you get paid per day then there is no drive to deliver any more then you actually want to.

OK, that's a convincing case. Making money is far more important than the death toll from this sort of pressure.

 

[Dan B]

OK, that's a convincing case. Making money is far more important than the death toll from this sort of pressure.

Again, I wonder if companies in other industries could learn from this. The NHS costs us an awful lot of money, for example: perhaps GPs should be paid per completed appointment and surgeons per operation.

 

[jarlrmai]

All that mentality does is drive down quality and I assume you want quality in healthcare?

Your doctor misses your serious condition, because she wants to get you out the way to see another patient.
Your surgeon makes an error because he is under pressure to get you out of the way.

 

[Dan B]

jarlrmai: that was my point

 

[jarlrmai]

oh sorry

 

[gambatte]

They make those errors already. I'm delayed 2 months because they lost my scan results. No sorry, that should be editted to "didn't request them in the first place".......