We loose yet another one to a lorry

Home Forum Bike Forum We loose yet another one to a lorry

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 105 total)
  • We loose yet another one to a lorry
  • brakes
    Member

    sad news.
    stay well away from lorries. far away.

    would be interested to know the details of the crash.

    EDIT: your link is missing a ‘9’ off the end.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    And the chap that was hit in West Lothian last week also died last night
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-23313515

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    EDIT: your link is missing a ‘9’ off the end.

    Not any more it isn’t. (-:

    brakes
    Member

    perhaps not surprisingly it was a tipper truck.

    I saw a cyclist go on the inside of a tipper truck this morning around Old St roundabout – bad move I thought, wonder if he’ll get squished – the driver saw him though thankfully, but rather than let him pass through proceeded to make sure he got round the corner before the cyclist by gunning it – cyclist had to stop.
    idiots.

    idiots you mean, idiot.

    29erKeith
    Member

    How many will it take?

    Just a few, but the right ones, get a politician on a bike and run them over…

    I’ve been complaining and reporting issues about the junction outside my office for years, plenty of close calls. Private road in a port so loads of lorries. Absolutely nothings been done and I’ve got nothing or been fobbed off at best and been told to cycle on the pavement at times to. Not surprisingly I gave up reporting anything.

    Our FD had a very near miss a few weeks back, within a week there’s a working group with our company and the port & road owners to look at what can be done to improve safety for cyclists at the junction.

    I’m glad that somethings happening, but sad it’s taken so long

    Sad, sad news.

    Way too many in the last few weeks.

    I’ve written to my MP at least 3 times in the few months. 2,000 people per year die on the roads and this is not an acceptable rate of attrition, and it”s time that those in power did something about it.

    luddite
    Member

    I think brakes was right when he said idiotS there is no point cutting up the inside of lorries just because you have the right.
    You don’t want to be dead right!

    Premier Icon The Pinkster
    Subscriber

    I know it’s been posted elsewhere on STW but if you haven’t already signed it please put your name to this petition by the CTC.

    It’s in all our interests to get justice for road traffic incidents

    rootes1
    Member

    tipper truck

    don’t suppose you got name of haulier? was it on crossrail business? (they have a sign in the cab

    I think brakes was right when he said idiotS there is no point cutting up the inside of lorries just because you have the right.

    like this idiot? You have no idea what happened in this case.
    “A cyclist killed when she was knocked down by a lorry saw the driver turning towards her and waved desperately to try to stop him, an inquest heard today.”
    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-by-lorry-waved-at-driver-to-stop-him-crashing-into-her-8607713.html

    b r
    Member

    I’ve written to my MP at least 3 times in the few months. 2,000 people per year die on the roads and this is not an acceptable rate of attrition, and it”s time that those in power did something about it.

    Since we have one of the lowest level of road deaths in the world, what is an acceptable rate?

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    HoratioHufnagel – from your linked article…..

    But he also said the lorry’s indicator should have been seen, and she may have been listening to the radio: “Ellie had a clear view of the lorry ahead of her and should have been aware it was indicating left. She should not have moved along its nearside but waited behind it for him to complete the turn. She may have been listening to the radio while cycling and if she was, that might have been a distraction to her.”

    Ignoring the radio comment for another thread it seems in that case the lorry driver failed to spot her for the 7 secs she would have appeared in his mirror and she failed to spot his indicators and put herself in a highly dangerous position. I’d call them both idiots (and sadly both now dead). Far too soon to make judgements (not that it is our place to) about what happened in that latest tragic case though.

    I think it’s relatively clear that the gravity of being in charge of a huge bit of metal needs to be made crystal clear. But I think it’s also clear that putting yourself in harms way is likely to be dangerous needs to be made clearer to cyclists too.

    We will never have a zero incident road network whilst human judgement and abilities are involved so I’m not sure when you cross the line into too dangerous territory.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Just a few, but the right ones, get a politician on a bike and run them over…

    win, win

    mrmo
    Member

    Since we have one of the lowest level of road deaths in the world, what is an acceptable rate?

    There is no acceptable rate, the reality is that some people will always die, fast moving machines do break.

    The idea that it is acceptable that third parties are killed by driver negligence, which is the sad reality, is abhorrent.

    Is it acceptbale that a bmw can hit a driver turn the wrong way down and one way street and park the car astride a wall? If you read the news reports it seems so!

    Premier Icon piedi di formaggio
    Subscriber

    All too close to my office today. Thought it was likely to be a fatlity of somekind when I saw the traffic stacking up.

    Lets all remember, someone isn’t going home today. RIP whoever you are

    I’ve written to my MP at least 3 times in the few months. 2,000 people per year die on the roads and this is not an acceptable rate of attrition, and it”s time that those in power did something about it.

    Since we have one of the lowest level of road deaths in the world, what is an acceptable rate?

    Err, somewhere closer to zero I would have thought. Fewer people are murdered than dies on the roads.

    FunkyDunc
    Member

    Roads are always going to be dangerous whilst there are humans in control of objects. People will die.

    The only way to reduce road deaths is to make people walk, but then there will be accidents with people walking in to each other not wearing helmets

    rootes1
    Member

    ut I think it’s also clear that putting yourself in harms way is likely to be dangerous needs to be made clearer to cyclists too.

    yep.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    The only way to reduce road deaths is to make people walk

    I’m pretty sure there are other things we can do as well….

    Peyote
    Member
    wobbliscott
    Member

    I don’t know if this is what happened in this case, but cyclists going up the inside of cars anywhere near junctions is just not a good idea. Not saying anyone deserves to have an accident or that anyone is at fault – its all about assessing risks and taking precautions and this applies to life in general, not just when on bikes. You just cannot assume people have seen you whether on a bike or in a car.

    I lose count of the number of times I see cyclists trying to go up the inside of cars at junctions. Similarly, I doubt vehicle drivers are checking their nearside mirrors and looking over their left shoulders every time they turn left at a junction. All the more reason for cyclists to be ultra-cautious.

    Its a sad reality of our modern lives that roads are getting more and more dangerous. Faster, larger cars, more congested roads, people leading more stressful and busy lives, more distractions for drivers (roadside signage, sat nav’s, mobile phones, nagging backseat drivers, silly overcomplicated road junctions and traffic lights where traffic lights are not needed etc), more foreign drivers and left had drive lorries on our roads, increasing number of cyclists, some of which don’t seem to have much road sense. Its all a lethal cocktail.

    hora
    Member

    Lets all remember, someone isn’t going home today. RIP whoever you are

    +1. RIP fella.

    luddite
    Member

    If we don’t cycle into dangerous positions we go along way to being safeR .
    Your still at risk of SMIDSY and the idiot driving around midlands in a Silver BMW pushing people off bikes!
    But these cyclists are still someone’s loved one and most of us have got away doing the same thing.

    mrmo
    Member

    I lose count of the number of times I see cyclists trying to go up the inside of cars at junctions. Similarly, I doubt vehicle drivers are checking their nearside mirrors and looking over their left shoulders every time they turn left at a junction. All the more reason for cyclists to be ultra-cautious.

    but your taught to do it to pass your driving test…

    Yes the cyclist is a prat for putting themselves in a dangerous position, but it happens, so the driver should look! have a read of the highway code about how to turn into a side road, the driver gives way to the pedestrian.

    Would you switch lanes on the Motorway without looking because the car you overtook should be going slower than you?

    Too many people accept bad driving, accept that driver negligence will kill people and that the choice is no cars or deaths.

    That is wrong, the choice is drivers paying attention and no/minimal deaths or not paying attention and the status quo continues.

    Look at any industry, deaths are not acceptable, and there are some potentially very dangerous working enviroments around where work happens and people don’t die because the controls are in place to ensure accidents don’t happen.

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    Would you switch lanes on the Motorway without looking because the car you overtook should be going slower than you?

    Too many people accept bad driving, accept that driver negligence will kill people and that the choice is no cars or deaths.

    That is wrong, the choice is drivers paying attention and no/minimal deaths or not paying attention and the status quo continues.

    I don’t think anyone would say it was acceptable, especially not on a cycling forum. But I think it would be reasonable to assume that as fallible humans who ‘think’ they look each and every time there will be occasions where we don’t – be that one in a hundred, thousand or hundred thousand. If we didn’t assume this the below you wrote would be unnecessary.

    Look at any industry, deaths are not acceptable, and there are some potentially very dangerous working enviroments around where work happens and people don’t die because the controls are in place to ensure accidents don’t happen.

    I suspect in most industrial scenarios the RA would recommend you remove the easily damaged cyclists from equation to mitigate losses – and that’s not the answer we (as cyclists) are after.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    I lose count of the number of times I see cyclists trying to go up the inside of cars at junctions. Similarly, I doubt vehicle drivers are checking their nearside mirrors and looking over their left shoulders every time they turn left at a junction. All the more reason for cyclists to be ultra-cautious.

    and that is why I absolutely HATE cycle lanes that go up the inside of cars to a junction, even when there is an ASL box at the front, all they do is create a sense of false security for inexperienced (and experienced!) cyclists by suggesting that it is a safe place to be.

    And that’s before we get onto the situation where motorised vehicles overtake cyclists and THEN turn left on them, it happens far too frequently and that’s nothing to do with filtering.

    You simply should not turn (left or right) without checking your mirrors, whether or not it is dangerous for the cyclist to be there is kinda besides the point, in the same way we expect cyclists not to put them selves in dangerous situations we should expect drivers not to cause them, you don’t change lanes on the motorway without looking, why would you do it in town when its more likely there will be someone there!?

    My thoughts with the family as we yet again lose a life to the roads.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    I suspect in most industrial scenarios the RA would recommend you remove the easily damaged cyclists from equation to mitigate losses – and that’s not the answer we (as cyclists) are after.

    That’s still the same approach though isn’t it, making the assumption that the product* comes with an intrinsic value that must be preserved and that human losses be mitigated, instead of making the assumption that the human factor be preserved and that the mitigation occurs elsewhere.

    *couldn’t think of a better word, but you know what I mean, in a closed system like in industry it may be easier to make that choice, but it shouldn’t be that way on the streets.

    It seems that on the road the focus too often jumps to how to remove the vulnerable users from danger instead of removing the danger from vulnerable users.

    Premier Icon rickmeister
    Subscriber

    Well said Hora, +1

    My own rule is to stay between the 1st and 2nd vehicle at the stop line. I can see what the car / truck in front of me is doing and “hopefully” the car behind me can see me….

    I think I could be in a blind spot in front of a truck even in the ASL…

    Its a sad reality of our modern lives that roads are getting more and more dangerous.

    No they aren’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

    mrmo
    Member

    It seems the focus too often jumps to how to remove the vulnerable users from danger instead of removing the danger from vulnerable users.

    exactly,

    How many car journeys are neccesary in an urban enviroment? how many new estates are built around cars with no thought to pedestrians or cyclists. Why do we have a school run involving cars? Why do we continue to build out of town shopping centres and not link public transport to them.

    There are roads where it makes sense to remove cyclists, Motorways for instance, but in an urban environment which should take priority cars or pedestrians?

    mrmo
    Member

    now rearrange the numbers for deaths by user group,
    It is getting better if your a driver but not if your a cyclist.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    The chap at Winchburgh was a friend of a friend- 79 and still riding, RIP 🙁

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Subscriber
    project
    Member

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFmiSF5v_Qk&feature=c4-overview&list=UU_kaz1vhOldrsr4Gw_N5GDQ[/video]

    and what about the middle aged idiot driving probably his company van and almost pizzaering me on the junction, all because the stupuid idiot didnt want to wait a few seconds for me to pass the junction, i have emailed and drawn a revised junction layout for our cycle officer and the local council, will see if any engineering options are taken.

    Like all buses and coaches the owner of all large commercial vehicles, and company cars,should be named on the side just behind the passenger door,that should stop a lot of the idiots.

    So sad for the poor cyclist, his family and freinds, my thoughts are with you Sir.

    luddite
    Member

    You can’t defend yourself against selfish morons.
    Any point in showing this to the Police or drivers boss?

    How many car journeys are neccesary in an urban enviroment? how many new estates are built around cars with no thought to pedestrians or cyclists. Why do we have a school run involving cars? Why do we continue to build out of town shopping centres and not link public transport to them.

    There are roads where it makes sense to remove cyclists, Motorways for instance, but in an urban environment which should take priority cars or pedestrians?

    Couldn’t agree more with this. We need to rearrange priority on our road network to look after the more vulnerable users. The car user has been king for too long and we’ve gone the way of our American cousins.

    Government is too sh*t scared to make the decision to do this for fear of aggravating the ‘war on motorists’.

    mk1fan
    Member

    I’ve said it before …..

    It’s not drivers or cyclist or pedestrians, it’s people being inconsiderate to other people.

    Until we ALL start applying more thought to our actions on the roads (indeed also the trails) then collisions will keep occurring.

    RIP to those that have needlessly died, regardless of their age.

    But that is never going to happen mk1fan is it? It is a small minority of careless drivers/cyclists/pedestrians etc. that are the problem.

    And with that in mind, it is up to town/city planners to create infrastructure that removes the element of risk faced by vulnerable road users, rather than expect people to behave well

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 105 total)

The topic ‘We loose yet another one to a lorry’ is closed to new replies.