Woman cyclist killed in Victoria (tipper truck)

[zimzum42]

Has anyone defined when this is?

Going up the inside of a vehicle that is already indicating to turn left would be a good start, doesn't matter if it's a car or a truck.

This is one of my big beefs with the people who think cycle lanes are a good idea, gives people the idea that bikes should filter on the left, much safer on the right...

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3564846, member: 9609"]I would guess the driver would not only be moving his head but also very active on the seat in studying his mirrors, trouble is bikes move very fast and even if the driver is exploring his mirrors every 5 seconds there is still time for a cyclist to move into an inappropriate place and not be seen.[/QUOTE]
Is it time to mention double manning again?

 

[subaqua]

I reckon I can both move my head more than 90° and see more than 180°.

Ok smarty pants look left and can you see what is 180 degrees behind you . In fact do it looking left. Unless you are an owl ( I wouldn't put it past some people ) unlikely . Point is that it isn't just mirrors, cab design, road design, it is where we as cyclists put ourselves and enforcement .

Nothing to do with being right or wrong but being sensible. If I hang back and it slows me by 3 seconds or even 30 seconds is that such a problem? And yes just for Glenn/ spindrift that means drivers ( and a massive majority do ) .

I know what I am worth to my company per hour . I know that isn't what I am worth to my family . Hence I ride, and live life accordingly. 99.99999% of other road users are the same. It's that tiny percent of a percent that needs to be dealt with, via existing laws .

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Why inappropriate?

Seriously?

 

[zimzum42]

Seriously?

Probably, after all, blind people should be free to ride bikes on the North Circular too...

 

[glenn forger]

[QUOTE 3564846, member: 9609"] there is still time for a cyclist to move into an inappropriate place and not be seen.[/QUOTE]

I think it's extremely dangerous to talk about "inappropriate" places for a cyclist to be around hgvs. In two cyclist fatalities the lorry was waiting at the lights and not indicating. The lorry drivers set off and immediately turned left, causing a death. In one case, Daniel Cox's, the driver was actually indicating in the opposite way to where he turned! In all three cases the cyclist did nothing wrong, in all three cases they were caught on the near side of the hgv. That's why it's dangerous to refer to "inappropriate" positioning-it presupposes a mistake which the rider may very well not have made.

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 3564846, member: 9609"]I would guess the driver would not only be moving his head but also very active on the seat in studying his mirrors, trouble is bikes move very fast and even if the driver is exploring his mirrors every 5 seconds there is still time for a cyclist to move into an inappropriate place and not be seen.[/QUOTE]


When turning left where should the diver be looking?

Scenario:
He did not pass a cyclist on the way to the junction.
He has checked his mirrors while stopped and no cyclist has appeared on his LHS.
Lights change.
He moves forward: should he be looking forward, ie where he is going or should he be driving on his LH rearview mirrors to check for the sort of cyclist shown in Gaz's video who whips up the inside at the last minute?

 

[swansonj]

[QUOTE 3565109, member: 9609"]
Again ludicrously expensive and all these costs would need to be passed on to the general public in higher costs for goods. I just don't see the general public supporting such inflation to accommodate care free cycling. I agree something needs to be done, no one should be dying on our roads, cyclists need more respect, a lot more respect from other road users. But I think the double manning or specialised escorts is never going to be given the time of day, so lets try to think of something a little more do-abble.[/QUOTE]
There are multiple instances, from the fields of transport, construction, energy, and no doubt many others, where higher costs are imposed on the public because safety measures cost extra money. I don't see the public complaining very much.

 

[swansonj]

Nothing to do with being right or wrong but being sensible.

Seems to me you conflate two different things:
- what is sensible in the prevailing circumstances
- whether those prevailing circumstances are right or wrong.

If the guy in the house down the road periodically fires his gun out of his window without being able to see where he's firing it, I sure as heck would keep out of the danger zone, but I wouldn't describe that situation as "right"

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3565109, member: 9609"] I just don't see the general public supporting such inflation to accommodate care free cycling. I agree something needs to be done, no one should be dying on our roads, cyclists need more respect, a lot more respect from other road users. But I think the double manning or specialised escorts is never going to be given the time of day, so lets try to think of something a little more do-abble.[/QUOTE]

There are multiple instances, from the fields of transport, construction, energy, and no doubt many others, where higher costs are imposed on the public because safety measures cost extra money. I don't see the public complaining very much.

Wot @swansonj said. There's an odd rhetorical strategy, which I have noticed amongst those who have an interest in perpetuating the status quo, which involves displacing the speaker's own resistance to change by invoking an imaginary constituency that the speaker somehow magically represents. I was at a meeting about our High Street where members of the public, and people who work in the street or have an interest in improving it would suggest changes that would make the space better for people and slow down or take space away from vehicles. A senior Highways representative would repeatedly affect to be personally in favour of such changes, and then add 'unfortunately, people will complain if...' or 'it sounds great, but people won't accept...' I don't buy this - I think the interests ranged against changed are narrow but determined, and that they speak only for themselves. What the haulage industry needs is a sort of Michael O'Leary figure, who makes no pretence of considering what is best for anything other than his own interests. Then we can stop tip-toeing around and get to what we are talking about, which is that the industry wants everyone else to shoulder the costs of the dangers it presents.

 

[subaqua]

Seems to me you conflate two different things:
- what is sensible in the prevailing circumstances
- whether those prevailing circumstances are right or wrong.

If the guy in the house down the road periodically fires his gun out of his window without being able to see where he's firing it, I sure as heck would keep out of the danger zone, but I wouldn't describe that situation as "right"

i wouldnt describe that as legal . if the projectile leaves his land.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

[QUOTE 3565320, member: 9609"]I am not wishing to preserve the status quo, not at all, I hate about every aspect of our roads, the total disrespect of road laws, the acceptance of the massive death and serious injured toll that as a society we weirdly seem to accept! even the massive destruction of our wildlife, people go out and feed the birds then drive along a country road at 60mph with the dam things stotting of the windscreen, the whole thing about motorised transport is just odd, and it all needs a complete redesign.
I don't think your idea for someone helping with observation is that bad of an idea, but I doubt any government would touch it with a barge poll, it won't happen, we need to lower our aim to something a little more achievable.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.

 

[zimzum42]

When it's indicating left and is about to start the manoeuvre, or has actually begun it?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Its OK Zimmers, we know your answer already.

Clearly this is aimed at me, but I've re-read your posts several times & I'm still confused, you appear to be saying that if a lorry/car in front is indicating that it is going to turn left it is still a good idea to try to go up the inside. If that is the case then I'm sorry but you are wrong & you are advising people to put themselves in potentially dangerous positions, which may have no escape route, by all means do this yourself if you are foolish enough but I would suggest against advocating it for others.

 

[srw]

i wouldnt describe that as legal . if the projectile leaves his land.

QED. Some things (shooting) are heavily regulated and even made illegal because of the danger they pose to the general public. But other things (unsafe lorries) aren't.

I don't have the figues to hand, but I'd hazard a guess that the operators of (legal) lorries have been responsible for more deaths and serious injuries over the last few years than the operators of (legal and illegal) firearms.