|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
The real problem is LHD truck cabs. A LHD cab will give a better view round a RH bend, which is the where an oncoming rider is more likely to be out near the white line. It'd give a **** view round a LH bend, but you'd expect the oncoming rider to be nearer the opposite kerb so, again, no issue. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Is that a problem with LHD cabs, or drivers of LHD cabs not being sufficiently familiar with driving on the other side of the road? If the latter, banning the cabs wouldn't solve the problem (if it exists) -- ogden / GSXR1000 / 990SMT "Some of the gear, most of the time" |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:06:30 +0100, "'Hog"
wrote: Colin Irvine wrote: Re the lorry. It appears that the "cab of a lorry was slightly over the white line and the front offside wheel was found to be on the white line". We don't know how narrow the road was, how tight the bend was or how fast the lorry was going. So ATM I see no reason to assume the lorry driver was in any way negligent. Actually we do if you track down the trial notes, and the revised decision was made by two senior judges. If the rider had kept his mouth shut there probably wouldn't have been an appeal but at the initial hearing he admitted to going in on a "committed line" which didn't leave room for error or oncoming traffic, on a narrow road round a bend with restricted visibility. The truck driver was found to have been proceeding with reasonable care, the white line is advisory and can be crossed depending on circumstances. So basically all this BMF writing to the DoT etc is ****ing in the wind. The real problem is LHD truck cabs. Although TBF not in this case, where the court accepted that the driver was keeping as far to the left as was safely possible, in which case LHD was arguably helping him. -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
ogden wrote:
'Hog wrote: The real problem is LHD truck cabs. A LHD cab will give a better view round a RH bend, which is the where an oncoming rider is more likely to be out near the white line. It'd give a **** view round a LH bend, but you'd expect the oncoming rider to be nearer the opposite kerb so, again, no issue. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Is that a problem with LHD cabs, or drivers of LHD cabs not being sufficiently familiar with driving on the other side of the road? If the latter, banning the cabs wouldn't solve the problem (if it exists) I don't know if the causes have been analysed but the accident stats were compiled. Nobody wanted to do much about it, although I think I read a recent suggestion about installing cameras. TBF a number of the accidents were trucks running over cyclists when turning and as they don't display VED's it's only the same as rabbits and insects. -- Hog Remember the 4 "F" rule: If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me ....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
ogden wrote: 'Hog wrote: The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Is that a problem with LHD cabs, or drivers of LHD cabs not being sufficiently familiar with driving on the other side of the road? If the latter, banning the cabs wouldn't solve the problem (if it exists) I don't know if the causes have been analysed but the accident stats were compiled. Nobody wanted to do much about it, although I think I read a recent suggestion about installing cameras. TBF a number of the accidents were trucks running over cyclists when turning There's a lot to be said for not putting yourself in a position where you could be flattened under an artic. And, again, an LHD cab is arguably better for spotting cyclists on your left. -- ogden / GSXR1000 / 990SMT "Some of the gear, most of the time" |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
ogden wrote:
'Hog wrote: ogden wrote: 'Hog wrote: The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Is that a problem with LHD cabs, or drivers of LHD cabs not being sufficiently familiar with driving on the other side of the road? If the latter, banning the cabs wouldn't solve the problem (if it exists) I don't know if the causes have been analysed but the accident stats were compiled. Nobody wanted to do much about it, although I think I read a recent suggestion about installing cameras. TBF a number of the accidents were trucks running over cyclists when turning There's a lot to be said for not putting yourself in a position where you could be flattened under an artic. nods and if I'm behind a cage I'll generally be back in the centre of the road. Behind a truck I'll keep back and to one side and in his mirrors. The most common mistake I see though is tailgating cars behind the offside pillar. Waiting for an overtake obviously, but it always makes me wince. -- Hog Remember the 4 "F" rule: If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me ....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
ogden wrote: 'Hog wrote: ogden wrote: 'Hog wrote: The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Is that a problem with LHD cabs, or drivers of LHD cabs not being sufficiently familiar with driving on the other side of the road? If the latter, banning the cabs wouldn't solve the problem (if it exists) I don't know if the causes have been analysed but the accident stats were compiled. Nobody wanted to do much about it, although I think I read a recent suggestion about installing cameras. TBF a number of the accidents were trucks running over cyclists when turning There's a lot to be said for not putting yourself in a position where you could be flattened under an artic. nods and if I'm behind a cage I'll generally be back in the centre of the road. Behind a truck I'll keep back and to one side and in his mirrors. Not rocket science, is it? "If you can't see me in my mirrors, I can't see you either." -- ogden / GSXR1000 / 990SMT "Some of the gear, most of the time" |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:06:30 -0700, 'Hog
wrote: The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Trucks AND cars, ffs. They're all LHD here, and even though the lanes are ridiculously wide, it seems no one can stay inside them. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
Mrcheerful wrote:
Andy B wrote: 'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong. I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs removing from not only his job but the face of the earth. sounds like the lorry was not travelling very fast and the bike was, which gave rise to enough of a collision to mess the leg up. Years ago I heard of a biker that lost a foot in a collision on the road to Canvey Island, the bikes used to use it as a race strip at night and one night two just clipped each other at vast speed in opposite directions, the foot was caught in the engine bars. Where did you get the idea that the lorry was going slowly and the bike was speeding? I've yet to see anywhere providing hard evidence that this was the case and you suggesting that it was is nothing short of prejudiced bull****. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
Andy B wrote: 'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong. I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs removing from not only his job but the face of the earth. So what should a truck do every time it encounters a blind bend that's too narrow for the wheel track? get a man with a red flag to walk round ahead? I'm not being contrary, I simply bothered to read the detailed circumstances of the case as everyone and their dog was claiming to have written to MP's etc. Try slowing down to a point where they can either stay on their side of the road or at least be able to see someone coming towards them and then stop until they'd passed. Having driven a 7.5t Cargo around the narrow A and single track B roads (of Scotland) I suggest on such roads everyone proceeds with caution and the occasional beep of the horn. Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road users. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
Andy B wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote: Andy B wrote: 'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong. I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs removing from not only his job but the face of the earth. sounds like the lorry was not travelling very fast and the bike was, which gave rise to enough of a collision to mess the leg up. Years ago I heard of a biker that lost a foot in a collision on the road to Canvey Island, the bikes used to use it as a race strip at night and one night two just clipped each other at vast speed in opposite directions, the foot was caught in the engine bars. Where did you get the idea that the lorry was going slowly and the bike was speeding? I've yet to see anywhere providing hard evidence that this was the case and you suggesting that it was is nothing short of prejudiced bull****. large foreign lorry, small road. motorcycle that could not avoid lorry, despite being at the best point to see what was coming. He was going too quick, been there, done it, got away with it, he didn't. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Safety In numbers | Judith[_4_] | UK | 10 | May 6th 12 09:09 PM |
More safety in numbers? | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | April 28th 12 03:29 PM |
safety in numbers | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 1 | June 25th 09 05:32 AM |
Safety in Numbers | Roos Eisma | UK | 249 | September 17th 08 09:20 AM |
Safety in Numbers. | Simon Mason | UK | 11 | April 23rd 05 09:34 PM |