Forum menu
Right click and Open Image In New Tab for a bigger, easier to read version.
[img] 
[/img]
He completely misses the irony that further on in the same issue, there is a three page article about Volvo's research in to the cause of truck accidents, complete with several pictures of trucks rolled on their sides, which draws the conclusion that manufacturers are at the limit of what they can do to prevent accidents and it's almost always down to driver error
For those who don't know, CV is short for Commercial Vehicle. CPC is Certificate of Professional Competence, a qualification that all truck and bus drivers need to gain to be able to drive.
'so far managed to keep my alive for another half-a-century'
(whilst I'm driving around in my 40 tonne truck)
And Colin Barnett (although he shares my surname) is short for cock.
'Particularly young female ones' arf arf gurgle gurgle rub rub
Hmmm - dunno it it's 'anti-cycling' really. It does seem quite misogynistic tho. Why do young female cyclists bear the brunt of his anger?
He does agree with the recent suggestions about getting cyclists trained from an early age and I do agree that the cyclist needs to be aware of entering the blind spot of a truck driver. Been there - done stupid things - and I've learnt that a lot of times people don't see a cyclist
Sometimes we cyclists need to admit when something is our fault instead of expecting others to take the blame. HOWEVER his beard suggests he's actually a repressed single-speeder. Maybe even a recumbent cyclist on a mission to provoke a response
Haha recumbent on a mission!! 😀
I agree with him that we need to take some responsibility, that is what he's saying after all, that by sticking yourself in a position where a driver can't see you is not a wise decision.
It's definitely getting better but when the first surge of cyclists hit the roads (edit: in London, where I live, can't speak for the rest of the UK) a couple of years back there was a lot of people doing stupid things, which probably contributes to giving cyclists a bad name. Not me of course!! 😉
Not sure why he had to mention Lycra, but he has a point though - let's tackle the issue from both ends.
Just as speed reduction results in increased likelihood of a child who is hit by a car not being killed, preventing the child from running out in front of a car will result in them not being injured at all.
Balance is the word that comes to mind.
I think he makes some fair points, tbh. The 'young female' thing, I just assumed that he was referring to evidence that this group of cyclists were disproportionately represented in casualty stats. If so, he's got a point, if not, he's a sexist rotter. (Albeit one that makes some fairly pertinent points about personal responsibility and defensive driving/cycling).
Road positioning, anticipation and awareness have kept me alive 20 years on the roads, not advances in CV design.
It's not that biased an artical in my opinion. He doesn't stand against advances in truck safety, but suggests cyclist play a bigger part in not putting themselves in danger. If you look at where cyclists are getting killed by trucks in cities, it's often as a result of the cyclists poor road positioning at junctions.
And females do represent a statistically disproportionate number of CV/cyclist RTAs.
Didn't strike me as particularly anti. It did play to the gallery a bit but his main points were well made and quite reasonable.
A club near me was going for a visit to a hauliers to experience life in the cab so that the cyclist could see what it was like and where the blind spots are for the driver .Might make you think twice about sneaking up the inside if the truck is turning left !
Not very anti, only bit that bugged me was the lycra comment, as I doubt most people killed in incidents with lorries are in lycra...
Drac - Moderator
I agree with him that we need to take some responsibility, that is what he's saying after all, that by sticking yourself in a position where a driver can't see you is not a wise decision.
Quite a few cyclists and lots of other road users have no idea of where a driver cant see you,only yesterday in morisons car park two cars reversed into each other,despite both being fitted with 3 mirrors each , but one was a woman driver.
I don't think he says anything unreasonable.. I think his points are sound enough and of course he is writing from the viewpoint of lorry drivers. I believe there is evidence to support his point about female cyclists as well.
i'm more offended by the type-setting than anything else,...eeesh!
More and more trucks/busses/vans etc in That London now sport either a sticker or plaque that states " cyclists, be prepared for me turning left " or " cyclists,if you can read this sign, I can't see you in my mirrors "
I'm rather glad they're doing something about idiots like me coming up on the inside, fast, and getting squeezed at either junction/lights/kerbs etc.
I've only myself to blame.
Who are these 'anarchists in lycra'? They sound quite scary. Not sure what they've got to do with his issues with the government dropping the cycling proficiency tests.
I *think* that's what he's complaining about. It's hard to tell, he tries to fit a lot of complaints into the article.
I don't think it is anti-cyclist at all...
And from a personal point of view, seeing as I don't try to undertake lorries turning left, I've never felt particularly at risk from them. White vans bother me a lot more, TBH
CPC is Certificate of Professional Competence, a qualification that [s]all[/s] some truck and bus drivers need to gain to be able to drive.
https://www.gov.uk/driver-cpc-exemptions-examples#when-you-dont-need-driver-cpc
FTFY
I thought is was his comment about 'shifting the blame on to drivers' that set the tone of the article.
I thought that, in the majority of KSI incidents involving a truck and a bike, the courts did "shift" the blame on to the driver.
And I took 'individuals taking responsibility for their own safety' as doublespeak for 'never mind Rights of Way, just get out of the way'
I was a lorry driver for many years and witnessed all sorts of dodgy road craft from cyclist, cars, and fellow lorry drivers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the main problem with all these forms of transport is the human.
Anti cyclist, not really. Misogynistic, definitely.
I was being flippant before chaps but just in case you missed it, he says
"Anarchists in Lycra"
Now unless he's talking about the People's front of Whitesnake, that's pretty much targeting cyclists.
Quite a few cyclists and lots of other road users have no idea of where a driver cant see you,only
Precisely.
There's nothing anti-cyclist about that.
It's not exactly pro-cycling, is it.
While I can agree with education, I think it's only right that a proportionate responsibility rests with those operating the dangerous machinery.
A comment I heard at work this week: 'you're allowed to run someone over if they step out in front of you'. I kid you not. Whilst some of the points in this editorial may be valid, the overall tone can portray a vastly different message to the readers.
Dark Side - Member
Anti cyclist, not really. Misogynistic, definitely.
POSTED 40 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Explain please.
Fundamentally it doesn't matter whether you are on a bike, moped, foot, car - if you go up the inside of a lorry or bus you are very likely to be squashed. Survival of the biggest and the cautious.
Article is very inoffensive in my opinion.
Heres the most recent example...
"Cyclist killed by lorry ‘waved at driver to stop him crashing into her’"
Explain please.
What do you need explaining?
While I can agree with education, I think it's only right that a proportionate responsibility rests with those operating the dangerous machinery.
Reading the article that's what he's saying that the driver and the cyclist should both take responsibility, that the blame shouldn't solely lie with the driver.
Dark Side - Member
What do you need explaining?
POSTED 23 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Misogynist - someone who hates or despises women. Just need you to point out which part of the article is misogynistic and explain why.
What have people got against the "Anarchist in Lycra" bit?
We all know the militant "lycra lout" types who run red lights and give us cyclists a bad name. They're an embarrassment to us all. Why so defensive?
Yes, a truck driver from a well-known Speyside company courteously tried to ram me up the arse because I had the temerity to indicate, put my brakes on and turn left while in front of him. (I was in a Mitsubishi Delica, not riding my bike this time). But, some truckers are good, some bad. BUT those that are bad are f*cking dangerous! If a car is a weapon, maybe it's an M16. A truck therefore is a WMD! A bicycle is a sharp poke in the ribs, at worst.
it's clearly his toned-down opinion, said tactfully because it's in a published magazine. I imagine his true opinion is a bit more pointy.
he says it's fashionable to shift blame/ cost to the commercial vehicle companies, but what he doesn't comment on is that the laws protect them from more severe and more appropriate punishments for crimes involving death and injury caused by drivers.
all this stuff about 'it isn't just the drivers fault' sits uneasy with me, for this reason
never seen an anarchist in bibshorts tho 🙂
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the young ladies tragically killed would have been noticed a lot sooner by the drivers had they been wearing Lycra...
His comments seem to assume that because someone is unaware of the dangers they may be facing then it becomes their fault if they get squashed. The truth is that every road user needs to be aware of everything and everyone around them and look out for one another.
All those saying it's not anti-cyclist - did you miss the bit where he complains about shifting the blame onto road transport operators and drivers? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but given all the available evidence, isn't that the correct place to shift the blame. He wants to shift it onto the cyclist.
my perception not "anti cycling" as such but would appear to be shifting the responsibility onto the more vulnerable road user
seems to be suggesting that the road transport industry is being asked to carry the cost (financial cost) of the poor road skills of some cyclists
think the suggestion that cycle training could be improved is good but if only in schools that means generations before get any impact and i'd argue that current scheme misses many of those that would benefit most (eg i've seen kids on bmxs told as not road legal can't do) and at the younger end is only hitting very basic traffic awareness (and yes i know that some instructors are fantastic and sort problem bikes and i know that there is currently a review going on)
think it is sad that an industry representative should be suggesting that the industry should be unwilling to adopt improved designs and new and increasingly relatively cheap technology - this could work its way through in a "generation" of trucks - probably only a few years for major fleets - of course there are those fleet operators who lack social conscience and will do the minimum and as cheap as possibly - citing how competitive the industry is - but it is a "level playing field" with regard to regulation
believe that in urban environments the majority of collisions involving cyclists and trucks are with construction related vehicles - now there are more of these in cities than say container trucks but it can be no coincidence that they are often working in unfamiliar areas with contracturally enforced time deadlines to meet - the industry needs to get off it high horse (get out of its high cabs?) and contribute positively to iniatives and not bleat about being labelled the bad guys and encouraging a (financial) winner does least culture
I'm surprised so many people are defending his writing.
At best, it's ambiguous.
It certainly couldn't be summarised as "Most accidents involving a truck and bike are found in court to be the fault of the truck driver. Let's be careful and look out for other people while we are driving".
Focusing on the one one situation where cyclists are statistically most likely to be at fault, women undertaking a left turning truck, gives the impression that he is trying to shift the blame for all accidents on to cyclists.
Its depressing to read so many people blaming the cyclists, without any evidence they are at fault in lorry/cyclist collisions. Yes, i've seen people act stupidly on bikes, but i'm yet to be convinced its the reason these incidents happen.
Heres (yet another) example
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-who-lost-her-leg-in-crash-with-lorry-scores-legal-win-against-insurer-8616903.html
Truck drivers (my father being one), taxi drivers and bus drivers - all scum of the road.
I refuse to use taxi's and bus's on the principle they people operating them are complete cretins.