A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

safety in numbers? Fail



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 29th 12, 11:10 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
ogden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 11:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Colin Irvine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 11:30 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 11:32 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
ogden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 11:43 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 12:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
ogden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 09:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Thomas[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 09:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Andy B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 09:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Andy B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old May 29th 12, 10:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Mrcheerful[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,662
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.