Adrian wrote:
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.

What about the intermediate situation where the driver started to
overtake some distance back, didn't make it past or pull in, and then
started to indicate. Happened to me with a bus today. I shouted, and he
turned behind me.

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.

Unless there are two full lanes, and the lorry is in the offside one and
not indicating. Indicators are definitely relevant in this case.
Nearside cycle lanes are slightly different because the lorry should not
be in them even if turning left.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:24 am, John B wrote:
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement

Them and 7.5 tonners who as far as I can see are generally driven by
transit drivers who've been given a promotion for the day.

You would both be wrong. Badly-driven vans and LGVs may cause injuries,
but rarely fatalities. In London this year 9 out of 11 cyclist
fatalities have involved HGVs. The long-term average is about 50%.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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

What about the intermediate situation where the driver started to
overtake some distance back, didn't make it past or pull in, and then
started to indicate. Happened to me with a bus today. I shouted, and he
turned behind me.

I'd have said that was fairly clearly covered in that first scenario.

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.

Unless there are two full lanes, and the lorry is in the offside one and
not indicating.

In L2, and turning left? I'd imagine the cars in L1 would have something
to say about that, too... Unless, of course, L1 was left-turn-only...?

Indicators are definitely relevant in this case.

I'd have said the left-turn-only signage on L1 was probably more
relevant, but that's probably just me...

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 3:25 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
They could put the engine on top of the cab.

That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though.

Would probably look quite good though I suppose in theory they
could have the engine offset to one side and have a one person only
cab on the other side at the same level. Though I suspect HGV drivers
actually like their high up view lording it over the rest of us

Yes. And for that reason such a design wouldn't sell, unless made
compulsory.

I'd have the driver in front of the engine and under the load -
containers ride higher than the roof of many cars.

This would improve forward and side visibility, and stop the driver
feeling superior.

Also he would know that in a severe collision he'd get the engine in his
back followed by the load on his head!

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On 22 Oct, 10:54, wrote:
Quite frankly I tend to find (not here, but in general) that a lot of
the criticism the bendies get comes from people who've never even been
on one (let alone used them regularly),

So the views of these people don't count then?

I've never been on a bendy bus, and pretty much never choose to travel
on buses (despite getting free travel on them).

I have, however, on many occasions come out of an Underground station
and been unable to cross a road because a bendy bus is blocking the
road, or had a road journey (by bicycle or car) take longer because of
congestion caused by these hideous things.

I have also witnessed safety-related incidents where the traffic
movements caused by bendy buses has posed a danger to cyclists and
pedestrians.

But, of course, my views don't count because I've never been on a
bendy bus.

On 22 Oct, 12:10, Boltar wrote:
If a cyclist is dumb enough to get wiped out by a bendy bus they'd
probably have been squished by an HGV sooner or later anyway. The
golden rule of cycling is you do not pass any sort of vehicle on the
inside near a left turn.

All very nice in theory, until the poor judgement, stupidity, mistake
or incompetence of another road user puts them in that situation. Or
the HGV chooses to stop alongside them and then decides to turn left.
Or the HGV pulls out in front of them. Etc etc.

(Having said that the standard of cycling in London is not good, but
is still much better than that of most drivers).

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), BRB Class 465
wrote:

I have, however, on many occasions come out of an Underground station
and been unable to cross a road because a bendy bus is blocking the
road

In London, I find lorry drivers are far, far worse at doing that.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 23, 5:13 pm, Colin McKenzie wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 3:25 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
They could put the engine on top of the cab.

That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though.

Would probably look quite good though I suppose in theory they
could have the engine offset to one side and have a one person only
cab on the other side at the same level. Though I suspect HGV drivers
actually like their high up view lording it over the rest of us

Yes. And for that reason such a design wouldn't sell, unless made
compulsory.

Well , it has other problems in that he'd have bugger all visibility
on one side which would make the situation with regards to cyclists
and every other road user worse , not better.

This would improve forward and side visibility, and stop the driver
feeling superior.

Wouldn't do much for stability though with the load up high.

Also he would know that in a severe collision he'd get the engine in his
back followed by the load on his head!

It probably would make the more gung ho drivers a bit more reserved ,
but the extra height would probably be an issue. Things could be worse
though - we could have bonneted trucks like in the states where the
driver has 6 foot of engine between him and whatever he hits.

B2003

On 24 Oct, 09:30, Boltar wrote:
It probably would make the more gung ho drivers a bit more reserved ,
but the extra height would probably be an issue. Things could be worse
though - we could have bonneted trucks like in the states where the
driver has 6 foot of engine between him and whatever he hits.

You could always put the engine behind the cab:
http://www.lkw-infos.eu/images/oldti...16320-(MN).jpg

U

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:40:02AM -0700, Boltar wrote:

Would probably look quite good though I suppose in theory they
could have the engine offset to one side and have a one person only
cab on the other side at the same level. Though I suspect HGV drivers
actually like their high up view lording it over the rest of us

Dunno if they like lording it over the rest of us, but they do like to
be able to see to both sides. Cyclists do too, as it means that the
lorry driver has at least *some* chance of seeing the suicidal idiots
trying to overtake on the left.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Featu an incorrectly implemented bug