Who's at fault....Lorry driver, cyclist or the cycle lane designer?

[dawesome]

Operation Mermaid in Yorkshire, 41 HGVs stopped, 27 offences:

http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6786

Essex, 41 hgvs stopped, 28 offences:

http://www.activchelmsford.com/news...llegallorrydriversinChelmsfordagain-4532.html

Warwickshire, 42 HGVs stopped,nine offences detected with two vehicles considered too dangerous to continue using the roads:

http://news.warwickshire.police.uk/press-releases/2007312Lorrieschecked

Are you seriously arguing a major problem doesn't exist with this class of vehicle?

 

[gambatte]

Darren Hall, another one. Be better off staying inside, they're all out to get you if you're not on 2 wheels!​

 

[dawesome]

Cambridgeshire Police have criticised the large number of commercial vehicles that are committing offences after dozens were stopped in a multi-agency operation. Operation Mermaid saw 45 LGVs stopped on the A1 in Sawtry, of which 21 - almost 50% - were issued with prohibition and defect notices. Seven immediate prohibitions were issued for light, tyre and brake offences. Other results from the police-led operation include:

• seven prohibitions for tachograph/hours offences
• two delayed prohibitions
• four vehicle defect rectification scheme notices

The operation, which also involved Vosa, Trading Standards, DVLA and HM Revenue and Customs officers, comes less than two months after a similar operation in Northamptonshire found almost half of all vehicles stopped were flouting the law. Sergeant Robin Marshall of Cambridgeshire Police says: "It is disappointing to see there are still a number of goods drivers committing offences on the county's roads

http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/operation-mermaid-targets-lgvs-in-cambridgeshire

It seems to be a rough-and-ready rule of thumb that more than 50% of HGVs on the roads are breaking the law in some way, with many considered in too dangerous a state to continue their journey. That doesn't worry you?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What prejudice is that?

Boris Bajic said: ↑
are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?

You betcha:

There's your prejudice.


GC

 

[gambatte]

http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/operation-mermaid-targets-lgvs-in-cambridgeshire

It seems to be a rough-and-ready rule of thumb that more than 50% of HGVs on the roads are breaking the law in some way, with many considered in too dangerous a state to continue their journey. That doesn't worry you?

Yes it does, but it seems a lot of this is more operator than driver problems

 

[dawesome]

Boris Bajic said: ↑
are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?




There's your prejudice.


GC

Um, you've snipped the bit out of my post that showed that of the random HGVs stopped in London 100% were breaking the law.

 

[dawesome]

Yes it does, but it seems a lot of this is more operator than driver problems

Possibly, I have no idea how a man who's been banned from driving three times can get a job driving lorries unless the company checks are worthless.

 

[Hawk]

Um, you've snipped the bit out of my post that showed that of the random HGVs stopped in London 100% were breaking the law.

How do you know they were random? They are more likely to have just stopped HGVs that looked dodgy... for example, mobile phone offences? Officers don't stop a random HGV to THEN find a mobile phone offence has been committed, they observe it in progress THEN stop the vehicle. So you might well only have a 100% criminality rate amongst HGVs that officers thought were breaking the law as they went by. Not quite so bad..?

 

[dawesome]

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).

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

 

[GrasB]

I still can’t get my head around the suggestion that the lorry driver should have given (what was to him) an empty cycle lane more room. That he should have moved further over to the other side of the road making himself a risk to every car coming towards him and being further out making it harder for the motorcyclists coming past him; he would then have been accused on a motorbike forum of doing a blocking manoeuvre. He should have done this just in case an idiot on a bike decides to blast up the inside of him.

The lorry driver is in a tight urban environment. He was traveling at lowish speed (which makes it probable a cyclists could be keeping pace with him), there was a cycle lane which means a cyclist may have used the lane to come up his inside. Now here's the thing, as the driver was accelerating he has now made a situation where a clean pass by a cyclists, in the cycle lane, is no longer possible & has not compensated for this by being more cautious about his road positon. Here we have your huge observation fail, despite the advantage of unlimited replays! The lane to his right isn't one with on coming traffic & the motorcyclists can't be blocked by the lorry as they are infront of it. So the lorry driver has moved the goal posts for the cyclist & not compensated for this. This is why he should have been more cautious about his road positon.

If we take this to trunk roads; Cars are overtaking a lorry on the offside. Traffic slows down in the offside lane to about the same speed as the nearside lane leaving two cars beside the lorry, pacing it. About 25-30 seconds latter the traffic slows down in further, & the offside traffic is relatively faster than the nearside traffic. The lorry driver decides to pull into offside lane. However there's a car there, both cars sound their horns but the lorry keeps on moving into the offside lane. This forces the cars into the gap between the edge of the motorway & the crash barrier. The rear ward car makes the mistake of trying to brake, the car slides wedging it between the crash barrier & all hell breaks lose. The lorry driver prosecuted for driving without due care & attention despite the cars were in his blind spot for 60-90 seconds.

 

[subaqua]

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

sometimes you really are too stupid be on the internet . how can you randomly stop a mobile phone offence. its a witnessed offence. that isn't random.

the police say its random, but is it . its not like a copper has never lied when asked a question ( sorry to all you decent coppers , wouldn't want to tar you all with the same brush)

I asked you to provide the list of the offences as the linky was broken , but you didn't you just got shirty with people.

one final point if you can't see somebody and don't know they are there you won't be prosecuted for it, it was tried and got thrown out by a decent set of magistrates. This i know as i have read case papers of my fathers when a scooter followed him down the A10 towards Stoke Newington Gyratory in his blind spot behind the trailer and then tried to cut up the left when he turned into Northwold rd. as the lorry turned in the trailer clipped him and knocked him off. the 1st my dad knew about it was back at the yard in N Wales as the police had been in touch and wanted a statement. Highbury Magistrates threw all bar one of the charges out which was for a defective rear lamp which was discovered on inspection of the unit by the police back in N Wales .

I never ceased to be amazed by the number of people including car drivers and pedestrians who put themsleves in blind spots of vehicles. even the banksmen on site do it without realising and they are trained to know where to be !!

 

[cd365]

The lorry driver is in a tight urban environment. He was traveling at lowish speed (which makes it probable a cyclists could be keeping pace with him), there was a cycle lane which means a cyclist may have used the lane to come up his inside. Now here's the thing, as the driver was accelerating he has now made a situation where a clean pass by a cyclists, in the cycle lane, is no longer possible & has not compensated for this by being more cautious about his road positon. .

So he should have been more cautious with his road position just in case a cyclist with a death wish decides to try and beat him to the end of the cycle lane? Surely what he should have expected was that the cyclist would have followed the cycle lane and not just try and join the road in front of him executing a very dangerous maneuver in front of him. That is what road planners wanted the cyclist to do so why shouldn't the lorry driver have expected this? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's the "just in case" argument.

I've put £2 on tonight's EuroMillions, I think I will go out today and hammer my credit card just in case I win.

 

[Boris Bajic]

That's what the cyclist says. Either the lorry driver saw the cyclist, hit him and drove off, or didn't see the cyclist, hit him and drove off. Either way, the driver's culpable.

The elephant in the room is why we allow vehicles on the roads that we know are the single most dangerous vehicle, involved in a wildly disproportionate number of fatalities, often driven by neanderthal thugs and drunkards that have blind spots that can be eliminated by mirrors that cost £30.

This is a rational and thoughtful piece of writing, demonstrating the reasoned and detached analysis to which it has clearly been subjected by its author. It fits well with all the other posts by the same author, in that it is not based upon a massive and irrational presupposition that all lorries are horrid and yucky killer-machines. I admire that.

I have to admit that the calm, measured approach of Mr Dawesome has resulted in my going through something like a Damascene volta face in this matter.

I now find that all lorries are horrid, nasty and dangerous. I too tar all lorries with the same brush - and let me tell you, my brush is by no means short of tar. Tar, tar, tar! Bad, naughty lorries! Good, kind Dawesome!

I share Dawesome's strong beliefs and convictions in this area and will join him in what I imagine is his boycott of all goods transported by lorry. With immediate effect. Bad, naughty lorries!

From now on I will buy only goods that are transported from source to retailer by a bicycle with a trailer. I fear my retail choices will be limited, but a principle is a principle.

Further, after the tragic spifflication of a frog while mowing my lawn, from now on I will mow only with nail scissors.

No wonder our jails are so full!

 

[400bhp]

This is a rational and thoughtful piece of writing, demonstrating the reasoned and detached analysis to which it has clearly been subjected by its author. It fits well with all the other posts by the same author, in that it is not based upon a massive and irrational presupposition that all lorries are horrid and yucky killer-machines. I admire that.

I have to admit that the calm, measured approach of Mr Dawesome has resulted in my going through something like a Damascene volta face in this matter.

I now find that all lorries are horrid, nasty and dangerous. I too tar all lorries with the same brush - and let me tell you, my brush is by no means short of tar. Tar, tar, tar! Bad, naughty lorries! Good, kind Dawesome!

I share Dawesome's strong beliefs and convictions in this area and will join him in what I imagine is his boycott of all goods transported by lorry. With immediate effect. Bad, naughty lorries!

From now on I will buy only goods that are transported from source to retailer by a bicycle with a trailer. I fear my retail choices will be limited, but a principle is a principle.

Further, after the tragic spifflication of a frog while mowing my lawn, from now on I will mow only with nail scissors.

No wonder our jails are so full!

Sometimes when reading certain threads I get confused by posts that don't seem to follow the previous one. Then I remember that I have people on ignore.

 

[Mugshot]

How about 170 examples?

http://www.speedingsolicitor.co.uk/blog/?tag=mobile-phone-offences

That's in just 5 days in one county. Operation Mermaid is repeated country-wide and the results are depressingly similar where ever the police operation takes place, HGV drivers are often lawless and dangerous. That's not to say there are some professional firms, the flat bed trucks and scaffolding lorries often seem to be driven by sociopaths. That's not prejudice, it's my own personal experience backed upby police reports.

Mr Putz, who killed Miss Patel, had three driving bans for drink driving and 20 (twenty) for driving whilst disqualified and STILL got a job as an HGV driver:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...utz-crushes-cyclist-talking-mobile-phone.html

Whoa Nelly, this is a delectable attempt at a side step worthy of Shane Williams in his prime. Let's go back a just a little.
You have repeatedly made statements in this thread which seriously question the character of a number of people and made spurious claims, please see posts #125, #128, #131, #133, #135, #137 for examples, each has been presented as fact, you may of course be right, but as you clearly know nothing as yet try to show some human decency and humility and hold your hands up and admit that they were all made in your very humble opinion and could therefore be wrong