|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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! |
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 |
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) |
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 |
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) |
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 |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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. |
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) |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
"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. |
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 |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
"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 |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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 |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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 |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
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 |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin McKenzie wrote in
: Adrian wrote: Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : 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. So no matter how stupid other road users are, it's always the vehicle driver's fault? Car drivers are required to conform to all sorts of rules (a combination of the Highway Code and motoring law) and if they contravene them, they may be prosecuted. But if a pedestrian or a cyclist offends, they are to be pitied instead of criticised for causing the accident? If, at night, a pedestrian wearing black crosses the road in front of a moving vehicle, too close for the vehicle to be able to stop, or if a cyclist strays into the path of a moving vehicle and has no lights, it's the driver's fault for not being able to see them, rather then the pedestrian's or cyclist's fault for doing something dangerous, irresponsible and stupid? Yes, *everyone* on the road should drive/walk/cycle defensively, but this should be on a "best endeavours" basis: if an accident still occurs, the fault lies with the person who cocked up, not with the driver of the vehicle who had priority. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre. The penalty is appropriate, is it? They obviously thought the risk worth taking, bearing the rather obvious price of failure in mind. There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle. No, there's precisely two. 1. The long vehicle overtakes them then turns left. 2. They undertake a long vehicle which is starting to turn left In either case, the person who is primarily at fault is blindingly obvious. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : If you stuck your head in the blades of a combine harvester, would that make it an inherently unsafe design of vehicle? Irrelevant. Any road vehicle has not inherently to be a danger to other road vehicles that have every right to be there too. Do combine harvesters fly between fields, then? Stop trying to pass the buck. The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre. You don't know that. So the bus started to pass the cyclists, then turned left whilst still half way past them? Why didn't you say so? That's a very different kettle of fish, as I've said all along. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
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. It should not pull off until anything overtaking it has passed, assuming it was stopped when the overtake begins. If it doesn't, the driver should be booked as he is breaking the law (and being dangerous). 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 vehicles aren't dangerous, and they can see down their left hand side (except for the blind spot that any vehicle has). However, it is inappropriate for a cycle to overtake a bus (or any other vehicle) on the left, unless there is a mandatory cycle lane. A reminder for the (annoying minority of) cyclists who forget this is not a bad thing. Neil |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
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. There is also a (moral) duty on the drivers of smaller vehicles to have consideration for other vehicles on the road, including larger ones. This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also includes, for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It would include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower one. It would include many other courtesies. Sadly, many drivers (of vehicles of all kinds, large and small, powered and unpowered, passenger and goods) do not drive with this in mind. If they did, the roads would be a far more pleasant and far safer place for everyone on them. Neil |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : Stop trying to pass the buck. The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre. You don't know that. So the bus started to pass the cyclists, then turned left whilst still half way past them? Why didn't you say so? That's a very different kettle of fish, as I've said all along. There was no bus involved. Do keep up! Apart from the bendibuses that we started off talking about. In both cases, as I understand it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In one case it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane. The field of vision in the mirrors on the vehicle is irrelevant in those cases, then. Rather a different kettle of fish. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : In both cases, as I understand it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In one case it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane. The field of vision in the mirrors on the vehicle is irrelevant in those cases, then. Rather a different kettle of fish. No. A vehicle should never impinge on an area of road where is doesn't know what is already there. A blind spot is no excuse, but an indication of inadequate mirrors. Right. But if the vehicle is in the throes of overtaking the cyclists at the time, the field of view of the mirrors is irrelevant, because the bloody driver should KNOW that he's overtaking the cyclists, because he's just seen them through the windscreen... |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message ... Adrian wrote: 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. The problem with what you are saying is that you are using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road. IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also culpable is quite another. tim |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
|
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also includes, for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It would include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower one. It would include many other courtesies. I'm not sure where the left turning vehicle is coming from behind, how a cyclist or anyone else is supposed to do that. Do what? A considerate bus driver wouldn't turn left onto another vehicle that was already there. They should be booked if they do. A considerate cyclist, OTOH, wouldn't overtake a bus on the left if, for example, it was indicating to turn left but moving slower than the cyclist. Arguably, it is a poor idea to overtake on the left of any vehicle. If the bus is at a stop but unable to pull in for whatever reason, it is particularly stupid - yet I've seen it. Neil |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (tim \(in sweden\)) wrote: The problem with what you are saying is that you are using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road. IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also culpable is quite another. The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see the cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't" implies a system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to other road users should not be on the roads. Unless you have the transcript of an inquest or court proceedings, it's pointless continuing this discussion on the basis of a 5-word quote from the driver. The fact that the driver "couldn't see the cyclist" might be because: - he didn't look very carefully - he looked after he started to turn - the cyclist was difficult to see (e.g. no lights at night) - the mirror was dirty - the mirror was badly adjusted To deduce, despite all these alternative possibilities, that the vehicle is inherently dangerous is false logic. Since the driver should have checked his mirror *before* starting to turn, he should have had a clear view down the side of the vehicle. Where is the "inherent" danger in the vehicle design? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see the cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't" implies a system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to other road users should not be on the roads. "Couldn't", in this instance, implies an excuse because they didn't look. You shouldn't NEED to look, because nobody in their right mind would BE THERE in the first instance. If they are, it's their own ****ing silly fault. But people like you insist on blaming the poor ****er who's trying to thread a large truck or bus or whatever through a busy city junction, instead of pointing the blame at the daft flat ******* whose stupidity is busy buying is hosed away. |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Martin Underwood wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote in 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. ... So no matter how stupid other road users are, it's always the vehicle driver's fault? Not always, no. The point is you do everything you can to avoid a collision, regardless of whose fault it would be. If someone comes out of a side turning in front of you you don't keep going, thinking, "oh, well, it won't be my fault I hit him." You jam on all the brakes and/or swerve to try to miss the idiot. Yes, *everyone* on the road should drive/walk/cycle defensively, but this should be on a "best endeavours" basis: if an accident still occurs, the fault lies with the person who cocked up, not with the driver of the vehicle who had priority. Yes, but best endeavours means looking even when you're sure no-one should be there. Have you never started to move into the middle lane on the motorway just as someone else does the same from the other side? Colin McKenzie |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Adrian wrote:
Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle. No, there's precisely two. 1. The long vehicle overtakes them then turns left. 2. They undertake a long vehicle which is starting to turn left 3. Cyclist rides, or pedestrian steps, off the pavement 4. Cyclist starts off from side of road 5. Two roads merge, one lane each, and cyclist and HGV arrive at the merge simultaneously and proceed in parallel 6. Cyclist emerges from side turning onto multi-lane road 7. Lorry turns right onto wide road next to cyclist and I'm sure there are more, without getting too exotic. Colin McKkenzie - |
Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
Martin Underwood wrote: 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. If a driver is turning left and is crossing another lane in doing so then it is the driver's responsibility to check that lanes (s)he crosses are clear beforehand. Whatever sort of lane is being crossed, it is a courtesy to slow down and let the person turning left do so, but not a requirement. So a cyclist in a cycle lane can, but doesn't have to, give way to a car waiting in another lane. The same for a car in an ordinary road when there is an oncoming car waiting to turn right - ideally you would slow down and let them cross but you don't have to. As soon as you start thinking about cycle lanes as "real lanes" it all makes sense. Back to the point about bendy buses.. The bendis seem to need to pull out away from the kerb when going around a corner (left or right). If the driver does this when going left, a cyclist may see a much increased gap to the left of the bus and cycle into it just as the bus pulls back in. A pretty useful sign. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk