Dangerous trucker vid

[downfader]

[QUOTE 1232174"]
Either that or he was so stupid that it took people on there to point out that his boss would be reading his comments.
[/quote]


I said it about 3 times to him myself (I've taken a step back now as its daft to spend all day on there battling for another). I even reminded him that his IP could be trackable by people like the Police, should anything happen. An off-chance I know.

 

[jimboalee]

Some might like to educate the weirdos on the comments section as to the error of their ways (they've all signed up on the same time frame - after the guy emailed the firm to complain)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g1-nqFzCmCE

Pretty bad driving imo. I dont get truckers doing anything like that down here thankfully. BTW - not my vid, a guy from another forum.

What jimbo would have done there would be.....

On noticing the truck close up, signaled to the driver jimbo was pulling over. jimbo would have pulled over and let the truck pass.

Thus negating the tailgating, close pass and cutting in.

By his proximity, he was obviously in a rush to get somewhere, so jimbo would have let him though and completely eliminated the risk of being flattened.

 

[661-Pete]

Interesting....

..a fair few of those comments have been deleted by said prat who put them there. Perhaps a telling off from his boss?

Maybe it's "job done" here, but if anyone needs 'deleted' comments retrieved for evidence, can Youtube do that for you?

That's a horrible encounter. As for the other video (I've watched all three) with the car left-hooking towards the petrol station, well I keep waiting for that to happen to me, at our local Waitrose car park entrance. The road layout makes it very tempting! But it hasn't happened ... yet. Maybe Waitrose customers are a "better class" of driver!

As far as the 'doesn't happen down here' sentiment goes, yes I thought that too. Perhaps I'm wrong. The other day (after a much milder incident) I had a taxi driver say to me I "shouldn't be on the road". Maybe I'm going to get more of that in future. Not exactly a threat, but rabidly anti-cyclist. Is it spreading? Is this the DM-(or similar)-inspired herd instinct at work? Should we all be worried?

 

[downfader]

What jimbo would have done there would be.....

On noticing the truck close up, signaled to the driver jimbo was pulling over. jimbo would have pulled over and let the truck pass.

Thus negating the tailgating, close pass and cutting in.

By his proximity, he was obviously in a rush to get somewhere, so jimbo would have let him though and completely eliminated the risk of being flattened.

I have done this in the past, but you really need to be confident of the road's conditions before you do it. He may not have known the layout, or thought it was too narrow etc etc. So many things to consider. Theres no garantee that the driver would give him space for signalling him past either, so we have to discount that.

 

[downfader]

Maybe it's "job done" here, but if anyone needs 'deleted' comments retrieved for evidence, can Youtube do that for you?

That's a horrible encounter. As for the other video (I've watched all three) with the car left-hooking towards the petrol station, well I keep waiting for that to happen to me, at our local Waitrose car park entrance. The road layout makes it very tempting! But it hasn't happened ... yet. Maybe Waitrose customers are a "better class" of driver!

As far as the 'doesn't happen down here' sentiment goes, yes I thought that too. Perhaps I'm wrong. The other day (after a much milder incident) I had a taxi driver say to me I "shouldn't be on the road". Maybe I'm going to get more of that in future. Not exactly a threat, but rabidly anti-cyclist. Is it spreading? Is this the DM-(or similar)-inspired herd instinct at work? Should we all be worried?

Worried. Not really. More people are using bikes (I've noticed an increase for the first time here in ages) and we can certainly do much ourselves to make life easier.

Different towns and cities also seem to experience different memes. Different sets of behaviours. This also can apply to the times at which cyclists ride. I find evening riding to be less problematic than at 8am for example.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

What jimbo would have done there would be.....

On noticing the truck close up, signaled to the driver jimbo was pulling over. jimbo would have pulled over and let the truck pass.

Thus negating the tailgating, close pass and cutting in.

By his proximity, he was obviously in a rush to get somewhere, so jimbo would have let him though and completely eliminated the risk of being flattened.

Do you - genuine question - dive out of the way of absolutely everything? And even if you're right in your actions, what gives the truck driver the right to drive dangerously around another road user? And why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

 

[jimboalee]

Do you - genuine question - dive out of the way of absolutely everything? And even if you're right in your actions, what gives the truck driver the right to drive dangerously around another road user? And why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

I've been at work for about an hour and a half now and I've pulled up some stats from Jaguar Land Rover's Safety records.

Stats show that 0.008% of owners make a claim against the company for "Brakes Failure". That's 1 in 12,500.

Those cases where property or personal damage has occurred due to the JLR owner hitting something, the car is checked and claim investigators are sent in.

90% of these cases end in the owner admitting their foot slipped off the pedal ( see another thread ).

That's JLR, so my estimation it would be the same across all brands.

1 in 10,000 cars approaching from the rear has a 'driver error' and rear-ends the vehicle in front.

1 in 10,000 is still too large a number in my book and I take measures to avoid a careless driver making a 'Jim Jam Sandwich'.

After 40 years and well over 100,000 miles ridden, there is only one statistic I can provide. "Rear end shunts, none."

Considering the 'Fault mode', it is "Rear-end Shunt". Jimbo's 'Permanent corrective action' is "Never approach a junction or ride in front of a vehicle within the vehicle's 'roll-path'."

 

[jimboalee]

Do you - genuine question - dive out of the way of absolutely everything? And even if you're right in your actions, what gives the truck driver the right to drive dangerously around another road user? And why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

I place Jimbo as the third person so there is NO mistake the post describes Jimbo's OPINION and HIS method of dealing with a mad trucker situation.

I word it thus so there is NO intimation of 'You should" anywhere, and the reader can consider Jimbo's comments.

Those who dissagree, it seems, still want to turn the subject into an argument.

What are you going to do?
Report me to the CycleCraft police and have me disqualified from riding a bicycle for six months?

 

[DrSquirrel]

I've been at work for about an hour and a half now and I've pulled up some stats from Jaguar Land Rover's Safety records.

Stats show that 0.008% of owners make a claim against the company for "Brakes Failure". That's 1 in 12,500.

Those cases where property or personal damage has occurred due to the JLR owner hitting something, the car is checked and claim investigators are sent in.

90% of these cases end in the owner admitting their foot slipped off the pedal ( see another thread ).

That's JLR, so my estimation it would be the same across all brands.

1 in 10,000 cars approaching from the rear has a 'driver error' and rear-ends the vehicle in front.

1 in 10,000 is still too large a number in my book and I take measures to avoid a careless driver making a 'Jim Jam Sandwich'.

After 40 years and well over 100,000 miles ridden, there is only one statistic I can provide. "Rear end shunts, none."

Considering the 'Fault mode', it is "Rear-end Shunt". Jimbo's 'Permanent corrective action' is "Never approach a junction or ride in front of a vehicle within the vehicle's 'roll-path'."

So you pull over, vehicle behind you slows to overtake and their foot slips off the brake pedal... running you over.

?


I do understand your point - we shouldn't have to dive out of the way, but sometimes its probably better to do so (even if we don't induvidually agree for this video).

Maybe it's "job done" here, but if anyone needs 'deleted' comments retrieved for evidence, can Youtube do that for you?

Not always, but OP(youtube) gets an email notification with the contents of the message. I keep all these in a "junk" mail account just incase I want to check a deleted comment.

 

[jimboalee]

[QUOTE 1232185"]
Sorry Jim but the above is fatally flawed in several areas.
[/quote]

Here comes Mr Paul with his bold brash statements and no explanations to justify them.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what the numbers are. We all know motorists occasionally rear-end the vehicle in front for no apparent reason. Try to deny that?

Motorists lie about how collisions happen. Try to deny this?


The chances of it happening behind me on my bike are TOO HIGH in MY mind. Why are you arguing?

I HAVE ridden over 100,000 miles in my cycling life. Provide the proof otherwise. That's a pretty good stat, I think. There's a member of this forum who has been rear-ended three times in two years.

I don't know what a Jim Jam Sandwich looks like, because it has never happened. Use your imagination with your own body. Ford transit, Mr Paul's torso, BMW X7. ERRRrrr.

 

[JoysOfSight]

The chances of it happening behind me on my bike are TOO HIGH in MY mind. Why are you arguing?

There would be much less risk of dying in a bike accident if people gave up cycling. In fact, a large proportion of people who don't ride say the chances of dying on a bike are TOO HIGH in THEIR mind.

Yet we know that in fact, taking up cycling increases your life expectency. That is, it is so "dangerous" that it makes you live longer.

Your obsession with the gutter is another example of the same. No doubt you genuinely believe what you write, but the important distinction is that you *thinking* something is dangerous does not actually *make* it dangerous.

 

[jimboalee]

There would be much less risk of dying in a bike accident if people gave up cycling. In fact, a large proportion of people who don't ride say the chances of dying on a bike are TOO HIGH in THEIR mind.

Yet we know that in fact, taking up cycling increases your life expectency. That is, it is so "dangerous" that it makes you live longer.

Your obsession with the gutter is another example of the same. No doubt you genuinely believe what you write, but the important distinction is that you *thinking* something is dangerous does not actually *make* it dangerous.

Would you think, JoysOf Sight, that lighting a firework and returning to it if it fails to do what it should is dangerous?

Would you think, 30 tonnes of metal directly behind you while you are cycling in the rain is dangerous? This is why the OP posted the vid ?

 

[jimboalee]

[QUOTE 1232189"]
I've never been rear ended. Your interpretation above is flawed, which you recognise by your backtracking. You've ignored a post of mine which shows another failing in your view. Go figure.
[/quote]

What are you trying to achieve Mr Paul? Are you trying to prove 1.5 tonnes of metal-on-wheels following a cyclist presents no danger whatsoever?

Go figure.

 

[jimboalee]

Who is going to enter this discussion and present themselves as a complete dimwit by saying,
"A car following a bicycle will in no way harm the cyclist. Ride where you feel like riding."

 

[downfader]

TBH Jimbo when you post "stats" I now ignore them as they're b*ll^cks, mate. As I said to you before if you want to ride that way then fine, dont encourage others that its somehow safe - I personally feel it could make someone new to riding misread a situation and then have to deal with the consequences.