Why do some people insist on immediately blaming the victim?
These trucks have no place on our roads - they are too dangerous.
Serious accident in Finchley. Another tipper-truck.
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why do some people insist on immediately blaming the victim?
These trucks have no place on our roads - they are too dangerous.
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
I knew someone that was shunted out of a road junction by a big tipper, as he was too busy admiring the enhanced assets of the girl in the car to his right.
On a bike? No.
He failed to notice for 50 yards that he was shunting a Fiat Punto sideways.
On a bike? No.
He failed to notice for 50 yards that he was shunting a Fiat Punto sideways.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
and your solution to loose material removal ?
the trucks themselves are NOT dangerous, what is dangerous is
Poor driving
Poor company standards
Poor regulation
Poor road design
Poor enforcement of the laws regarding use of vehicles on the road
a combination of any or possibly even 1 is enough to start a chain of events
Leodis
Veteran
- Location
- Moortown, Leeds
I wasn't blaming the victim but since you mentioned it it doesn't take a genius to work out filtering on the left of HGV's and buses is not a wise move, since we don't know the facts I didnt mention this.
Your a sensitive soul aren't you
Hang on, you said:
What's that if it's not speculating that the cyclist was to blame for the collision?
The trucks themselves most certainly are dangerous - how can you possibly come to any other conclusion when they are so disproportionately involved in collisions with cyclists?
They should meet a minimum design safety standard, such as dustcart type cabs with proper visibility.
They should stop paying per load, to reduce the incentive to drive recklessly fast.
There should be a legal requirement for drivers to undertake specific training to do with driving around vulnerable road users.
The company's H&S responsibilities should include all subcontractors and include journeys to and from the site.
The lorries should only be allowed into the city at night time when cyclist traffic is low, as Paris does.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
Leodis
Veteran
- Location
- Moortown, Leeds
I just mentioned that some cyclists are not helping themselves, its tragic when this happens, I was asking if this was a case of filtering, I wasn't accusing the victim of this of HGV left hand filtering. You are right more training for HGV drivers but on the other hand maybe training for cyclists or at least better awareness.
[QUOTE 2562376, member: 30090"]And they say that ignorance is bliss.[/quote]
So you don't think there is anything to worry about? We can just accept the status quo of HGVs and trucks disproportionately killing cyclists? The only thing we need to do is to fit a "belly bar". How is that going to help if one drives into you from behind or from the side?
Some are most certainly paid by the load, either explicitly or by hiring drivers on an ad-hoc basis.
As I understand it, the HSE only imposes legal responsibilities on the company for site safety. This should be expanded to consider collisions like this the same as a site accident.
Glad drivers are trained - looks like plenty could do with a refresher.
Don't see what your problem about restricting times is - it works for Paris.
So you don't think there is anything to worry about? We can just accept the status quo of HGVs and trucks disproportionately killing cyclists? The only thing we need to do is to fit a "belly bar". How is that going to help if one drives into you from behind or from the side?
Some are most certainly paid by the load, either explicitly or by hiring drivers on an ad-hoc basis.
As I understand it, the HSE only imposes legal responsibilities on the company for site safety. This should be expanded to consider collisions like this the same as a site accident.
Glad drivers are trained - looks like plenty could do with a refresher.
Don't see what your problem about restricting times is - it works for Paris.
[QUOTE 2562427, member: 30090"]Because it is harder to go under the wheels of a truck that is fitted with one - this is the sole purpose of abelly bar.
[/quote]Some are most certainly paid by the load, either explicitly or by hiring drivers on an ad-hoc basis.[/quote] No they are not, this is hearsay and a common misconception unless you have proof?
[/quote]As I understand it, the HSE only imposes legal responsibilities on the company for site safety. This should be expanded to consider collisions like this the same as a site accident..[/quote] Incidents that an operator has go on record and can be looked at when having an inspection from VOSA/Traffic Commissioner
[/quote]Glad drivers are trained - looks like plenty could do with a refresher.[/quote] That's speculation that the driver is at fault
[/quote]Don't see what your problem about restricting times is - it works for Paris.[/quote] Never said I had a problem - did you even bother to look at the link which I posted?[/quote]
Your clear implication is that the only measure you think is necessary is fitting of "belly bars". But that's not going to help much if a driver takes you out from behind or T-bones you, is it?
[Paid by the load:] I said "either explicitly or by employing drivers on an ad-hoc basis". You have only addressed the first. This thread, contributed to by truck drivers, says that load bonuses and time bonuses are common. What's that if not being paid by the load, albeit partially?
[Training:] "That's speculation that the driver is at fault" I'm talking generally, not this specific incident. Most collisions are the fault of the driver.
[Restricting times:] "did you even bother to look at the link which I posted?" Of course I did, but there's no reason we couldn't change that.
You're basically saying "nothing can be done" so we might as well give up and accept the status quo of vulnerable road users being killed by these death traps.
[/quote]Some are most certainly paid by the load, either explicitly or by hiring drivers on an ad-hoc basis.[/quote] No they are not, this is hearsay and a common misconception unless you have proof?
[/quote]As I understand it, the HSE only imposes legal responsibilities on the company for site safety. This should be expanded to consider collisions like this the same as a site accident..[/quote] Incidents that an operator has go on record and can be looked at when having an inspection from VOSA/Traffic Commissioner
[/quote]Glad drivers are trained - looks like plenty could do with a refresher.[/quote] That's speculation that the driver is at fault
[/quote]Don't see what your problem about restricting times is - it works for Paris.[/quote] Never said I had a problem - did you even bother to look at the link which I posted?[/quote]
Your clear implication is that the only measure you think is necessary is fitting of "belly bars". But that's not going to help much if a driver takes you out from behind or T-bones you, is it?
[Paid by the load:] I said "either explicitly or by employing drivers on an ad-hoc basis". You have only addressed the first. This thread, contributed to by truck drivers, says that load bonuses and time bonuses are common. What's that if not being paid by the load, albeit partially?
[Training:] "That's speculation that the driver is at fault" I'm talking generally, not this specific incident. Most collisions are the fault of the driver.
[Restricting times:] "did you even bother to look at the link which I posted?" Of course I did, but there's no reason we couldn't change that.
You're basically saying "nothing can be done" so we might as well give up and accept the status quo of vulnerable road users being killed by these death traps.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
and none of that is the truck itself is it. following your sequencing lets look at evidence
thats down to designers , not the truck itself - dustcarts are also significantly lower to the ground for approach and departure angles for site access and egress Do you suggest double handling materials using more diesel and polluting more into a heavuily polluted atmospherre already. properly adjusted mirrors and looking properly ( driver error) also reduce these types of incidents.
quantity surveyors
down to the fleet operators and Client ( company I work for has a minimum requirement and ongoing standards checks for all demolition related vehicles and waste removal vehicles ( skip lorries) - a fail means no work on future contracts- we also share info between the Main contractors group ) .
see previous answer, and the HASAWetcA 1974 does have that provision- why No prosecutions _ ask the CPS or HSE for that one . its NOT THE TRUCK though.
You want to pay more for everything? Does Paris have the same laws as the UK? Construction and demo sites also have to comply with noise requirements after certain hours see Section 61 1974 pollution act http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/pollution/noisepollution/noise_building/ after 6pm it costs more to work there isn't the stopping and loading facilities to have vehicles sat waiting to leave
I wish i had the answers to solve the problem now, but lots of the major contractors in construction are now getting on board with cycling and lorries due to pressure from within by cyclists who work for them ( that would be me ). where major contractors go the smaller ones follow in a few years . there is no wave a magic wand for the mindset of a minority of drivers but we are getting there in educating them and letting them know exactly what will happen if they fail.
Dell righly said the LCC watsed millions pursuing the wrong target- they needed to go for construction contracts .
The trucks themselves have very poor visibility, which in my view, makes them unsuitable for use on busy congested streets.
But by all means pretend there's nothing we can do if it makes you feel better.
Re being paid by the load.
I only know one tipper truck driver.
He is paid by the load.
He works on a 'as required' basis as it is one of four jobs he has
(He is also a barman 2 nights a week and a chief for a catering company when they need him and does a bit of mini cabbing when needed to make up the money if the other jobs have not paid him enough that week)
With tipper truck driving he will get solid work for a week or two and then nothing for a month or so and then more tipper truck driving.
I think if the work was there he would do it full time, but as it's per load work it comes and goes
I only know one tipper truck driver.
He is paid by the load.
He works on a 'as required' basis as it is one of four jobs he has
(He is also a barman 2 nights a week and a chief for a catering company when they need him and does a bit of mini cabbing when needed to make up the money if the other jobs have not paid him enough that week)
With tipper truck driving he will get solid work for a week or two and then nothing for a month or so and then more tipper truck driving.
I think if the work was there he would do it full time, but as it's per load work it comes and goes
