|
Bicycles and 40-tonners don't mix.
|
Bicycles and 40-tonners don't mix.
And whenever it goes wrong, there's only one loser!
|
|
Today at Vauxhall Cross in London, Met Police in numbers stopping cyclists that jumped the lights, and gave warnings about wearing helmets, hiviz and sporting lighting. They also stopped HGVs as well for all manner of things.
There were high numbers of cyclists stopped there that fell between the things above with very few bothered to adhere to safety at such a busy junction.
Once and for all, the police should issue a warning. That in one months time, if you are caught without hiviz, lights or jumping red lights, your bike will be confiscated and crushed on the spot. Maybe that way they might drag themselves onto the side of safety and the recent crop of deaths might be reduced.
Edited by Ben 10 on 18/11/2013 at 19:13
|
|
I'd ban headphones for cyclists. No wonder they can't hear traffic around them.
|
|
Since when have Hi viz, Lights and helmets been compulsory for cyclists in broad daylight?
It is sensible to have them but mandatory?
Do we take this to the ultimate and make it compulsory for pedestrians to wear Hi viz?
Also, what colour Hi viz, a blue chip company in the UK has dispensed with yellow Hi viz in favour of orange Hi viz for all staff, visitors and contractors because orange is deemed safer than yellow.
|
Since when have Hi viz, Lights and helmets been compulsory for cyclists in broad daylight?
It is sensible to have them but mandatory?
Do we take this to the ultimate and make it compulsory for pedestrians to wear Hi viz?
Also, what colour Hi viz, a blue chip company in the UK has dispensed with yellow Hi viz in favour of orange Hi viz for all staff, visitors and contractors because orange is deemed safer than yellow.
Hi viz is not actually all that viz under sodium streetlights, green/yellow, orange and pink all look a washed out grey. An old fashioned fawn raincoat shows up just as well.
Helmets are only a marginal gain as they're increasingly inneffective at more than 10mph and, at least theoretically, can worsen rotational injury to the brain.
|
Hi viz is not actually all that viz under sodium streetlights, green/yellow, orange and pink all look a washed out grey. An old fashioned fawn raincoat shows up just as well.
Bromptonaut, I've been looking at hiviz jackets under street lights since you mentioned this earlier. They look very visible to me.
I can't see many young people ever wearing a fawn raincoat, for any reason, unless they are over 60, or indeed want to look over 60!
|
|
|
Hi viz is not actually all that viz under sodium streetlights, green/yellow, orange and pink all look a washed out grey. An old fashioned fawn raincoat shows up just as well.
There's a simple physical reason for that. Sodium lamps (the yellow ones) emit a very strong precise colour which hi-viz materials do not re-emit strongly. Hi-viz depends on a wider spectrum of colours, preferably daylight, but arc lamps will do.
|
|
Sodium street lighting is being phased out as soon as practical - there's a big program of LED replacement going on.
|
Sodium street lighting is being phased out as soon as practical - there's a big program of LED replacement going on.
I'm not aware of LED lights in either London or at home. We have some 'white' sodium which give a better light and less 'scatter' . They still don't show up hi-viz. Neither do the mercury vapour type on some London streets.
Not arguing against making yourself conspicuous, just pointing out that conventional hi-viz is not always the solution.
|
|
|
|
No rules or equipment will stop cyclists undertaking HGVs even when they're turning left - if they aren't in that position they won't get run over.
Like many aspects of modern life, common sense seems to be in short supply.
|
No rules or equipment will stop cyclists undertaking HGVs even when they're turning left - if they aren't in that position they won't get run over.
Like many aspects of modern life, common sense seems to be in short supply.
You wouldn't and neither would I. But I suspect we're both older UK born/bred males with upwards of 300k motor miles plus teenage and later cycling under our belts.
Turn us into younger, much less confident females, over here from LHD territory. Add in a wide (ish) bit of green or blue 'safe bike lane' leading you kerbside past an HGV.
Only when lights change does the trap snap shut......
|
Turn us into younger, much less confident females, over here from LHD territory. Add in a wide (ish) bit of green or blue 'safe bike lane' leading you kerbside past an HGV.
Only when lights change does the trap snap shut......
Ah, That explains it then! Because they don't have HGV's or cycle lanes in mainland europe do they !
The accident today was a 60+yr old male BTW.
|
Ah, That explains it then! Because they don't have HGV's or cycle lanes in mainland europe do they !
The accident today was a 60+yr old male BTW.
Mainland europe usually lacks the mish/mash of 'mandatory' and advisory cycle lanes and where they exist the driving culture respects them so they're safe in a way ours are not. Presumed liability helps there too.
I'm not suggesting all victims foreign but if you go back over the last 6-7 years Eastern European and other foreign females are a disproportionate number of the victims.
They also have HGV bans during peak hours in major cities (eg Paris).
|
|
|
That's exactly how I feel about it RT. The country seems to have entered into a mindset of protecting people from their own stupidity.
It is all very well blaming truck drivers but, If they never cycled up the inside of trucks turning or intending to turn left, Then there would not be a fatality.
Ask the question, How many motorcyclists or cars get squashed by left turning trucks? Not alot as most are not silly enough to go up the inside of a truck with a left indicator flashing away.
As for Hi Viz vests not being visible blah blah blah. Well, I've worn one for work a few times like most vocational drivers and I have never run anyone over in a poorly lit yard when others were wearing them either so they must work. The overall yellow or whatever colour the vest is works for day time and the reflective tapes on them work very well at night.
|
|
Wacky,
Cars are frequently trapped inside turning trucks but being a metal cage they survive. I regularly squirm at the sight of car drivers putting themselves at risk in such circumstances on roundabouts, the A5 at Stony Stratford is a regular site for such incidents as are curves in multi lane roads.
Conflictions with motor cyclists are commonplace too. Plenty of stupid scooter riders in London. I've also personally witnessed a courier being knocked off when a scaffolders flatbed made a sudden and unsignalled right turn across his path.
Of course some of these accidents are the cyclists fault for putting themselves at risk either through risk taking or inadvertance. The idea implicit in your third para that all these accidents are down cyclists going up the inside is utter nonesense. In a number of cases the truck has infringed the cyclists lane or turned over them in the classic 'left hook'. One driver who was convicted was drunk. Another, who subsequently went on to kill again, was convicted of driving with uncorrected poor eyesight.
My point about hi-viz is simply that it's not a panacea. It's better than nothing and very good indeed in poor daylight and (the retro-relective strips) on unlit roads. Under street lighting it's no better and possibly slightly worse than a light coloured coat.
|
|
I think in all the years of driving in large firms, With large fleets of articulated vehicles in the locations I worked, I only heard of 2 accidents of cars being squeezed against the sides of a truck, One of those was a car in a left only lane who decided it was going to try and go straight on and got themselves wedged between the truck and the railings and the other was a car that went into the side of the truck as a car was coming for them head on and they naturally swerved into the side rails of the trailer to prevent themselves a worse accident.
|
|
|
|
I'd ban headphones for cyclists. No wonder they can't hear traffic around them.
Ban whatever you like. I think using handheld mobiles has been banned for some while ....
Road users have to behave sensibly and with forethought, that's all. It can't always be someone else's fault when things go pear-shaped.
|
|
Who is it with this crackpot idea that HGV's should be banned in rush hour?
Didn't this bloke today die at lunchtime?
|
|
I they want hgvs to be bannd then they wont be abel to go to the shop and get what they want when they want as shops wouldn't have the stock untill after rush our. Sone shops cant take deliveries erly in the morning and have to have them in rush hour. But lets ban the lorries as they do more for our economy than cyclists.
|
|
Cycle are at risk in London for a number of reasons, some caused by themselves others not so. Top five Issues - I have with cyclists are as follows. 1) Riding in dark with no lights 2) Riding across red traffic lights 3) Attempting to overtake on the inside when car is turning left (regardless of indication) 4) Riding at full speed regardless of conditions being wet or dry condition. 5) Not slowing down in central London when a large crowd of people are attempting cross. For sure other drivers often don’t see cycles and so on, but if the above 5 were follow then may less accidents would happen!
|
Cycle are at risk in London for a number of reasons, some caused by themselves others not so. Top five Issues - I have with cyclists are as follows. 1) Riding in dark with no lights 2) Riding across red traffic lights 3) Attempting to overtake on the inside when car is turning left (regardless of indication) 4) Riding at full speed regardless of conditions being wet or dry condition. 5) Not slowing down in central London when a large crowd of people are attempting cross. For sure other drivers often don’t see cycles and so on, but if the above 5 were follow then may less accidents would happen!
No argument with majority of that except for (3) which oversimplifies a serious issue
Filtering kerbside is pretty risky for all sorts of reasons of which unsignalled left turns are just one.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been overtaken by a car only for it to brake and turn left across my path. In more egregious cases the turn is commenced as soon as the cyclist is behind the b-pillar. Riding too close to the kerb encourages such behaviour, a good cyclist will see this risk coming and take a more prominent position.
A significant number of motorists see a cyclist ahead and think its slow so they 'must get in front'. Actually in urban traffic even a middle aged non athlete on a fold up bike can easily be doing 17-20mph.
I'd also argue that (5) is not unique to cyclists.
|
|
Who is it with this crackpot idea that HGV's should be banned in rush hour?
Didn't this bloke today die at lunchtime?
Nobody opened negotiations with what they'd actually settle for - you start with ideal and fallback to reasonable.
Rush hour bans work in Paris and many other European cities without the citizens starving or construction coming to a halt.
|
|
Look B, its quite simple. HIVIZ for daylight. Proper working lights for darkness. Stop going on about street lights as an excuse not to wear. And use those things called arms, so we know when you intend to turn or pull in front. If you don't want to end up as a statistic, follow the rules, help yourselves be seen and ride defensively.
|
|
I live in London and travel quite a lot with a bike. To be fair there is nothing to worry about if you are paying enought attention, especially in busy traffik. So in my opinion this was just a really wierd coincidence.
|
Look B, its quite simple. HIVIZ for daylight. Proper working lights for darkness. Stop going on about street lights as an excuse not to wear. And use those things called arms, so we know when you intend to turn or pull in front. If you don't want to end up as a statistic, follow the rules, help yourselves be seen and ride defensively.
No disagrement with general message. Lights, good ones not weedy little flashers, are a must at night.
I'm not quoting streetlights as an excuse not to wear hi-viz. More pointing out that hi-viz is not the universal panacea some seem to imagine it to be. Other things might work better in some circs.
Signalling is good too but hands are also needed to operate brakes and gears and to stay on over broken surfaces so cannot give with same precision as those indicators that all motor drivers use so well........
|
|
Who is it with this crackpot idea that HGV's should be banned in rush hour?
Didn't this bloke today die at lunchtime?
Rush hour bans work in Paris and many other European cities without the citizens starving or construction coming to a halt.
Right on, B'naut. Just read in today's Times large vehicles are banned between 7am and 10pm in Paris...in 2011 there were NO cyclist deaths. Also, the law on mainland Europe blames the motorist for ANY collision with a cyclist. As is so often the case, we are way behind in this now benighted country.
PS I suspect some of B'naut's ruder contradictors have no idea what a Venn diagram is, let alone when and when not to use an apostrophe [see above - top line]
|
the law on mainland Europe blames the motorist for ANY collision with a cyclist.
Because that is patently WRONG - cyclists can/do cause some of the accidents.
|
|
< I suspect some of B'naut's ruder contradictors have no idea what a Venn diagram is, let alone when and when not to use an apostrophe [see above - top line] >
Ignoring the dig about an apostrophe (see general advice to posters at top of main webpage), has anyone mentioned a Venn diagram in this thread?
|
|
I think that the EU rules do not absolve the cyclist from blame, but merely shift the onus to the motorist to demonstrate that they were not to blame.
I think we could learn a lot from some EU countries, where quality of life is still a major consideration over commerce.
|
< I suspect some of B'naut's ruder contradictors have no idea what a Venn diagram is, let alone when and when not to use an apostrophe [see above - top line] >
Ignoring the dig about an apostrophe (see general advice to posters at top of main webpage), has anyone mentioned a Venn diagram in this thread?
I did somewhere. Attempt to point out that world does not split neatly into exclusive gropus of cyclists, motorists and public transport users.
|
|
So what if the go ahead is given to a LGV ban during certain times.
Does that include buses as several of these deaths and many injuries have been between cycle and bus. And while we're at it, why not black cabs, coaches and fire appliances. Singling out LGVs will not stop road deaths or injuries. Again, educate both sides and stringent enforcement of the "rules" will do just as good.
I wager that deaths would still occur with a ban. It has to be a change in attitude by cyclists in general, a tightening of regulations for them that will see a better survival rate in the long run.
|
So what if the go ahead is given to a LGV ban during certain times.
The issue is with a narrow subset of HGVs - tipper and skip lorries associated with the construction industry. Two percent of th traffic but 70%+ of the deaths
Buses are ubiquitous in London but only feature proportionately in the cyclist death stats.
Taxis and fire appliances are a Red Herring.
Of course cylists need to look out too but they're not in command of 40 tonnes of trick.
|
Rush hour bans work in Paris and many other European cities without the citizens starving or construction coming to a halt.
Move to Paris then if that's what you prefer. I'm getting pretty sick of 'well it works in Europe' apparently being a good enough reason to do things here.
Stoning homosexuals in public works in Iran, but that's not a good enough reason to do it here.
I think that the EU rules do not absolve the cyclist from blame, but merely shift the onus to the motorist to demonstrate that they were not to blame.
Even that is unacceptable on every level. To me, the thought of anybody being 'presumed liable' for anything is disgusting. The motorist should not have to disprove their guilt any more or less than any other road user. It's stupid, pathetic things like that which merely adds to the bitter hostility between cyclist and motorist. It backs up the motorists point of view that they get an unfair deal.
I think we could learn a lot from some EU countries, where quality of life is still a major consideration over commerce.
20% unemployment across Southern Europe. 50% youth unemployment in Spain, Greece & Italy. 25% lost from the Greek economy in merely five years. Millions are being pushed into poverty, depression and desperation across the Eurozone. Thousands are jumping to their deaths over house reposessions across the Mediterranean. Greeks are rioting in the streets and greeting the German Chancellor with Swastikas.
Yeah, quality of life is a real priority for the EU.
They also have HGV bans during peak hours in major cities (eg Paris).
Coming back to this, I'd always oppose such a move because it's needless Government intervention. All you'd do with this, is engineer a 'HGV rush hour' a couple of hours after the standard rush hour. Goods transport is big business in this country and any intervention would only spark unintended consequences.
The most dangerous words in politics are 'something must be done.'
Edited by jamie745 on 20/11/2013 at 01:05
|
|
I have to say I'm surprised just how much common sense Jamie is coming out with these days, keep it up!
Rush hour? It may have been 60 minutes decades ago but it's more like 3-4 hours at each end of the day now.
So when can HGVs deliver goods to Londoners, in the middle of the night - but that will force people to cycle to work to unload the HGVs, just when the HGVs are permitted !!
|
|
< Move to Paris then if that's what you prefer. I'm getting pretty sick of 'well it works in Europe' apparently being a good enough reason to do things here.
Stoning homosexuals in public works in Iran, but that's not a good enough reason to do it here. >
Now those must be about the most m****ic suggestions we have had yet, especially the last. How do you know stoning 'works'? How is it relevant to motoring?
Are you taking your medication? :-)
|
< Move to Paris then if that's what you prefer. I'm getting pretty sick of 'well it works in Europe' apparently being a good enough reason to do things here.
Stoning homosexuals in public works in Iran, but that's not a good enough reason to do it here. >
Now those must be about the most m****ic suggestions we have had yet, especially the last. How do you know stoning 'works'? How is it relevant to motoring?
Are you taking your medication? :-)
It demonstates the absurdity of assuming that because they do something elsewhere, that it'll work in the UK.
|
|
There seems to be some contradictions here in this debate, Not so long ago in another cycling thread I remember a certain individual quoting "That those special cyclist type roundabout won't work here even though they work in mainland Europe" and now the same individual is saying things they do in mainland Europe will work here!
I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of cyclists must be politicians, They do alot of talking and not alot of listening to others.
|
There seems to be some contradictions here in this debate, Not so long ago in another cycling thread I remember a certain individual quoting "That those special cyclist type roundabout won't work here even though they work in mainland Europe" and now the same individual is saying things they do in mainland Europe will work here!
I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of cyclists must be politicians, They do alot of talking and not alot of listening to others.
Where's the contradiction?
Apart from being used in Europe there's no link between lorry bans and roundabouts.
|
|
< It demonstates the absurdity of assuming that because they do something elsewhere, that it'll work in the UK. >
It doesn't demonstrate anything except the absurdity of the comparison. Some similes or metaphors are illuminating - that one is only absurd.
|
< Move to Paris then if that's what you prefer. I'm getting pretty sick of 'well it works in Europe' apparently being a good enough reason to do things here.
Stoning homosexuals in public works in Iran, but that's not a good enough reason to do it here. >
Now those must be about the most m****ic suggestions we have had yet, especially the last. How do you know stoning 'works'? How is it relevant to motoring?
Are you taking your medication? :-)
The point is, It is about as plausable as trying to impose a lorry ban on London just because some cyclists cannot be trusted with the task of looking after their own safety.
How about 4 weeks prison sentences for any cyclist seen cycling up the inside of a truck at a traffic light junction?
|
|
< How about 4 weeks prison sentences for any cyclist seen cycling up the inside of a truck at a traffic light junction? >
... or for making absurd suggestions on motoring websites? Neither act is illegal, just a bit foolish. Anyway I thought the prisons were short of capacity? And why waste more taxpayers' money?
|
Neither act is illegal, just a bit foolish. Anyway I thought the prisons were short of capacity? And why waste more taxpayers' money?
I would think putting yourself in a very dangerous situation could be classed as alot more than a 'bit foolish' and again we hear the 'It is not illegal'. It is not illegal for a car to overtake another but, we don't do it when it is not safe to do so.
Why not fix the root of the problem, Rather than trying to work around it all the time?
I don't think what I said is any more absurd than what alot of the pro-cyclist defenders are proposing on here.
In the old days, People who constantly put themselves in danger used to be locked up in big buildings with special nurses to look after them !
Edited by Wackyracer on 20/11/2013 at 18:21
|
|
I would think putting yourself in a very dangerous situation could be classed as alot more than a 'bit foolish' and again we hear the 'It is not illegal'. It is not illegal for a car to overtake another but, we don't do it when it is not safe to do so.
You're still sticking to the assertion that all and every one of these accidents are down to bike riders snucking nearside of indicatin lorries. That's not the case. In several instances lorries have crossed over a lane occupied by a moving cyclist.
Why not fix the root of the problem, Rather than trying to work around it all the time?
It is at least arguable that the root of the problem is construction vehicles, paid by load, using already over bust streets in Central London.
I don't think what I said is any more absurd than what alot of the pro-cyclist defenders are proposing on here.
Relative absurdity is not a good standard for setting policy.
In the old days, People who constantly put themselves in danger used to be locked up in big buildings with special nurses to look after them !
And in both old and current times those who willfully put others in danger were subject to criminal sanctions.
|
|
“You're still sticking to the assertion that all and every one of these accidents are down to bike riders snucking nearside of indicatin lorries. That's not the case. In several instances lorries have crossed over a lane occupied by a moving cyclist.”
No more than you stick to the assertion that the accidents are always lorries and of the construction types. Two of the recent accidents in London were with a coach and a bus iirc?
“It is at least arguable that the root of the problem is construction vehicles, paid by load, using already over bust streets in Central London.”
The common factor in 100% cycling accidents in London is a bicycle.
“Relative absurdity is not a good standard for setting policy.”
I was not the one dictating absurdity in the first place. I merely made a statement. When motorists can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt, Why shouldn’t a cyclist be penalised for putting themselves in a position of danger?
“And in both old and current times those who wilfully put others in danger were subject to criminal sanctions.”
Yes they were and rightfully so but, I would argue that some cyclist’s wilfully put themselves in a position of danger.
You almost make it sound like these drivers go out in the morning with the intention of injuring or killing people.
I’m not ‘anti-cyclist’ at all, I used to cycle to work myself so I can’t be anti cyclist. I just feel it is unfair that every time the finger of blame is pointed at everyone but, the cyclist.
Why do we always get the replies of “it is not illegal” etc. whenever a point about cyclists putting themselves in danger is raised? The answer is simple - Complacency is the single biggest killer of cyclist’s.
|
Why do we always get the replies of “it is not illegal” etc. whenever a point about cyclists putting themselves in danger is raised? The answer is simple - Complacency is the single biggest killer of cyclist’s.
Complacency is indeed the killer - complacent drivers paid by the load.
The reason I go on about construction trucks is that they're 2% of the traffic but 60+% of the cylcist deaths. Of course other factors including tram tracks and buses are involved in the 6 in 14 days stat but fact remains that tip/skips are the main problem.
Over last 15 yrs bus drivers have been trained to watch and deal with cyclists. They now wait behind instead of diving ahead only to pull in for a stop before their overtake is complete. The example set by Cemex is also a way to go for hauliers.
|
Why do we always get the replies of “it is not illegal” etc. whenever a point about cyclists putting themselves in danger is raised? The answer is simple - Complacency is the single biggest killer of cyclist’s.
Complacency is indeed the killer - complacent drivers paid by the load.
The reason I go on about construction trucks is that they're 2% of the traffic but 60+% of the cylcist deaths. Of course other factors including tram tracks and buses are involved in the 6 in 14 days stat but fact remains that tip/skips are the main problem.
Over last 15 yrs bus drivers have been trained to watch and deal with cyclists. They now wait behind instead of diving ahead only to pull in for a stop before their overtake is complete. The example set by Cemex is also a way to go for hauliers.
Again, Bus drivers, Truck companies etc etc.... Everything but the cyclist.
What about complacent cyclists?
Part of the reason that construction trucks are more likely to crush cyclist is because they have much higher ground clearances than a standard road haulage truck, Therefore they won't stop the cyclist going under the truck sides.
Talking as someone who holds a HGV licence and has been in the industry for a while , Most of the construction companies I know pay their drivers by the day.
|
|
< The common factor in 100% cycling accidents in London is a bicycle. > And the common factor in accidents involving skip wagons is ... ? >
Ridiculous.
|
|
< I would think putting yourself in a very dangerous situation could be classed as a lot more than a 'bit foolish' and again we hear the 'It is not illegal'. It is not illegal for a car to overtake another but, we don't do it when it is not safe to do so. > Really? I thought it was fairly common. But still 'legal'. I think we only jail after an illegal act?
< Why not fix the root of the problem, Rather than trying to work around it all the time? > How does jailing such people fix the problem?
< In the old days, people who constantly put themselves in danger used to be locked up in big buildings with special nurses to look after them ! > Nonsense, all sorts of people put themselves in danger, for a living. Cyclists are not doing that, but they are entitled to take risks if they are aware of them. The illegal action is putting others in danger, which is more likely from a driver than a cyclist.
|
< I would think putting yourself in a very dangerous situation could be classed as a lot more than a 'bit foolish' and again we hear the 'It is not illegal'. It is not illegal for a car to overtake another but, we don't do it when it is not safe to do so. > Really? I thought it was fairly common. But still 'legal'. I think we only jail after an illegal act?
So you think head on car collisions are fairly common? but, legal?
< Why not fix the root of the problem, Rather than trying to work around it all the time? > How does jailing such people fix the problem?
There needs to be some deterent to stop cyclists putting themselves in unnecessary danger. We give fines and points for drivers who use a mobile or don't wear a seat belt, Why shouldn't it work for cyclists?
< In the old days, people who constantly put themselves in danger used to be locked up in big buildings with special nurses to look after them ! > Nonsense, all sorts of people put themselves in danger, for a living. Cyclists are not doing that,
If you ride into a lorry's blindspot you are putting yourself in danger!
but they are entitled to take risks if they are aware of them. The illegal action is putting others in danger, which is more likely from a driver than a cyclist.
There it is in a nutshell - Complacency!
|
|
20% unemployment across Southern Europe. 50% youth unemployment in Spain, Greece & Italy. 25% lost from the Greek economy in merely five years.
28 member states and you've cherry picked some of the worse to cite.
Italy unemployment is barely above average, you do not consider France, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Lux, Finland, Denmark et al.
Things work in Europe because they are open to change and accept progress.
The most dangerous words in politics are 'something must be done.'
More dangerous words are the population saying "let's not do anything".
|
|
|
|
|
I'd ban headphones for cyclists. No wonder they can't hear traffic around them.
I wouldn't argue with that. Hearing is a massive help in augmenting vision. Engine note of the car behind tells you a bit about his rate of approach and attitude - eg revving or surging his engine = impatient. Also early warning of any blues/twos traffic I might be about to meet.
Others on cycling forums would suggest that if I need my hearing in traffic I'm not looking hard enough!!
There's also a huge difference between open backed earpieces and those that seal the ear canal and/or add active noise reduction.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 20/11/2013 at 16:12
|
I'd ban headphones for cyclists. No wonder they can't hear traffic around them.
I wouldn't argue with that. Hearing is a massive help in augmenting vision. Engine note of the car behind tells you a bit about his rate of approach and attitude - eg revving or surging his engine = impatient. Also early warning of any blues/twos traffic I might be about to meet.
Others on cycling forums would suggest that if I need my hearing in traffic I'm not looking hard enough!!
There's also a huge difference between open backed earpieces and those that seal the ear canal and/or add active noise reduction.
Unlike cars very few cycles have rear view mirrors.
Those 'others' on cycling forums sound dimwits to me!
If I have to follow a cyclist in 20 mph zone I drive in as low a gear as possible to make my old school diesel as loud as possible,
|
|
Prisons are too full to house the lycra brigade and I wouldn't like to put them in harms way with the prison "bike" mincing about after lycra butt.
The best thing to do with the code breakers is to confiscate their bike on the spot. That would hurt them the most, and in the pocket.Hopefully making their fellow pedallists sit up and pay attention to the rules.
|
|
The thing is Ben, Something has to be done to make them take it seriously and to make them think about their own safety.
|
The thing is Ben, Something has to be done
Ahhhh....those magical words.
Surprised it took this long.
|
The thing is Ben, Something has to be done
Ahhhh....those magical words.
Surprised it took this long.
You know, I was just thinking your posts were pretty good lately.
|
|
If adults with sound mental capacity cannot work out that HGV's are a bad thing to get in the blind spot of, then that's their lookout.
|
|
Remember its never the cyclists fault that they went up the inside there was a green lane for them to go in so they dont have to look where there going.
|
If adults with sound mental capacity cannot work out that HGV's are a bad thing to get in the blind spot of, then that's their lookout.
That's very true, and easily said. Not so simple to work out exactly where that blind spot is, and then avoid it when it's moving.
|
|
The blind spot is usually beside the cab or just behind the rear quatre just behind the rear wheels. Hope that helps
|
|
Cyclists are a problem, because our towns and cities weren't designed to segregate pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles into three separate parts of the highway, they were only designed to separate pedestrians from horse-drawn vehicles - and nor can that be done easily in most places because our towns and cities are cramped over-crowded places.
This conflict isn't going to get any better, in fact it'll get worse because big cities like London will continue to draw populations in like lemmings and the space conflict will only get worse.
As unpopular as it'll be, the answer is to ban cycling in city areas - they're the vulnerable ones who always come out worst and improvements to public transport would make cycling unneccessary.
Whether it's 40 articulated trailers or construction vehicles, Londoners need them - can't do without them - but cyclists could/should find other ways to work.
|
As unpopular as it'll be, the answer is to ban cycling in city areas - they're the vulnerable ones who always come out worst and improvements to public transport would make cycling unneccessary.
Whether it's 40 articulated trailers or construction vehicles, Londoners need them - can't do without them - but cyclists could/should find other ways to work.
This is an understandable view. But discriminatingly draconian. Equivalent to saying You are banned because you may just possibly get killed or injured. Nanny state?
Cycles are one of the most efficient ways to get about in city areas, which is why many people use them. Those that don't - or have to drive trucks - find them a nuisance - get rid!
|
As unpopular as it'll be, the answer is to ban cycling in city areas - they're the vulnerable ones who always come out worst and improvements to public transport would make cycling unneccessary.
Whether it's 40 articulated trailers or construction vehicles, Londoners need them - can't do without them - but cyclists could/should find other ways to work.
Absolutely no way that's going to happen. No likley improvement to public transport will make cycling 'unecessary'. Not even in London never mind the other big cities.
The accidents in the last couple of weeks are a clusterf***. Cycling in London is actually reasonably safe and getting safer. The number of deaths now are no higher than in the late nineties in spite of a more than doubling of cycling.
Just another example of the ban something 'cos I don't like/agree with it mentality.
|
|
Do these "blind spots" still exist despite changes to the law in 2009? From 31 March 2009, all vehicles covered by directive 2007/38/EC – basically, all goods vehicles capable of carrying more than 3.5 tonnes – have to be fitted with wide-angle and close proximity (blind-spot) mirrors.
Just asking.
|
|
The mirrors on newer trucks are better but theres still blind spots. You cant eliminate them entirely unless you qant to rig up cctv cameras and lots of screens for the driver to look at. Adding a further distraction.
|
The blind spot is usually beside the cab or just behind the rear quatre just behind the rear wheels. Hope that helps
It can be a bit bigger than that particularly if the mirrors are not absolutely right or the truck is in a turn. I'm also very wary of the spot directly in front. Again there should be a mirror but some of the tip/skip contractors are cowboys who skip maintenance and run downright dangerous operations.
The number found infirnging in this weeks Police (& VOSA?) operation this week is evidence of that.
|
|
This video shows how dangerous the blind spot can be if the truck has angled itself to make the turn.
http://youtu.be/wzL0Kyk4m-8
And on the subject of separate cycle lanes, in my city there are many cases each year of (elderly) cyclists being crushed under the wheels of lorries at traffic light controlled junctions where the cyclist has priority and a green light and the lorry also with a green light makes a right turn without seeing the cyclist.
Edited by Brit_in_Germany on 21/11/2013 at 11:53
|
That's very true, and easily said. Not so simple to work out exactly where that blind spot is, and then avoid it when it's moving.
It is very simple! Never ride up the nearside of a truck and you'll never be in it's blindspot.
|
That's very true, and easily said. Not so simple to work out exactly where that blind spot is, and then avoid it when it's moving.
It is very simple! Never ride up the nearside of a truck and you'll never be in it's blindspot.
I'd get off my bike and push it on the pavement if there were HGV around.
|
It is very simple! Never ride up the nearside of a truck and you'll never be in it's blindspot.
Which is not the same thing as saying never ride up the nearside and you'll be in no danger.
Your posts on this subject continue to fail to acknowledge the cases where the truck was wholly or partly to blame. These include several left hooks and drag throughs on roundabouts where the rear of the truck tracks tighter than the front. In others it's overtaking the cyclist then moving over him/her or before the move is complete or where the truck positions himself so as to place a stopped cyclist in his blindspot and then turns left.
Which shows even the statement 'you'll never be in his blindspot' to be obvious nonesense.
|
It is very simple! Never ride up the nearside of a truck and you'll never be in it's blindspot.
Which is not the same thing as saying never ride up the nearside and you'll be in no danger.
A play on words Brompt! Just like a politician.
Your posts on this subject continue to fail to acknowledge the cases where the truck was wholly or partly to blame. These include several left hooks and drag throughs on roundabouts where the rear of the truck tracks tighter than the front. In others it's overtaking the cyclist then moving over him/her or before the move is complete or where the truck positions himself so as to place a stopped cyclist in his blindspot and then turns left.
I have NEVER failed to accept that some times the drivers are to blame, I cannot and never would claim all HGV drivers were of the same standard.
You claim that Bus drivers are better but, I would disagree. Only the other night there was a very bad example of bus driving by a bus at the new stratford bus stop near the olympic village. Back end of the bus still fully in the live carriageway and parked 45 degrees to the kerb across the front of a national express coach which was signalling to leave it's stop.
Which shows even the statement 'you'll never be in his blindspot' to be obvious nonesense.
That is the problem with your posts, You take portions of others posts out of context and claim them to be nonsense.
So let me write it again in maybe a simpler and more precise form. If a cyclist did not ride between the kerb and a HGV waiting at a red traffic light with it's left turn signal flashing then they won't be squashed by it when the lights turn green and it turns left. Because they simply won't be in the danger zone between it and the kerb as it turns.
|
|
Third attempt - please could mods delete my posts at 13:50 and 13:51
(Edit - Done - I hope correctly! - Avant)
A play on words Brompt! Just like a politician.
I prefer to see it as a forensic dissection :-pp
I have NEVER failed to accept that some times the drivers are to blame, I cannot and never would claim all HGV drivers were of the same standard.
You've consistently banged a drum on lines of no left side, no danger. But you've ackmowledged it now.
You claim that Bus drivers are better but, I would disagree.
My experience in 14yrs/12k miles in London, mostly Euston to Holborn and return, is that they're much improved. In particular they've been taught to give space and not to overtake only to dive in to a stop a few yard up the road. That doesn't make them perfect though. .
That is the problem with your posts, You take portions of others posts out of context and claim them to be nonsense.
I simply quoted you directly and pointed out a number of alternative ways in which a rider might fetch up in a blackspot.
So let me write it again in maybe a simpler and more precise form. If a cyclist did not ride between the kerb and a HGV waiting at a red traffic light with it's left turn signal flashing then they won't be squashed by it when the lights turn green and it turns left. Because they simply won't be in the danger zone between it and the kerb as it turns.
That much is common ground. It needs to be repeated via public information films, ads, stuff handed to Uni freshers etc. There is still a need, as you've acknowledged, to deal with instances where cyclist was correctly positioned in road and still gets run over. That's a question of driver training and Police/VOSA/Traffic Commissioner action to drive the cowboys off the road.
Edited by Avant on 21/11/2013 at 21:57
|
|
Bromptonaut, Just eat the biggest KitKat you can find and go on holiday for a couple of weeks. That is meant with the best of intentions.:)
I think this thread has been posted to death. Cyclists and motorists, generally, will not agree.
|
Bromptonaut, Just eat the biggest KitKat you can find and go on holiday for a couple of weeks. That is meant with the best of intentions.:)
I think this thread has been posted to death. Cyclists and motorists, generally, will not agree.
Moe of a Mars bar man to be honest but when I find I'm echoing in an empty room I'll stop.
If cyclist/motorist exchanges bore you why click?
|
Moe of a Mars bar man to be honest but when I find I'm echoing in an empty room I'll stop.
If cyclist/motorist exchanges bore you why click?
Mars would be a safer place for cyclists.
I'm not bored. You seem to enjoy the fight. Maybe not an empty room but your responses appear to be falling on (mainly) deaf ears. ;)
You need to cycle if you are going to eat Mars bars. They save you a trip to the dentist. ;)
|
There is still a need ........... to deal with instances where cyclist was correctly positioned in road and still gets run over. That's a question of driver training and Police/VOSA/Traffic Commissioner action to drive the cowboys off the road.
Yes but - the skill of defensive driving, ie not putting yourself in danger, needs to have parallels among cyclists. Car drivers are taught not to linger alongside HGVs on multi-lane roads and to anticipate the entirely different turning path that large vehicle have to take so that even if it's the HGV at fault, they don't get caught up in things.
As cyclists generally have no training, then a different method of educating them to stay out of harm's way needs to be found - although I dare say that many cyclists are also qualified drivers but you'd never know from the way some of them conduct themselves.
It's not acceptable to simply say that any one road-user was "in the right" if there are/were things they could/should have done themselves to eliminate or at least reduce the risk.
|
Yes but - the skill of defensive driving, ie not putting yourself in danger, needs to have parallels among cyclists.
As cyclists generally have no training, then a different method of educating them to stay out of harm's way needs to be found - although I dare say that many cyclists are also qualified drivers but you'd never know from the way some of them conduct themselves.
Defensive driving is a good thing but I'm not convinced it's got 'traction' amongst all drivers. There is certainly a very significant minority to whom it's a closed book. The number who do daft things around artics on motorways or multi-lane roundabouts, and hoot those who are more cautious, suggest it may even be defensive drivers who are the minority.
Defensive riding is a concept, with or without that name, that was introduced to his cyclist by the late Richard Ballantine's eponymous 'Bicycle Book' in the seventies. The message needs to be spread but it's really not as absent as you think.
|
You've consistently banged a drum on lines of no left side, no danger. But you've ackmowledged it now.
I have NOT acknowledge anything you have said! The same way you refuse to accept anything I have said in this thread.
This constant ignorance is the mindset of cyclists who just do what they please then all cry ban the lorries when one gets killed. How about ban the buses and coaches? Three of the recent ones were killed by bus and coach, Yet I have not heard much said about that.
The reason alot of cyclists end up injured or dead is their own stubborn attitude to "I do what I want and every other road user MUST do this or that"
|
Not so simple to work out exactly where that blind spot is
Pretty simple. If a HGV is indicating to turn left. Don't be on it's left hand side.
Not brain surgery.
|
Not so simple to work out exactly where that blind spot is
Pretty simple. If a HGV is indicating to turn left. Don't be on it's left hand side.
Not brain surgery.
Not always as simple as that.
|
|
Why isn't it? HGV's don't just leap out of nowhere you know.
|
|
Are you sure about that Jamie? :)
|
Are you sure about that Jamie? :)
Where's the 'like' button in this forum?
|
Are you sure about that Jamie? :)
Where's the 'like' button in this forum?
:)
|
Are you sure about that Jamie? :)
Oh, he will be, don't worry ...
|
Are you sure about that Jamie? :)
Oh, he will be, don't worry ...
Eggcellent news. No yolk.
|
|
I've been driving for 11 years and have yet to encounter a HGV leap out of nowhere on low speed, urban streets.
|
|
If you've never encountered a LGV that has:
failed to indicate.
left an indicator on unnecessarily.
failed to account for the inswing and kerbed.
Then you ain't been driving enough.
Net result of all of these, deceptive, unpredictable lorry movements; a vehicle as good as leaping out of nowhere. Comparable to the LGV on the motorway suddenly swinging out into the middle lane without indicating, they may be doing 60 mph, but that is only a 10 mph differential. As though a cyclist is travelling at 10 mph and the LGV at 20 mph.
|
If you've never encountered a LGV that has:
failed to indicate.
left an indicator on unnecessarily.
failed to account for the inswing and kerbed.
Then you ain't been driving enough.
I've seen all of those things, but that's the point. I saw the LGV in question. The only excuse for being caught under the wheels of one is if you literally didn't see it coming. It's big enough to notice.
|
I've seen all of those things, but that's the point. I saw the LGV in question. The only excuse for being caught under the wheels of one is if you literally didn't see it coming. It's big enough to notice.
On a bike the risk is HGV (usually a tip/skip) comes from behind or alongside and goes over you. You're caught between front and rear wheelsets and forced under. There's nowhere to go because you cannot out run or out turn it and braking won't make enough difference either.
Alternativley it overtakes you exiting a roundabout and the rear wheel catches you.
There's nowhere to go for reasons above plus railings between road and pvement against which you're shredded like a cheese.
|
|
I still don't quite understand the point of railings.
|
I've been driving for 11 years and have yet to encounter a HGV leap out of nowhere on low speed, urban streets.
Ah, I have a better perspective on things now. Eleven years is a long time, but less than a quarter of the time that I and some of the other old fogeys on here have clocked up. I don't suppose that will cut much ice, but it does mean that we have mellowed a bit more. Also that we can look back to more different driving conditions.
|
I've been driving for 11 years and have yet to encounter a HGV leap out of nowhere on low speed, urban streets.
Ah, I have a better perspective on things now. Eleven years is a long time, but less than a quarter of the time that I and some of the other old fogeys on here have clocked up. I don't suppose that will cut much ice, but it does mean that we have mellowed a bit more. Also that we can look back to more different driving conditions.
What has the length of your driving life got to do with this subject? I know people who have been driving 50+ years, They still are not good at it and could not recognise more than 2 or 3 of the road signs!
I'm not young either but, I'm not old and of a fixed mind.
If someone can put their arguement across in a good and logical way I will accept it, I have yet to see anything posted on this thread or any of the other cycling threads on here that will hold any water with me when it comes to cyclists safety. When I was young, I was told that the person responsible for my own safety was me. Too much nannystate has left us with people who are too willing to point the finger of blame at everyone but, Themselves.
|
If someone can put their arguement across in a good and logical way I will accept it, I have yet to see anything posted on this thread or any of the other cycling threads on here that will hold any water with me when it comes to cyclists safety.
There's non so blind as those who do not wish to see.
And yes I appreciate there will be a touche response!!!!
|
If someone can put their arguement across in a good and logical way I will accept it, I have yet to see anything posted on this thread or any of the other cycling threads on here that will hold any water with me when it comes to cyclists safety.
There's non so blind as those who do not wish to see.
And yes I appreciate there will be a touche response!!!!
If it makes you feel good then I'm happy for you! :-P
|
|
All I can say as a driver is I take great care of cyclists and avoid them as I think many have a death wish or a complete lack of common sense.
As a cyclist I gave up 20 years ago as many drivers just ignored cyclists and seemed to think they did not exist. Too dangerous for me.
|
All I can say as a driver is I take great care of cyclists and avoid them as I think many have a death wish or a complete lack of common sense.
As a cyclist I gave up 20 years ago as many drivers just ignored cyclists and seemed to think they did not exist. Too dangerous for me.
Indeed.
I have work colleagues (mainly men between 30 and 60) who park and then cycle into work. Just about every bike is without lights. I think I should get plod to carry out a spot check.
|
|
< What has the length of your driving life got to do with this subject? I know people who have been driving 50+ years, They still are not good at it and could not recognise more than 2 or 3 of the road signs! >
Very little directly to do with the subject, but it does follow on from earlier posts. It's not unusual for a thread to drift all over the place.
< I'm not young either but, I'm not old and of a fixed mind. >
Relatively few people would wish to be thought either old or of a fixed mind, so they will only admit to it in jest.
In any case the length of a driving (or cycling) life must (should) have a bearing on general awareness, if nothing else.
|
|
The post should be renamed 45 Bromptonauts in 2 weeks.
|
|
Or 4 cyclist killed in 9days by buses/coaches? Statistically we could point out that only 33.33% of them in this nine day period were killed by Lorries but, I don't hear anyone chanting "let's ban buses".
I hope we do have a lorry ban in London, Within a month people will be desperate for it to go back to how it was before. None of these people have any idea of how logistics of lorries work. There will be big queues of trucks at the deliver points waiting to be unloaded, Where will the deliver points (i.e. supermarkets) put 96 pallets of food (just 4 lorries) if it all arrives at once? They already have limited storage space as it is.
Having rush hour (or should that be hours?) lorry bans will mean more lorries coming into London during hours of darkness, This means they will be coming in during the hours of the LBTS for lorries which prohibits lorries at night unless they can prove there is no other way to do the journey without passing through those parts of London.We already have enough people complaining about heavy traffic at night!
Nobody seems to realise there would not be enough lorries to do all the deliveries if the companies are restricted, Lorries are already used pretty much for 24hours of the day. Not many have the luxury of being parked up at night. So for a start that would actually mean the companies buying more lorries - oh, wait! we were trying to get lorries off the road I thought? Then the extra cost of these vehicles have to be paid for and where will they park them when they are not used on Christmas day? because that is about the only day alot of trucks are parked up and many companies don't have enough space in the depots for all their fleet to be home at once as it is.
|
Or 4 cyclist killed in 9days by buses/coaches? Statistically we could point out that only 33.33% of them in this nine day period were killed by Lorries but, I don't hear anyone chanting "let's ban buses".
I'll stick my neck out and say the Croydon bus death had tram tracks as causal or contributory. Southampton Row, unless the bus failed to signal, had at least elements of blame with the cyclist.
However the numbers have played out in the current clusterf*** the the issue is lorries associated with the construction trade. I don't think, talking of a lorry ban anyone means all vehicles over n tonnes in 32 boroughs. It's about a smallish area, perhaps that bounded by the circle line. There are relatively few large supermarkets in that area, neither is it necessary for vehicles delivering to other areas to pass through. Not without other issues, not least of which is Smithfield market. Those might need permits exceptions. The Paris ban relates to the area inside the Peripherique.
Another way of nuancing it would be a ban on tip/skips in the innermost area - for convenienc let's use the circle line again. These vehicles with the high ground clearance and lack of side protection they need to run on site or at landfill are not ust a menace to cyclists on the road. They are also a hazard to pedestrians, particularly as they move on/off building sites. Good observation, banksmen and an element of luck seem to have prevented accidents but watching one reverse onto the site of the LSE's new student centre off lincoln's Inn at 09:00 is a heart stopping experience in an area milling with people who are impatient to get to work.
Would a restriction on those vehicles between say 08:30 and 10:00 and perhaps a corresponding period in the afternoon bring construction to a halt?
It would need to be planned for and no doubt there'd be a cost to be absorbed somewhere. But there's already a social cost dumped on society when these things are running round the streets in peak times.
|
In any case the length of a driving (or cycling) life must (should) have a bearing on general awareness, if nothing else.
That explains why I saw an elderly woman driving off in her Audi 2 days ago with both her door mirrors folded in then, They remained folded in for the whole 5 miles that I followed her. I guess thats OK as it was not a truck?
|
|
Well IF they install a ban on HGVs for certain parts of the day, can I suggest that cyclists are banned the rest of the day and night. Fairs fair.
|
|
< That explains why I saw an elderly woman driving off in her Audi 2 days ago with both her door mirrors folded in then, They remained folded in for the whole 5 miles that I followed her. I guess thats OK as it was not a truck? >
There's always an exception to prove any rule. Car doesn't have auto-mirrors then.
|
< That explains why I saw an elderly woman driving off in her Audi 2 days ago with both her door mirrors folded in then, They remained folded in for the whole 5 miles that I followed her. I guess thats OK as it was not a truck? >
There's always an exception to prove any rule. Car doesn't have auto-mirrors then.
Not all electric mirrors are automatic - fortunately because they'd smash the side window if towing mirrors are fitted!
|
|
I would like to see a enforcement of at least high visibility jackets for cyclist.Or hand them out free..I was listening to a local radio station discussing cyclist and motorist.
1 cyclist live lost is a cost to soceity over a million.Plus all the hartbrake for the people who are left behind.
|
< That explains why I saw an elderly woman driving off in her Audi 2 days ago with both her door mirrors folded in then, They remained folded in for the whole 5 miles that I followed her. I guess thats OK as it was not a truck? >
There's always an exception to prove any rule. Car doesn't have auto-mirrors then.
I've lost count of the times I have seen it over the years, Not only do they not use their mirrors. They blatantly advertise the fact.
|
I've lost count of the times I have seen it over the years, Not only do they not use their mirrors. They blatantly advertise the fact.
That was the thought that struck me. If she could drive with them retracted then she wasn't looking.
Enrico the Berlingo's giant door mirrors do an excellent job of negating side blind spots.
|
Would a restriction on those vehicles between say 08:30 and 10:00 and perhaps a corresponding period in the afternoon bring construction to a halt?
Well between 08.30 & 10.00 yes it would. You're proposing cutting 3 entire hours out of the working day for anybody who uses a certain type of vehicle in a certain part of the City. It's no more or less rational than banning bicycles at the same times instead.
Think ahead as to what cutting that 3 hours out of the day will do. It'll lead to a higher concentration of these vehicles on the road during the rest of the day.
It would need to be planned for and no doubt there'd be a cost to be absorbed somewhere. But there's already a social cost dumped on society when these things are running round the streets in peak times.
Spoken like a properly paid up, fully pensioned, taxpayer funded bureaucrat.
It's easy to write off 'costs to be absorbed' as meaningless when you don't have to earn your money. We can't all start at 8.30, finish at 4.30, have 30 days holiday, special afternoons off for Christmas shopping and retire at 62 like clockwork. The real world doesn't work like that.
I'm fed up of public policy being decided by college kids who understand the rules, but have never played the game.
|
|
< Spoken like a properly paid up, fully pensioned, taxpayer funded bureaucrat. >
Jamie, you are lapsing into bad-tempered, unwarranted invective again. Just when I was beginning to think you had improved.
|
|
Bad tempered? Maybe
Invective? For sure
Unwarranted? Hmmm. I said that because I recall a previous thread in which Brompt explained briefly that he is essentially a bureaucrat. So I think it was relevant to my point.
|
|
Difficult to see how banning lorries during certain periods would help, instead it would heap more problems onto lorry operators and those who receive deliveries, doubtless requiring far more lorries to be capable of delivering goods on a multi drop basis, the cost would be huge.
We already have the LBTS scheme where lorries have to take all sorts of routes to get around the night time restrictions 9pm to 7am Mon Fri and from midday Sat all weekend.
With the best will in the world London would start to run out of essentials in a matter of days with the two measures combined.
Wouldn't bother me one iota, i detest the dump and if they built a modern Hadrians wall just inside the M25 so i could no longer venture in that would be just great, just put a 4" pipe inlet on the outside wall and i'll pump all 28 tons straight through, sign here thankyou and cheerio.
Whatever the brains (or politicians) of the day come up with is going to cost those who live there.
On a personal note, lorry skills and competence needed to do the job has been dumbed down massively over the years for various reasons, what was sown is being reaped.
|
We already have the LBTS scheme where lorries have to take all sorts of routes to get around the night time restrictions 9pm to 7am Mon Fri and from midday Sat all weekend.
It does wonders for air pollution! Having to do 3 times the distance on the south circular, To get somewhere a stones throw away.
On a personal note, lorry skills and competence needed to do the job has been dumbed down massively over the years for various reasons, what was sown is being reaped.
Hasn't it just!
|
|
4 to go. Yay! Well, 3 after this. :)
|
Bad tempered? Maybe
Invective? For sure
Unwarranted? Hmmm. I said that because I recall a previous thread in which Brompt explained briefly that he is essentially a bureaucrat. So I think it was relevant to my point.
I am, until the ned of this week, a Civil Servant. Iff you buy the Daily Wail language where we're all bureaucrats holding sinecure posts in Quangos then I'm not going to change your view.
In the real world most of us run services like courts, benefits, DVLA etc. We have real world salaries and corresponding responsibilities and commutes on busy roads.
|
|
How many civil servants who effectively run the country collectively, not the politicians, are actually required to work "unsocial" hours ?
The talk of traffic bans during the "rush hour" and deliveries at night is nonsense - last time I had to travel anywhere near London, the rush "hour" seemed to last from 6am to 8pm - it's a city that "never sleeps" because life goes on 24 hours a day, not just 9-5.
Edited by RT on 24/11/2013 at 10:06
|
How many civil servants who effectively run the country collectively, not the politicians, are actually required to work "unsocial" hours ?
A modest and increasing number. Obviously those in Whitehall directly supporting Ministers including private office, bill teams etc. Other services now extend long beyond '9-5' including benefits, DVLA, courts and Tax.
I was interviewed a few months ago, as a possible redeployment, for a job that included managing a 'twighlight' shift in Birmingham until 10pm. Fortuntely the panel and I both agreed I couldn't match the required skills.
While it's trus to say London never sleeps there is still a very pronounced morning and evening peak. The City is dead outwith 'office' hours. In cautiously advocating restrictions on construction vehicles I metioned pedestrians as well as cyclists as those who might benefit.
Until the summer there were three major construction sites either on my commute or close to work. In two of the three lorries accessing the site had to block whole roads and mount the pavement in order to get 'on site'. That carries a considerable risk to pedestrians streaming by as they would be at 09:00 in 'Legal London'.
|
Until the summer there were three major construction sites either on my commute or close to work. In two of the three lorries accessing the site had to block whole roads and mount the pavement in order to get 'on site'. That carries a considerable risk to pedestrians streaming by as they would be at 09:00 in 'Legal London'.
Unfortunately, That is the nature of the beast. When we are increasingly building new buildings in small gaps between other buildings, Access is always going to be this way.
There is no solution to construction that would be popular.
|
Unfortunately, That is the nature of the beast. When we are increasingly building new buildings in small gaps between other buildings, Access is always going to be this way.
There is no solution to construction that would be popular.
In central London it tends to be old buildings being demolished either wholly or behind a facade retained for the new development. Some office blocks, like St Dunstan's House in Fetter Lane, have been constructed and demolished again in little over 30 yrs. The demolition requires many journeys by tip/skip lorries just to carry the waste to landfill etc.
|
I am, until the ned of this week, a Civil Servant. Iff you buy the Daily Wail language where we're all bureaucrats holding sinecure posts in Quangos then I'm not going to change your view.
Well I think all reasonable people would agree there's far too many people currently working, in some way, for the Government. Quangos are a massive problem admittedly, but I actually think it's local councils who need to shed jobs even more urgently.
In the real world most of us run services like courts, benefits, DVLA etc. We have real world salaries and corresponding responsibilities and commutes on busy roads.
I didn't say we should just sack everybody we might need, which seems to be this Governments tactic. Though the DVLA could afford a radical slim down. Just have one form for taxing cars, one form for registering cars and the entire thing could be run with about 5 administrators in a back office.
You didn't respond to the point about your proposal being no more or less rational than banning bicycles at the same time.
|
|
< I think all reasonable people would agree there's far too many people currently working, in some way, for the Government. >
Why do you think this? Or is it that those people who think this way are therefore reasonable, by definition?
< The DVLA could afford a radical slim down. Just have one form for taxing cars, one form for registering cars and the entire thing could be run with about 5 administrators in a back office. >
That's an interesting concept, with the British public buying about 2 million new cars a year; plus commercial vehicles, plus vehicles changing hands and being scrapped. Maybe you would like to be one of the select few sharing the workload?
Incidentally, I am starting to wonder where is the connection with the OP ....
Edited by Andrew-T on 24/11/2013 at 17:01
|
|
Well I think all reasonable people would agree there's far too many people currently working, in some way, for the Government. Quangos are a massive problem admittedly, but I actually think it's local councils who need to shed jobs even more urgently.
Which Quangos are a 'massive' problem? Can you give a specific example?
I didn't say we should just sack everybody we might need, which seems to be this Governments tactic. Though the DVLA could afford a radical slim down. Just have one form for taxing cars, one form for registering cars and the entire thing could be run with about 5 administrators in a back office.
DVLA deals with 30million vehicles and a larger co-hort of drivers. Registration is necessarily far more complex than you assume. The idea you could do that with 5 or even 500 people is beyond parody.
You didn't respond to the point about your proposal being no more or less rational than banning bicycles at the same time.
I didn't really make a proposal, more mused on how that which Wacky and others said would bring London to its knees might be made realistic.
Construction tip/skips are huge, have limited visibility for the driver and lack normal protections to mitigate consequences of an accident (ie side guards). While 2% of the traffic they are responsible for well over half of cyclist deaths. They also pose a serious safety hazard to pedestrians as they go on and off building sites over pavements and in very confined spaces. Such manouevres also cause significant, albeit local, congestion.
Bikes by contrast are lightweight, manoueverable and are a cheap, fast and convenient means of commuter transport that pose next to no threat to anybody else. Neither do they casue congestion - indeed they take cars off roads and people off buses and trains. The only case for banning them is 'for the riders own safety' yet, notwithstanding the recent cluster of deaths, they're as safe as walking in London.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 24/11/2013 at 17:17
|
Why do you think this?
Because the Government is around 50% of the British economy, which is too much. As proven by the fact the Government borrows over £100billion every year.
I would argue anybody who doesn't support a slimming down of Government, on the basis of those numbers alone, is unreasonable.
Which Quangos are a 'massive' problem? Can you give a specific example?
Well there's the silly ones, such as the Wine Standards Board & the Hearing Aid Council, but they're largely harmless.
There's the needless ones such as the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, which is just a replacement for the FLA that Cameron supposedly abolished. The few useful things it does can all be done by the Football Association.
The most well known dangerous one would be the Financial Services Authority, which is a regulatory outpost of the European Union, stuffed with failed civil servants who've never done a days banking in their lives. Okay, the Government has supposedly scrapped it, but only because Cameron has agreed for three Brussels based regulators to take control instead.
There's the absolutely, pathetically stupid ones such the Council for Heathcare Regulatory Excellence, which is a regulator of existing health regulators. Makes you wonder who's going to regulate the regulator of the regulators?!
The best example of waste were the Regional Development Agencies, whose specific job was to spend European Union funds in Britain. That'd be fine, but for every 55p we get from the EU, we have to pay them £1. Then we paid again for the RDA's to spend it. I know they've rebranded them as LEP's but they're just as stupid.
The House of Commons Library itself states that £35billion is spent on these 'non departmental bodies' each year, but even most quangos fail to match Councils in terms of needless expendature.
Registration is necessarily far more complex than you assume.
No it's not. Only people earning a salary out of unnecessary complexity argue that it's necessary.
|
|
This has gone way off topic and the last few posts need moving to General Discussion. I'll try to C&P Jamie's post over there and reply in more detail tomorrow.
The Hearing Aid Council though was a prime example of failure to 'Read Before Burning' when setting light to the Quango bonfire.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 24/11/2013 at 22:44
|
|
I'd say the Quango bonfire was never lit, as most of the supposed scrapped ones have popped up with different names.
Another thing Mr Cameron has completely failed on.
|
|
"This has gone way off topic and the last few posts need moving to General Discussion."
This goes to show that the cycling thread has run its course - people need to agree to disagree. In the interests of free speech I won't close it, but I think it's time to move on.
|
|
Final word ?
I think that one of the earlier comments by a cyclist said that he swerved and rang his bell. Bells were of use in the early days when the cyclist needed to alert a sleepy pedestrian or dozy carter but now there is so much background noise that bells are marginally useful. The pedestrian is probably listening to headphones, and the carters have been replaced by lorry drivers in a high cab with a noisy engine. The average car driver has the radio on and the vehicles are sound insulated to the extent that bells are inaudible.
|
|
On my way home I see two motorcycle police oull over a cyclist with no lights or hiviz vest. Its about time they delt with cyclist flouting the law.
|
On my way home I see two motorcycle police oull over a cyclist with no lights or hiviz vest. Its about time they delt with cyclist flouting the law.
No argument there, the offence is no lights.
Hi viz is not an alternative to lights and as argued up thread it's not all that effective under street lighting
|
|
I find hiviz work well under street lighting. We wear them at work and when the light turns to dark and the street lights are on they are far easier to aee than without them as the street lights reflect off there vests.
|
I find hiviz work well under street lighting. We wear them at work and when the light turns to dark and the street lights are on they are far easier to aee than without them as the street lights reflect off there vests.
Pale colours show up better under street lighting than dark but day glo green/orange/pink is no more evident then my mustard colour waterproof jacket.
I'm not arguing against being conspicuous, just making the point that "hi-viz" is not a panacea for visibility and that it's absence does not = negligence.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 25/11/2013 at 22:11
|
|
Its the reflective strips on a hiviz vest that show up when a light shines on it witch helps with making the wearer more visible. I never said they are a substitute for lights or negating responsibility but they do make the wearer more visible. Thats wjy we wear them at work. They bin loaders would be a lot harder to see without them in the dark.
|
Its the reflective strips on a hiviz vest that show up when a light shines on it witch helps with making the wearer more visible. I never said they are a substitute for lights or negating responsibility but they do make the wearer more visible. Thats wjy we wear them at work. They bin loaders would be a lot harder to see without them in the dark.
Again, no argument. My point is that under street lights and with dipped beams nothing catches the refllective stripes. You may not say that absence of hi-viz negates responsibility but there are those who do.
|
Again, no argument. My point is that under street lights and with dipped beams nothing catches the refllective stripes. You may not say that absence of hi-viz negates responsibility but there are those who do.
We have no street lighting on the main road from where I live and when I've been leaving home during winter in the dark (4am) I have often seen a man walking with a high Viz jacket on and the dipped beam headlamps can pick him up well from a distance. Those reflective tapes on his jacket need very little light to reflect back.
Their efficiency is also why I take mine off when driving as the reflections from the tapes tend to reflect onto the screen and spoils visibility.
|
We have no street lighting on the main road from where I live and when I've been leaving home during winter in the dark (4am) I have often seen a man walking with a high Viz jacket on and the dipped beam headlamps can pick him up well from a distance. Those reflective tapes on his jacket need very little light to reflect back.
Their efficiency is also why I take mine off when driving as the reflections from the tapes tend to reflect onto the screen and spoils visibility.
I can only say that in my experience in a car (Citroen Xantia or Berlingo) dipped lights on the country lane between local villages and the A4500 cut off below the level of a mounted cyclist except possibly until very close by. Main beams OTOH pick up the relective tape at half a mile or more.
In a potential SMIDSY type accident (driver looks but fails to see and pulls out from a side road in front of a cyclist) then unless the tape is caught in another vehicle's lights only the day-glo is in play.
There's also a wider argument similar to that advanced by motorcyclists agaist universal DRL. Once everybody is in hi-viz it ceases to stand out.
I don't put any of this forward as a reason not to wear HV, just to point out that, like helmets, its benefits are easily overstated.
|
universal DRL. Once everybody is in hi-viz it ceases to stand out.
I don't put any of this forward as a reason not to wear HV, just to point out that, like helmets, its benefits are easily overstated.
I have to agree with the others here Bromp, proper hi viz vests with the braces style of reflective strips are very good, as said above only the slightest light scatter will show them up from an awful long way off....i used to visit some stables quite regularly on a very dark country lane, lots of people missed the turning including me i the dark...i cut the reflective strips from a vest and stapled them to the posts either side of the entrance, could see the turning coming up on the right on dipped beam alone from something like half a mile off.
Its probably best to buy such things from a good workwear shop or site, i could imagine the typical £1 tat not having the necessary amount of ground glass or whatever it is the strips have as proper BS numbered products.
I agree with you about the forest of hi viz stuff now about generally though, its reached silly point now, just as the fad for fairy lights is.
Edited by gordonbennet on 26/11/2013 at 12:42
|
Bells
Bells work OK with most London pedestrians and have advantage of giving clear indication that they need to look for a bike. Once you've got eye contact then passage can be negotiated.
If bell is not man enough for task then the Mk1 human voice can deliver an appropriate message.
Not much in favour of air zound or simillar decibel ++ tools, No need .
|
|
|
|
