SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.

[Recycler]

I thought asked you perfectly politely, sorry if you got a different impression.

Sorry.

Did you think something in the Huffington link was "laughable"? What were you referring to please?

As I said before, I think that what is laughable is using twitter, links to Huffington Post and the other link (sorry I can't remember what it was now) to support the claim that SMIDSY's are now "being enshrined in law". The law is not made in that way. It is primarily made by Acts of Parliament and Precedents which are made in the Courts.

I was not saying the reports were laughable (and, for the record, I was certainly not saying that the deaths were laughable). I was saying that I thought that your arguement, being based on poor sources, was laughable. The Inquest is being held next week when, hopefully a fuller picture will emerge. Sadly the full evidence is unlikely to be tested in court as the charges appear to have been dropped. We must assume that that is because the CPS believes that it is either unlikely to get a conviction or because it believes that it is not in the Public interest to proceed.

As an aside, though it is largely irrelevant, I don't take the Huff particulary seriously, I don't take twitter at all seriously, and I take most of what I see on the Web with a big pinch of salt. I do take official court records seriously.

 

[dawesome]

As I said before, I think that what is laughable is using twitter, links to Huffington Post and the other link (sorry I can't remember what it was now) to support the claim that SMIDSY's are now "being enshrined in law".

That's not what I did.

 

[Alun]

You don't think the operators of dangerous machines should take extra care? I didn't say I know the figures are skewed, I can't know that for sure, but you must admit the police only have the evidence they see and hear. And people will lie if they think they are in trouble. In every court case one side must be lying. This driver failed to take basic care. What message do you think this gives unscrupulous hgv lorry operators? It's a cut-throat industry, undercut by Poles, paid by the load so there's a natural incentive to cut corners, take risks, speed. Do you think that some low-life scaffolding lorry firm or tipper lorry firm can read about what happened and think "I can even drive with missing mirrors, kill someone, and get away with it"? Mirrors or cctv costs less than £100. Less than the cost of most bikes.

I do think the operators of dangerous machines should take extra care!

I don't think the police treat fatalities in such a cavalier fashion, I think they treat them very seriously and don't just rely on hearsay. I suppose that unless they read twitter or the Huffington Post (where is Huffington anyway?) they are unlikely to have the full facts though.

What have you got against Polish people?

 

[dawesome]

You think saying "undercut by Poles" is anti-Polish?

 

[al78]

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.

Would it not be theoretically possible to have mirrors on HGV's that auto-readjust according to the angle of the cab with the trailer? All you need is the optimum mirror position when the cab and trailer are in a straight line, and the angle of cab to trailer when making a turn, and it should be possible to calculate a new mirror position which has the field of vision remaining down to the back of the trailer, not at the trailer. Do such mirrors exist?

 

[Alun]

You think saying "undercut by Poles" is anti-Polish?

Yes ! Many different nationalities are involved in competition, both fair and unfair, why single out the Polish?

 

[Alun]

Would it not be theoretically possible to have mirrors on HGV's that auto-readjust according to the angle of the cab with the trailer? All you need is the optimum mirror position when the cab and trailer are in a straight line, and the angle of cab to trailer when making a turn, and it should be possible to calculate a new mirror position which has the field of vision remaining down to the back of the trailer, not at the trailer. Do such mirrors exist?

I think it's a good idea, and sounds entirely feasible, I haven't heard of any in use though.

 

[dawesome]

Yes ! Many different nationalities are involved in competition, both fair and unfair, why single out the Polish?

Because I'm massively racist towards Polish people.

 

[stowie]

As I said before, I think that what is laughable is using twitter, links to Huffington Post and the other link (sorry I can't remember what it was now) to support the claim that SMIDSY's are now "being enshrined in law". The law is not made in that way. It is primarily made by Acts of Parliament and Precedents which are made in the Courts.

I was not saying the reports were laughable (and, for the record, I was certainly not saying that the deaths were laughable). I was saying that I thought that your arguement, being based on poor sources, was laughable. The Inquest is being held next week when, hopefully a fuller picture will emerge. Sadly the full evidence is unlikely to be tested in court as the charges appear to have been dropped. We must assume that that is because the CPS believes that it is either unlikely to get a conviction or because it believes that it is not in the Public interest to proceed.

As an aside, though it is largely irrelevant, I don't take the Huff particulary seriously, I don't take twitter at all seriously, and I take most of what I see on the Web with a big pinch of salt. I do take official court records seriously.

I don't think what you will get on an internet forum is peer reviewed research. After all it is really an exchange of opinions.

Having said that, I do notice a lot of mitigation and defense of driving (normally after whacking a cyclist) relies upon "sun glare" in the case of cars and "blind spots" in the case of lorries.

I have simply looked through the cambridge news and found the following

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Car-driver-stuck-on-busway-says-sun-was-in-my-eyes-06122011.htm
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hom...or-injuring-cyclist-in-collision-17042012.htm
(note that the one immediately above has a "low afternoon sun". At 1pm-2pm. In October)
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Fine-for-driver-who-crashed-into-cyclist-10052012.htm

The title of SMIDSY enshrined in law may be somewhat hyperbolic, but there seems to be a number of cases where mitigation was concerning "not seeing" the cyclist. In my opinion, if blind spots are so problematic (and they appear to be) on lorries then having HGVs with these blind spots in our cities needs to be carefully reviewed. Especially since there are cheap and easy things that can be done to help with the situation (as easy as, say Fresnel lenses, or a full compliment of correctly aligned mirrors). And judging from the number "sun-in-eyes" causing accidents one might be inclined to believe that only driving at night would be the solution!

 

[sandman]

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.

I'm going to say this with the greatest of respect.

You're an idiot, who has posted an OP based on a newspaper article and any form of rebuttal against you or your stupid arse views and opinions elicit the above.

It's little wonder that you've been banned from this site numerous times before. Why the hell the staff has let you post your frothing dribble time and time again is beyond me. No wonder commuting is such a bad place to be.

Bring back Mag, Mr O, JJ, even the pious BM and have some real debate.

 

[Recycler]

, a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads.

Once more, I have to contradict your conclusion.

If you look at the DTp report "Reported road Casualties Great Britain 2008" published by the Office of National Statistics Page 119 you'll see that, in real terms, cars are involved in more accidents than HGV's
Cars are involved in fatalities or serious injuries approximately 50% more often than HGV's. (7.1 car accidents for every 100m kilometres against HGV accidents at a rate of 5.7 accidents per 100m kilometres). The explanation is down to HGV's driving higher average mileages than cars.

I really don't think that demonising HGV's is going to get us anywhere. HGV drivers are not perfect, just as any other road user is not perfect, but it is unrealistic to characterise them, or their vehicles, as being any worse than others.
I haven't checked the figures, but I suspect that we are far more likely to be killed or injured by a car than by an HGV.

FWIW we are also highly likely to be injured by ourselves (around 50%)...i.e. no other vehicle involved. But that is another discussion

 

[dawesome]

For most cyclists, HGVs are the thing most feared on urban roads. Despite only comprising 5% of traffic, they are involved in about 50% of cyclist deaths each year, and many more serious injuries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jan/27/hgv-cyclists-safety-bike-blog

What, exactly, were you referring to when you used the word "laughable"? I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question. Something in the Huffington link?

 

[PK99]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jan/27/hgv-cyclists-safety-bike-blog

some good advice in the link....

The consensus is this: overtake, don't undertake, or simply wait behind the lorry. And always think this: is it at all possible that this truck could turn left or right in the time it takes me to overtake? The London Cycling Campaign provides this advice with a useful lorry blind spot diagram

and in the LCC link:

Drivers of large vehicles need to make an extra effort to see cyclists, so be aware that they won't always have seen you. Follow the advice below at all times:.
1. Avoid cycling in the lorry risk zone
Be very careful cycling around large lorries, especially riding up their nearside near junctions.
And if a lorry manoeuvres in such a way as to put you in its risk zone (above), you must move straightaway, braking to drop back if necessary.
If you're in this area lorry drivers have most difficulty seeing you, especially in busy traffic.
2. Remember even wide gaps aren't safeLarge lorries always move out to the right before they swing sharply across to turn left. Always stay out of the lorry risk zone near junctions.
3. Take care at traffic lightsAt traffic lights make sure you stay behind lorries or get a long way in front of the cab, in a location where the driver can clearly see you. Use the middle, not the left side, of the painted bike box or advanced stop line (ASL).
4. Know that behind the lorry is safestBehind a lorry is the safest place to be. Where possible overtake on the right side, so the driver can see you.

Good to see the LCC gicing such sound advice - I take it ypu link to it because you agree with it?
.

 

[dawesome]

some good advice in the link....



and in the LCC link:



Good to see the LCC gicing such sound advice - I take it ypu link to it because you agree with it?
.

Of course, I hang back from lorries. I let them pass if I can, I'd rather have them ahead of me. If one reverses out I will sit and wait and let it go. I'm worried about the ones that come up behind me:


Catriona Patel, a 39-year-old public relations executive, was in training to ride L’Etape du Tour with her husband Asish when she was killed after a lorry driven by Dennis Putz, 51, from Monkton Hadley, Hertfordshire, turned left across her path on Kennington Park Road, near Oval Tube Station. "Dennis Putz started driving a large tipper truck that day still 1.5 times the legal drink drive limit. He was also using a mobile telephone as he hit Catriona.






TV producer Eilidh Cairns, aged 30, died after she ended up under the wheels of the vehicle after coming off her bike while traveling to work in Notting Hill Gate on February 5 last year. On Friday, the trial opened at Kingston Magistrates’ Court of lorry driver Joao Lopes, aged 53, who was charged with driving while his eyesight was such that he could not comply with requirements of a prescribed eye test..




Maria Fernandez, 24, died from head injuries sustained following the crash at Holborn Circus. A bin lorry had crept into the green 'bike box' zone at the lights then turned left, dragging the student under its wheels.


A staggering 83 per cent of lorries are driven at speeds in excess of the 50mph speed limit on dual carriageways in non-built up areas, and 69 per cent on similarly designated single carriageway roads, where a 40mph limit applies, according to new data from the Department for Transport (DfT).

 

[Recycler]

The title of SMIDSY enshrined in law may be somewhat hyperbolic, but there seems to be a number of cases where mitigation was concerning "not seeing" the cyclist. In my opinion, if blind spots are so problematic (and they appear to be) on lorries then having HGVs with these blind spots in our cities needs to be carefully reviewed. Especially since there are cheap and easy things that can be done to help with the situation (as easy as, say Fresnel lenses, or a full compliment of correctly aligned mirrors). And judging from the number "sun-in-eyes" causing accidents one might be inclined to believe that only driving at night would be the solution!

I agree with that, though I'm not sure that "the sun in my eyes" explanations were treated as mitigating circumstances. My reading those reports is that it was the excuse/explanation offered by the drivers, but they were still found guilty. I.e. it wasn't accepted.

Nevertheless, more needs to be done but, from the HGV comments made in #114 it is possible that mirrors alone will not be enough. I also believe that cyclists can do more to protect themselves and that, as we are likely to come off worse from an argument with 40 tons of steel, it is sensible for us to take great care.