Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:
The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run
protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed
bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the
ground there would be a high risk of grounding.

Tippers, Skip Lorries and Cement Lorries are not, I believe, required to
have side protection. This is because they frequently work 'off-road'.
With other vehicles the side guards do offer some protection.
In addition the 'exempt' vehicle are often 'owner drivers' on piece
work. The temptation to cut corners is too great for safety. A left
turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed
evidence about whether he was even indicating. A cyclist hit by an
overtaking bus recieved only relatively minor injuries. If it had been a
skip lorry they would have been lucky to survive.
I think ALL HGVs should have a fully functioning 'black box' rather than
just a tacho.

Jim Chisholm

"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a
junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled
up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame.
If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist
is utterly to blame.

On 23 Oct, 10:03, Adrian wrote:
"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a
junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled
up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame.
If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist
is utterly to blame.

The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or
else they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue
moves. Sometimes due to bad luck, the lights change just as you are
trying to get to the front.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating
does make a difference (whether that was the situation in Cambridge I
don't know).

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with
a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon
pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly
to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then
the cyclist is utterly to blame.

The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or else
they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue moves.
Sometimes due to bad luck

Bad luck, my arse. If you've not JUST seen them go red, assume they're
about to go green, and be on the defensive.

Same applies t'other way round - as long as you've not JUST seen 'em go
green, you should assume they're about to go red, and be prepared to stop.

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.

So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation,
but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.

Why the impatience?

So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in
Cambridge I don't know).

What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valour"? "He who
runs away lives to fight another day"?

Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?

On 23 Oct, 10:42, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:





A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.
To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with
a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon
pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly
to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then
the cyclist is utterly to blame.
The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or else
they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue moves.
Sometimes due to bad luck

Bad luck, my arse. If you've not JUST seen them go red, assume they're
about to go green, and be on the defensive.

Same applies t'other way round - as long as you've not JUST seen 'em go
green, you should assume they're about to go red, and be prepared to stop.

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.

So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change.

And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles that may
be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you. That's why
you need to get to the front.


If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation,
but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.

Why the impatience?

What I said. You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.


So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in
Cambridge I don't know).

What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valour"? "He who
runs away lives to fight another day"?

Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?

Not at a queue at a junction. That's totally irrelevant. How would
you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway? Would it
be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of the road?

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.

So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights
change.

And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles

No, you're between two vehicles in the normal position in the road.

that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you.
That's why you need to get to the front.

Umm, no. The vehicles behind you can see you - because you're in front
of them. Not in a potential blind spot in the gutter. The vehicles in
front of you don't need to know you're there, because you're behind them
and not overtaking them.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.

Why the impatience?

What I said. You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.

********.

Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?

Not at a queue at a junction.

Well, no, you're not actually MEANT to overtake queues at junctions
anyway.

That's totally irrelevant.

Clearly.

How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway?

Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"?

Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of
the road?

Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway?

Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling
and basic road positioning.

On 23 Oct, 11:10, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.
So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights
change.
And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles

No, you're between two vehicles in the normal position in the road.

that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you. *
That's why you need to get to the front.

Umm, no. *The vehicles behind you can see you - because you're in front
of them. Not in a potential blind spot in the gutter. The vehicles in
front of you don't need to know you're there, because you're behind them
and not overtaking them.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.
Why the impatience?
What I said. *You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.

********.

Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't
agree with you.


Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?
Not at a queue at a junction.

Well, no, you're not actually MEANT to overtake queues at junctions
anyway.

That's totally irrelevant.

Clearly.

How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway?

Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"?

Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. I can't imagine what you
have in mind.


Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of
the road?

Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway?

By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right
angles to the direction of traffic.


Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling
and basic road positioning.

It seems to me that you've never seen a road. Maybe you've seen one
described in a book and misunderstood.

On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote:
If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating

Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its
really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the
light changes so what have you gained?

B2003

On 23 Oct, 10:44, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote:

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. *So indicating

Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its
really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the
light changes so what have you gained?

So that you can get past the junction before they all turn left into
you, or veer towards the kerb etc etc.

On Oct 23, 10:52 am, MIG wrote:
So that you can get past the junction before they all turn left into
you, or veer towards the kerb etc etc.

Why would they turn left into you if you stay behind them? And if
you're really in such a hurry to cross the lights why not just get off
the bike , wheel it across the pedestrian crossing and get on again
the other side before the traffic has had the green light?

B2003