Best use of "LOL" whilst demanding to know cyclist's deaths ever.
http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association
http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association
SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.
- Thread starter dawesome
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Cheers for that, so they make up only 19% of cyclists deaths on the road. Which is an increase of only 3% outside of London. Not a lot to it really.
Recycler
Well-Known Member
Those figures are given in the "Reported Road Casualties: Great Britain 2008" which I mentioned earlier.
Table 23c towards the end refers.
Total cycle accidents. approx 17,000.
Those involving cars approx 14,000
Those involving HGVs 271
It puts some of the ranting that we've seen here in its true perspective, but why let the truth get in the way of anything?
There is a lot of information in that report, but it is hardly bedtime reading!
Sorry, I don't have a link as I keep a full copy of the report on my computer. but dear Mr Google will get it for you if you really want.
1. HGVs are allowed to drive around densely populated areas with significant blind spots.
2. HGVs are the heaviest vehicles on the road and when they collide with people, those people are likely to die.
3. You would therefore expect HGVs to kill or seriously injure the highest number of people/km, and they do .
From the 2008 goverment factsheet entitled "Goods Vehicle Accidents and Casualties Road Accident & Road Freight Statistics Factsheet No. 1 – 2008"
factsheet said:
In 2007 the rate of fatal accidents was higher for HGVs (1.6 per 100 million vkm) than for all motor vehicles (0.9 per 100 million vkm)
Basically what it's saying is that per km travelled, HGVs cause almost twice as many fatal accidents as other vehicles.
1884026 said:
It's not hard if you go search the past threads in commuting to see what is what over the last couple of years.
As I've said I've been lurking for quite some time, and have seen commuting descend into a farce that it now is. At least when the previously mentioned were here there was some reasoned debate.
Now it would appear that commuting is mostly populated by 'hardened' cyclists. By hardened I mean hold cycling as the one and only mode of transport far discounted other road users and their means.
I joined because because for me this was one motorist bashing thread too much - passing judgement on a HGV driver on the basis of a newspaper report and by no means accepting any other persons point of view. And any change of point being made is met by Dawesome and his warped sense of debating.
As mentioned, use the 'search' function, you never know what you might find.
Recycler
Well-Known Member
I agree so much with that.
Frankly, I don't really care what people think, but I am convinced that viewing other road users as the "enemy" and ranting about them at every opportunity is counter productive. All it does is alienates them and makes them less considerate. Beat people with a stick all the time and they bite back.
SMIDSY's, left hooks, overtaking too close, etc etc are mostly the result of a combination of innattention and/or lack of consideration. However, continually attacking or demonising people for their ways will do nothing to improve things.
Yes, these things are annoying at best, lethal at worst, and I'll freely admit to yelling at idiots at times. However, as a group, if we are generally seen as lycra louts who jump red lights, ride on pavements, ride around without lights, and generally don't care, then the very people we need to win over will simply feel justified in making life difficult for us.
There must be a better way of making things better for ourselves.
I don't think we need to win over anyone, nor do I really care for any stereotypical view of cyclists such lycra louts, riding without lights etc. Because for every one of these cyclists there are ten car drivers that will routinely break the law in some way. This view will always exist no matter what imo.
What does annoy me, is bad cycling as a result of poor awareness and anticpation and the fact that people use the fact that they are vulnerable road users as an excuse for poor cycling and then have a pop at others.
As you mentioned not only does this further alinate ourselves from other road users but cyclists neglect the fact to look at their own riding, even if the other person is 100% at fault. Only after analysis of an incident and after you have looked at the other person and what they've done and what you did, should you or can you come to this conclusion.
Cycling is one of the safest things to do if carried out correctly. And it is extremely simple the basic checks that you can carry out in order that you ride in a defensive manner:-
Check every time you change speed or direction.
Check what the traffic around you is doing at all times.
It's very simple to do in terms of basic skills needed. It's just unfortunate that the above is not carried out effectively. As a result you get a cyclist changing lanes to overtake a bus without checking and as a result almost gets run over by a car, who then turns around and has a go at the car driver ''Because you should have looked out for me.'' Just one incident of poor riding that I see almost every day. The result?
Going on what the cyclist said you'd presume that they would not look at what has just happened and maybe ask themesleves the question that they should really check before changing lanes.
With this mindset cycling will never advance, people will ride a bike without the skills needed and will only further the them and us attitude.
What does annoy me, is bad cycling as a result of poor awareness and anticpation and the fact that people use the fact that they are vulnerable road users as an excuse for poor cycling and then have a pop at others.
As you mentioned not only does this further alinate ourselves from other road users but cyclists neglect the fact to look at their own riding, even if the other person is 100% at fault. Only after analysis of an incident and after you have looked at the other person and what they've done and what you did, should you or can you come to this conclusion.
Cycling is one of the safest things to do if carried out correctly. And it is extremely simple the basic checks that you can carry out in order that you ride in a defensive manner:-
Check every time you change speed or direction.
Check what the traffic around you is doing at all times.
It's very simple to do in terms of basic skills needed. It's just unfortunate that the above is not carried out effectively. As a result you get a cyclist changing lanes to overtake a bus without checking and as a result almost gets run over by a car, who then turns around and has a go at the car driver ''Because you should have looked out for me.'' Just one incident of poor riding that I see almost every day. The result?
Going on what the cyclist said you'd presume that they would not look at what has just happened and maybe ask themesleves the question that they should really check before changing lanes.
With this mindset cycling will never advance, people will ride a bike without the skills needed and will only further the them and us attitude.
Nobody was attacked, nobody was bashed, that’s the two trolls arguing with the voices in their heads again. In my opinion taking a vehicle on the road when you know you have a blind spot, indicating one way then turning the other when you know you can’t see down the near side, and getting charged with precisely nothing is very wrong, otherwise why have part of the driving test covering use of indicators and the safety of the vehicle. Someone’s died and the legal system has just shrugged, I feel that’s wrong, if you disagree say why, but don’t make up arguments nobody’s made.
I suggest you:
Get your facts straight regarding the mirror.
The indication given.
Blind spots.
No, I'm giving my opinion based on what Recycler posted.
Eh? What are you disputing? Thuis is your old tactic of saying "Rubbish" without saying why
The opposite problem is when you try and distinguish "Cyclists" from "People on bikes"
One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!
Do we need training courses - perhaps we do but that is another argument.
What we do need to do though is to get away from the simplistic "sticking plasters" that are the usual answers to road safety when involving cyclist safety..
Cyclists being cut up and SMIDSY - wear HiViz and ignore the root cause of the problem
Cyclist suffering injuries - wear a helmet and ignore the root cause of the problem.
Cyclist being killed by HGVs - put the responsibility on cyclists and again ignore the root cause of the problem
Dismiss it as "motorist bashing" if you like, but sooner or later it comes down to the fact that as road users we all have to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. ..... and in this case driving an unroadworthy and faulty vehicle is unequivocally a contributory factor.
One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!
Do we need training courses - perhaps we do but that is another argument.
What we do need to do though is to get away from the simplistic "sticking plasters" that are the usual answers to road safety when involving cyclist safety..
Cyclists being cut up and SMIDSY - wear HiViz and ignore the root cause of the problem
Cyclist suffering injuries - wear a helmet and ignore the root cause of the problem.
Cyclist being killed by HGVs - put the responsibility on cyclists and again ignore the root cause of the problem
Dismiss it as "motorist bashing" if you like, but sooner or later it comes down to the fact that as road users we all have to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. ..... and in this case driving an unroadworthy and faulty vehicle is unequivocally a contributory factor.
<Sighs>
You say the driver knows he had a blind spot?
How does he, have you seen the vehicle that he was driving and can confirm?
You say that he indicated one way and turned the other, can you point to where this is an established fact?
You say that he cannot see down the n/s. From what I've read one n/s mirror was missing - not both. So the driver can see down the n/s.
As I said - get your facts straight.
Nobody was attacked, nobody was bashed, that’s the two trolls arguing with the voices in their heads again. In my opinion taking a vehicle on the road when you know you have a blind spot, indicating one way then turning the other when you know you can’t see down the near side, and getting charged with precisely nothing is very wrong, otherwise why have part of the driving test covering use of indicators and the safety of the vehicle. Someone’s died and the legal system has just shrugged, I feel that’s wrong, if you disagree say why, but don’t make up arguments nobody’s made.
- Status
Similar threads
