Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

I assume you mean that once the driver starts a turn, he can't
see all of the vehicle in his mirrors. In what way is a bendy
bus different from an articulated lorry in that regard, or would
you ban all of them too?

Like railway practices and designs found to be dangerous I would
require changes to overcome the safety defects. Most railway lines
had to be fitted with TPWS to prevent SPADs and bufferstop
collisions and all the Mark I rolling stock had to be withdrawn
from service within quite a short time because it wasn't
crashworthy enough, for example.

I wasn't aware that articulated lorries had been "found to be
dangerous". Do you have any accident statistics to support this?

Two Cambridge accidents in the last few months in which cyclists
were killed by drivers who claim not to have seen them on their
nearsides. The lorries were turning left, one on a roundabout at
Addenbrooke's Hospital, the other at a T junction off a main road
with a cycle lane on the nearside.

There is no question in my mind that both drivers should have seen
the cyclists and if they couldn't then their vehicles were
defective and should not be allowed on the roads nor should similar
vehicles unless modified.

.... or the drivers didn't have the nearside mirror properly adjusted.
The mirror check should be done *before* starting to turn; the
articulation of the lorry (or bendy bus) is not relevant.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote in
:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:


... or the drivers didn't have the nearside mirror properly adjusted.
The mirror check should be done *before* starting to turn; the
articulation of the lorry (or bendy bus) is not relevant.

If the cyclists were riding responsibly, they shouldn't even have been in a
position where the driver of the bus *needed* to check his left-hand mirror
before turning left. The rule is simple: never never even begin to overtake
a vehicle that is indicating to turn towards you. On the approach to a
junction, assume that any vehicle in front of you might be planning to turn
left or that you may not have seen his indicator, so don't overtake near
junctions.

The Highway Code lists "near junctions" as being one of the places not to
overtake a vehicle on the right; it should really extend this to prohibiting
cyclists from overtaking on the left near a junction. Unfortunately many
marked bike lanes extend right up to the junction (eg traffic lights) and so
are seen to be encouraging rather than prohibiting such an action.

Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take advantage
of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue of traffic,
rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I say that from the
perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when I'm on my bike I always
resist the temptation to overtake cars on the left near junctions, because
as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous it can be.

"Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take
advantage
of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue of traffic,
rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I say that from
the
perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when I'm on my bike I
always
resist the temptation to overtake cars on the left near junctions,
because
as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous it can be. "

Yes, I agree entirely, and this situation is worsened by the imposition
of "bicycle boxes" or whatever they are called at the front of stop
lines at junctions, which can only encourage cycles and motorbikes to
overtake or undertake whenever there is stationery traffic waiting at
red lights.

I have been at the Bar long enough to remember motorcyclists being
prosecuted for this very action, which now seems to be officially
sanctioned if not encouraged.

Marc.

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:



Two Cambridge accidents in the last few months in which cyclists were
killed by drivers who claim not to have seen them on their nearsides.
The lorries were turning left, one on a roundabout at Addenbrooke's
Hospital, the other at a T junction off a main road with a cycle lane on
the nearside.

There is no question in my mind that both drivers should have seen the
cyclists and if they couldn't then their vehicles were defective and
should not be allowed on the roads nor should similar vehicles unless
modified.

They could just have easily not seen the cyclist if their vehicle was
perfectly equipped for the job, because they didn't look.

Unless they had have just overtaken a cyclist they have no reason to
look, because they are perfectly entitled to assume that a cyclist hasn't
been stupid enough to put them self in this position.

It isn't just the lorry at fault here

tim

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

Fighter planes used to do the same thing in WW II, to show the number
of German or Japanese bombers that they had accounted for.

I've never seen a bus with more than two signs.

Jeremy parker

In article ,
(tim \(in sweden\)) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Two Cambridge accidents in the last few months in which cyclists
were killed by drivers who claim not to have seen them on their
nearsides. The lorries were turning left, one on a roundabout at
Addenbrooke's Hospital, the other at a T junction off a main road
with a cycle lane on the nearside.

There is no question in my mind that both drivers should have seen
the cyclists and if they couldn't then their vehicles were defective
and should not be allowed on the roads nor should similar vehicles
unless modified.

They could just have easily not seen the cyclist if their vehicle was
perfectly equipped for the job, because they didn't look.

Unless they had have just overtaken a cyclist they have no reason to
look, because they are perfectly entitled to assume that a cyclist
hasn't been stupid enough to put them self in this position.

It isn't just the lorry at fault here

As far as we can tell the lorries in both cases had just overtaken the
cyclists. In one case because there is a cycle lane.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Richard J. wrote in
:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

... or the drivers didn't have the nearside mirror properly
adjusted. The mirror check should be done *before* starting to
turn; the articulation of the lorry (or bendy bus) is not relevant.

If the cyclists were riding responsibly, they shouldn't even have
been in a position where the driver of the bus *needed* to check his
left-hand mirror before turning left. The rule is simple: never never
even begin to overtake a vehicle that is indicating to turn towards
you. On the approach to a junction, assume that any vehicle in front
of you might be planning to turn left or that you may not have seen
his indicator, so don't overtake near junctions.

The Highway Code lists "near junctions" as being one of the places
not to overtake a vehicle on the right; it should really extend this
to prohibiting cyclists from overtaking on the left near a junction.
Unfortunately many marked bike lanes extend right up to the junction
(eg traffic lights) and so are seen to be encouraging rather than
prohibiting such an action.

Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take
advantage of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue
of traffic, rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I
say that from the perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when
I'm on my bike I always resist the temptation to overtake cars on the
left near junctions, because as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous
it can be.

You are making number of unwarranted assumptions there, especially about
queuing.

There has to be a duty on drivers of large vehicles to ensure no other
vehicles are in their way, no matter where they are going.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article 70,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads.
If it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the
road users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the bus
driver is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left, the
cyclists are to blame.

And if the design of the vehicle makes it impossible for the driver to
see which vehicles it is about to collide with the designers of the
vehicle are to blame and all similar vehicles should be banned from the
road until the defect is fixed, as would be the case with railway
vehicles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads.
If it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the
road users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the bus
driver is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left, the
cyclists are to blame.

And if the design of the vehicle makes it impossible for the driver to
see which vehicles it is about to collide with the designers of the
vehicle are to blame and all similar vehicles should be banned from the
road until the defect is fixed, as would be the case with railway
vehicles.

If you stuck your head in the blades of a combine harvester, would that
make it an inherently unsafe design of vehicle?

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

I'm sure the mirrors on the bus do allow for the driver to see all the way
down the nearside, and, yes, the driver should very probably have paid more
attention to them - But the fact remains that the cyclist carries the
majority of the fault for being there.

Adrian wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads.
If it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the
road users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the bus
driver is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left, the
cyclists are to blame.

And if the design of the vehicle makes it impossible for the driver to
see which vehicles it is about to collide with the designers of the
vehicle are to blame and all similar vehicles should be banned from the
road until the defect is fixed, as would be the case with railway
vehicles.

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

The penalty is appropriate, is it?

I'm sure the mirrors on the bus do allow for the driver to see all the way
down the nearside, and, yes, the driver should very probably have paid more
attention to them - But the fact remains that the cyclist carries the
majority of the fault for being there.

It is up to ALL road users not to hit other road users. If not sure,
the rule is to stop. You are not allowed to kill someone just because
they are somewhere unexpected. If you can't see, you stop and get
someone to guide you. Some drivers seem to think that signalling will
make everyone else get out of their way.

This is a classic case of the difference between what vulnerable road
users are advised to do and what dangerous road users should expect
them to do. E.g. pedestrians are advised to wear something white at
night, but drivers need to see them in time to avoid them even if
they're matt black from top to toe.

There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal
could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle. The
driver is required to ensure that no-one is there. Deciding that
no-one ought to be there is not good enough.

Colin McKenzie