| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
March 24th 06, 10:45 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote in : In article , (Martin Underwood) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote in : 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? b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL? Could it be a "don't overtake this vehicle on the left when it's turning left" sign? I've seen this on various large vehicles such as dustbin lorries, concrete mixers and HGVs: as I was waiting behind a concrete mixer this very morning I saw one of these signs. And very sensible too: anyone on a bike who overtakes on the left a car/lorry that has indicated that it is turning left wants their head looking at. It doesn't say anything about turning. However, if it's stopped at a bus stop you're stuffed either way. Because they are so long you can't pass either side in the time it is stopped. 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. The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side! Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake the cyclist to do so. Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like that should not be allowed on the roads. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#3
March 24th 06, 11:34 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Martin Underwood) wrote: The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side! Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake the cyclist to do so. Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158. Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like that should not be allowed on the roads. 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? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
|
#4
March 24th 06, 11:55 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Martin Underwood) wrote: The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side! Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake the cyclist to do so. Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158. Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like that should not be allowed on the roads. 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. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#5
March 25th 06, 12:37 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Martin Underwood) wrote: The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side! Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake the cyclist to do so. Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158. Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like that should not be allowed on the roads. 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? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
|
#6
March 25th 06, 08:28 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Martin Underwood) wrote: The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side! Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake the cyclist to do so. Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158. Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like that should not be allowed on the roads. 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. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#7
March 25th 06, 09:36 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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) |
|
#8
March 25th 06, 01:00 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
"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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Oyster travelcards on Bendibuses | London Transport | |||
| Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses | London Transport | |||
| Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses | London Transport | |||
| How much revenue is lost through passengers with no tickets on bendibuses | London Transport | |||
| Bendibuses back but .... | London Transport | |||
Hybrid Mode
