View Single Post
  #34   Report Post  
Old March 26th 06, 03:58 PM posted to uk.transport.london
Colin Rosenstiel Colin Rosenstiel is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,146
Default Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses

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

"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.


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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel