SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.

[Recycler]

If this advice were contained in the Highway Code I'd be a little more predisposed to accept your apportionment of blame here,

Whilst you are right that the HC does not mention Primary or Secondary have you read rule 73? It is very clear on this issue. I'd be interested in how you interpret that rule if you don't think that it says you should be very cautious about left filtering.

On the other points you make, all that is being said is recognise that you (i.e. "we") are in a vulnerable position on the road and act accordingly. To deny that cyclists should ride defensively is much like sticking your head in the sand. Yes, things can, and should be made better, but until such time as all other road users take the presence of cyclist properly into account then we have little option but to be realistic about what we do and to apply a little common sense . It is not "victim blaming" it is simple survival tactics.

 

[Recycler]

I work with 44 ton HGVs ( I am not a driver), when moving around them on foot, if the engine is running I always make sure I am in a position that I can see the drivers head (be it direct contact or via one of the many mirrors).
Despite the numerous mirrors that HGVs have fitted nowadays, they are surrounded by blind spots, and the moment that they turn in a direction all the mirrors on that side show is their trailer.
I am not commenting on the item that started this post, as I don't know the facts, but on a bike I will never go up the left hand side of a HGV, unless it is stationary in a right turn lane. Even in a car I spend the least time possible beside a lorry, left or right hand side, and will drop back on a motorway to ensure I am visible in their mirrors.

Thanks for that.
I must admit that I was under the impression that the blind spot mirrors solved the problem. What you have said makes me realise that even that is not the case.
We learn something new every day.

 

[Dan B]

Whilst you are right that the HC does not mention Primary or Secondary have you read rule 73? It is very clear on this issue. I'd be interested in how you interpret that rule if you don't think that it says you should be very cautious about left filtering.

I've read that rule and I agree with you as to its interpretation. The scenario PK99 was talking about, though, was where the cyclist had arrived first and stopped at the kerb, and the HGV drawn up alongside him subsequently - no filtering involved. I think it's a big ask of a novice cyclist to say "block the cars behind you when you're waiting at a traffic light", and blaming him when an HGV turns across his path when the HGV driver could have waited behind him kind of sticks in the craw

 

[Recycler]

Was there a discussion, other than the repeating of the mantra "don't go up the inside" which we all already knew? Any insights on how best actually to address the problem?

My earlier comment, as you well know, was in response to your name calling of another forumite.

I'm not sure that the message of "don't go up the inside" is already known to everyone and I think it was you (though I may be wrong) who was saying earlier that some cyclists don't know it. Certainly some know it, but don't practise it.

I'm also not sure that I am qualified to give you "insights" but I can give you my opinion which is that cyclists can do something about it today. Simply by taking the advice contained within the HC to heart.

Long term, we can educate HGV drivers and lobby for legislation about blind spot alarms (just as The Times is already doing with its recently started campaign) However, I really don't know whether the answer is alarms or mirrors or CCTV. But all that will take time.

If we wish to educate HGV drivers we will not succeed by simply blaming or attacking them for every problem. Cyclists need to "engage" (horrible expression, but it's the best I can find) with other road users. We need to understand what it is like to drive an HGV....(and I've certainly never driven one, though I have been in the passenger seat on many occasions). This is one of those occasions when attack is not the best form of defence; we are more likely to succeed by winning people over.

With regard some of the earlier comments earlier to the effect that HGV's shouldn't be on the road I can only say that the writer will have to get real.

 

[dawesome]

It's just extremely sad that other people's perception is warped to the point where they can really see cyclists doing no wrong at all, and that it is all the motorits fault.
.

Except, nobody has said this or anything like it. You're plucking arguments from thin air like recycler, who's wibbled on for three pages about the dangers of filtering on the left when there's zero evidence that Daniel did anything of the kind. You're both twisting facts to suit your agenda.

 

[dawesome]

You have a rather odd way of debating a serious issue but, if you care to read the comment at the foot of page 32 in that report, you'll see that it says exactly what I have said. You will also see that the tables which follow support my comments.

I ask again....when you said earlier that I asked you to give your source. So far you have not been able to. Is it because you have simply made it up?

You're posting stuff that is not true, that's why you can't offer a link.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions.

 

[dawesome]

, for you to try to take that and seemingly extend it to an arguement which appears to be trying to condem all HGV drivers as being criminals is disingenous and unlikely to be accepted by any sane person.

There's no such word as "disingenous" and I said no such thing, that's another lie you've made up.

I've posted the evidence that, in a random sample, all lorry drivers on London's roads were criminals. You ignored it:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum

Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way. Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case)

Anything which doesn't fit your victim-blaming agenda you ignore.

 

[Recycler]

I've read that rule and I agree with you as to its interpretation. The scenario PK99 was talking about, though, was where the cyclist had arrived first and stopped at the kerb, and the HGV drawn up alongside him subsequently - no filtering involved. I think it's a big ask of a novice cyclist to say "block the cars behind you when you're waiting at a traffic light", and blaming him when an HGV turns across his path when the HGV driver could have waited behind him kind of sticks in the craw

I can understand that and I must admit that I do find it difficult at times to adopt and maintain primary (but I'm getting better at it!). Part of the problem is that car drivers simply don't understand what and why we are doing it so I suppose that there is an education job to do.

In the example you give of an HGV pulling up alongside me; I would firstly decide whether or not I am now in a vulnerable position. There are then three possible things to do, stay put, move forward, or even move back. There may be other options which I haven't thought of!

 

[dawesome]

The simple fact is that we don't know the facts.

We know the lorry had a missing mirror on the near side. We know the lorry was indicating right, then turned left. We know the original charges included the mirrors. We know the driver didn't know the route and tried to drive into a no entry road. These are the facts, and you're bending the truth to try to excuse the driver.

 

[Recycler]

You're posting stuff that is not true, that's why you can't offer a link.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions.

I haven't bothered to find a link because the copy of that report has been stored on my machine for ages. I gave you the reference. Look it up if you want. Google is your friend.

 

[ufkacbln]

What happened? I assume that you weren't killed?

Not that I noticed, of course I could be a zombie!

This is one of those cases where experience and awareness counts. As the vehicle came alongside and started to signal, I knew what was going to happen., moved into the kerb, stopped and let it happen......

 

[dawesome]

for somebody to be trying to make a case based on the Evening Standard, Twitter and now, of all things, the Huffington Post is laughable.

Can you explain why the details of Daniel's death make you laugh? Which parts do you dispute, which parts do you think are funny?

 

[Recycler]

Can you explain why the details of Daniel's death make you laugh? Which parts do you dispute, which parts do you think are funny?

It is abundantly clear to anyone who is capable of understanding the English language that I was saying that it was your argument that was laughable. I have equally well made it clear on several occasions that any death on the road, whether cyclist or other road user, is a tragedy.

I say again, for you to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Beyond that, I refer you to post #138

 

[Alun]

Dawesome, in your post #100 you say
"Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist."
In your post #125 you say
"It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions."

Are you softening your stance, having shown us that "police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases," ?

 

[dawesome]

Which parts do you dispute? Are you saying the Huffington version of the story is dishonest? How? It reports the facts, are you saying the facts are wrong?

You see, you and sandman have a habit of posting the equivalent of "that's rubbish!" You never actually say what you mean. What's "laughable" about any of this?