Father of killed cyclist hits out at danger junction

[Nuxx Bar]

Thank goodness they're now going to put a speed camera at the
junction. That'll stop collisions like the one below, not. Still,
I'm sure the trolls will still support TfL. As long as they're
putting in anti-motorist measures instead of real road safety
improvements, who cares about the odd cyclist being killed? Mr Wright
should get his priorities straight. First we remove the motorist
scum, then we concentrate on less important things like saving lives.
That's why road safety "improvements" are only currently allowed if
they punish, restrict and/or make things more difficult for
motorists. (Can anyone name any other sort of road safety
"improvement" that is currently used in London? No? Better come out
with some ad hominem to cover that up then.)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...yclist+hits+out+at+danger+junction/article.do

Father of killed cyclist hits out at danger junction

Rob Singh, Evening Standard
03.04.08

Transport for London's road safety policy was today labelled
"unacceptable" by the father of a cyclist killed by a lorry.

Peter Wright said TfL should have taken action at a junction in King's
Cross before his daughter Madeleine, 26, was crushed to death there
while travelling to work.

Her inquest, held at St Pancras coroner's court, heard there had been
22 collisions at the traffic lights in the three years before Miss
Wright's death on 9 March last year.

These were classed as "slight collisions" resulting in minor injuries
at worst. They involved nine cyclists and 13 pedestrians.

Coroner Andrew Reid heard Miss Wright died at traffic lights in
Pentonville Road at the junction of Penton Rise. She was hit by a 7.5-
tonne lorry as it turned left. She died at the Royal London Hospital.
Witnesses said they saw another cyclist in front of Miss Wright dart
in front of the lorry moments before the accident.

Lorry driver John Humphrey told the inquest he stopped on the right
side of the junction to give himself room to turn left.

He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."

Chris Lines, head of TfL's Road Safety Unit, told the inquest that
despite the number of "slight collisions" at the junction it was not
deemed a high priority and changes were not made due to budget
constraints.

Since Miss Wright's death TfL has altered the junction to make it
safer. It is due to introduce a speed camera as well as a crossing for
cyclists and pedestrians.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, Dr Reid said it was a result
of a combination of factors including road layout and a blind spot in
Mr Humphrey's mirrors.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> wrote:

>He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."

That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.

 

[Peter Fox]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>
> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.

No.

All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an artic.
This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he was turning,
with many other things to look out for as well, some cyclists either tried
to dodge in front or blithely carried on cycling up the inside without
paying the slightest bit of attention to the signalling and road
positioning of the lorry.


--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.vulpeculox.net
(Note web site has moved April 2008)

 

[Adam Lea]

"Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>>
>> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
>> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
>> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
>> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.
>
> No.
>
> All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an artic.
> This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he was turning,
> with many other things to look out for as well, some cyclists either tried
> to dodge in front or blithely carried on cycling up the inside without
> paying the slightest bit of attention to the signalling and road
> positioning of the lorry.
>

Agreed. If the cyclist went up the inside as the lorry was trying to turn
then the cyclist is partly responsible here.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 6 Apr, 11:48, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Crispin wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
> >>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
> >>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>
> >> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
> >> that he had blind spots.  A good driver will know that he has blind
> >> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
> >> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.
>
> > No.
>
> > All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an artic.
> > This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he was turning,
> > with many other things to look out for as well, some cyclists either tried
> > to dodge in front or blithely carried on cycling up the inside without
> > paying the slightest bit of attention to the signalling and road
> > positioning of the lorry.
>
> Agreed. If the cyclist went up the inside as the lorry was trying to turn
> then the cyclist is partly responsible here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


More than partly. It's suicide going up the inside of a left turning
lorry.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:39:46 +0100, Peter Fox
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>>
>> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
>> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
>> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
>> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.
>
>No.
>
>All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an artic.
> This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he was turning,
>with many other things to look out for as well, some cyclists either tried
>to dodge in front or blithely carried on cycling up the inside without
>paying the slightest bit of attention to the signalling and road
>positioning of the lorry.

"Lorry driver John Humphrey told the inquest he stopped on
the right side of the junction to give himself room to turn
left."

What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?

What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
be particularly concerned about before turning left?

"He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box
in front of him and the first cyclist moved across him causing
him to brake. He said: "It was as if they came from nowhere.""

Now the driver is aware that cyclists are passing on his inside, how
should the driver now proceed? Is it right to assume there are no
more cyclists on the inside just because one has passed?

Victim blaming is very easy - the dead can't speak to explain their
actions. But what about laying some blame on the culprit.

 

[cupra]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:39:46 +0100, Peter Fox
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>>>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>>>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>>>
>>> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
>>> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
>>> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
>>> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an
>> artic. This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he
>> was turning, with many other things to look out for as well, some
>> cyclists either tried to dodge in front or blithely carried on
>> cycling up the inside without paying the slightest bit of attention
>> to the signalling and road positioning of the lorry.
>
> "Lorry driver John Humphrey told the inquest he stopped on
> the right side of the junction to give himself room to turn
> left."
>
> What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?
>
> What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
> be particularly concerned about before turning left?
>
> "He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box
> in front of him and the first cyclist moved across him causing
> him to brake. He said: "It was as if they came from nowhere.""
>
> Now the driver is aware that cyclists are passing on his inside, how
> should the driver now proceed? Is it right to assume there are no
> more cyclists on the inside just because one has passed?
>
> Victim blaming is very easy - the dead can't speak to explain their
> actions. But what about laying some blame on the culprit.

Who's that then, the road designer or the lorry designer?

 

[Nick]

cupra wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:39:46 +0100, Peter Fox
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>>>>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>>>>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>>>> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
>>>> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
>>>> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
>>>> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.
>>> No.
>>>
>>> All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an
>>> artic. This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he
>>> was turning, with many other things to look out for as well, some
>>> cyclists either tried to dodge in front or blithely carried on
>>> cycling up the inside without paying the slightest bit of attention
>>> to the signalling and road positioning of the lorry.
>> "Lorry driver John Humphrey told the inquest he stopped on
>> the right side of the junction to give himself room to turn
>> left."
>>
>> What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?
>>
>> What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
>> be particularly concerned about before turning left?
>>
>> "He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box
>> in front of him and the first cyclist moved across him causing
>> him to brake. He said: "It was as if they came from nowhere.""
>>
>> Now the driver is aware that cyclists are passing on his inside, how
>> should the driver now proceed? Is it right to assume there are no
>> more cyclists on the inside just because one has passed?
>>
>> Victim blaming is very easy - the dead can't speak to explain their
>> actions. But what about laying some blame on the culprit.
>
> Who's that then, the road designer or the lorry designer?
>
>
It appears that these lorries are inherently unsafe. Last week my local
paper had a story about a lorry running over a pedestrian who had walked
directly in front of the cab while the lorry was stopped. Apparently
the lorry driver couldn't see directly in front of him either.

Perhaps we should stop these huge lorries using urban roads until they
can be designed to be safer.

 

[Rod King]

"> It appears that these lorries are inherently unsafe. Last week my local
> paper had a story about a lorry running over a pedestrian who had walked
> directly in front of the cab while the lorry was stopped. Apparently the
> lorry driver couldn't see directly in front of him either.
>
> Perhaps we should stop these huge lorries using urban roads until they can
> be designed to be safer.


I agree entirely. There are a number of factors which will not cause
accidents in themselves but will mitigate against accidents being avoided.
Some of these are :-

Size of truck
Driver visibility of truck
Combination of cyclist and truck on same road
Prevailing speed of 30 mph
Shape of junction
Interaction of other vehicles, cylists and pedestrians

We must really ask ourselves why we need such large trucks on our urban
streets with all their problems of manoevrability and vision. Are we sure
that the same items or goods cannot be transported in any other way. Maybe
it would be more costly, but shouldn't the principle of "polluter paying"
mean that it should be the transport company and their customers who should
put safety above cost savings.

Best regards


rod.

 

[Paul Luton]

Rod King wrote:
>
> "> It appears that these lorries are inherently unsafe. Last week my local
>> paper had a story about a lorry running over a pedestrian who had
>> walked directly in front of the cab while the lorry was stopped.
>> Apparently the lorry driver couldn't see directly in front of him either.
>>
>> Perhaps we should stop these huge lorries using urban roads until they
>> can be designed to be safer.
>
>
> I agree entirely. There are a number of factors which will not cause
> accidents in themselves but will mitigate against accidents being
> avoided. Some of these are :-
>
> Size of truck
> Driver visibility of truck
> Combination of cyclist and truck on same road
> Prevailing speed of 30 mph
> Shape of junction
> Interaction of other vehicles, cylists and pedestrians
>
> We must really ask ourselves why we need such large trucks on our urban
> streets with all their problems of manoevrability and vision. Are we
> sure that the same items or goods cannot be transported in any other
> way. Maybe it would be more costly, but shouldn't the principle of
> "polluter paying" mean that it should be the transport company and their
> customers who should put safety above cost savings.

Absolutely - if these machines were in a factory Health and Safety
legislation would require them not to be used where the public has access.

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:44:24 +0100, Paul Luton
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rod King wrote:
>> We must really ask ourselves why we need such large trucks on our urban
>> streets with all their problems of manoevrability and vision. Are we
>> sure that the same items or goods cannot be transported in any other
>> way. Maybe it would be more costly, but shouldn't the principle of
>> "polluter paying" mean that it should be the transport company and their
>> customers who should put safety above cost savings.

>Absolutely - if these machines were in a factory Health and Safety
>legislation would require them not to be used where the public has access.

Or any employee either, they would have to be surrounded by guard
rails at least.

 

[Jeff]

Nick wrote:
> cupra wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:39:46 +0100, Peter Fox
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>>>>>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>>>>>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>>>>> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
>>>>> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
>>>>> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
>>>>> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an
>>>> artic. This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he
>>>> was turning, with many other things to look out for as well, some
>>>> cyclists either tried to dodge in front or blithely carried on
>>>> cycling up the inside without paying the slightest bit of attention
>>>> to the signalling and road positioning of the lorry.
>>> "Lorry driver John Humphrey told the inquest he stopped on
>>> the right side of the junction to give himself room to turn
>>> left."
>>>
>>> What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?
>>>
>>> What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
>>> be particularly concerned about before turning left?
>>>
>>> "He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box
>>> in front of him and the first cyclist moved across him causing
>>> him to brake. He said: "It was as if they came from nowhere.""
>>>
>>> Now the driver is aware that cyclists are passing on his inside, how
>>> should the driver now proceed? Is it right to assume there are no
>>> more cyclists on the inside just because one has passed?
>>>
>>> Victim blaming is very easy - the dead can't speak to explain their
>>> actions. But what about laying some blame on the culprit.
>>
>> Who's that then, the road designer or the lorry designer?
>>
> It appears that these lorries are inherently unsafe. Last week my local
> paper had a story about a lorry running over a pedestrian who had walked
> directly in front of the cab while the lorry was stopped. Apparently
> the lorry driver couldn't see directly in front of him either.
>
> Perhaps we should stop these huge lorries using urban roads until they
> can be designed to be safer.

As with all such things, beware the law of unintended consequences.
Radically increased costs of goods, increased numbers of smaller (white)
vans on the road might well be among the results of such a ban. More
vans might well result in more cyclist accidents.

Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
elephants for your own safety.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
>sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
>As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
>and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
>spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
>a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
>elephants for your own safety.

While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
immense.

The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.

Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab. But as the
end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users. And if they do choose to
drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
while doing so.

 

[spindrift]

On 7 Apr, 05:04, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads.  To do so
> >sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
> >As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots.  Do pedestrians
> >and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
> >spots (I do)?  Do they even know how large lorries operate?  When you're
> >a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
> >elephants for your own safety.
>
> While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
> laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
> immense.
>
> The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
> large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
> If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
> those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.
>
> Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
> responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab.  But as the
> end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
> be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users.  And if they do choose to
> drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
> while doing so.

There is no evidence that Madeleine undertook. The driver admitted
seeing the other cyclist and yet continued to turn. accepting the only
surviving witness to a fata RTA is problematic, using a girl's death
to bang the drum about speed cameras is beneath contempt.

 

[Peter Fox]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
>> sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
>> As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
>> and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
>> spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
>> a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
>> elephants for your own safety.
>
> While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
> laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
> immense.
OK then the sooner we get started the better!

>
> The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
> large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
> If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
> those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.
You have jumped to a conclusion. You somehow assume that the driver was
negligent. Really? - He had eyes in the back of his head but wasn't using
them? He could tell by instinct how many cyclists were queuing up to sneak
in front could he?

> Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
> responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab. But as the
> end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
> be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users. And if they do choose to
> drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
> while doing so.
Oh I see, lorry drivers should be held responsible not even for their
actions but their compliance with accepted practice but cyclists who breeze
along *****-nilly are exempt from personal responsibility.



--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.vulpeculox.net
(Note web site has moved April 2008)

 

[GeoffC]

Paul Luton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rod King wrote:
>> Are we sure that the same items or goods cannot be transported in
>> any other
>> way. Maybe it would be more costly, but shouldn't the principle of
>> "polluter paying" mean that it should be the transport company and
>> their customers who should put safety above cost savings.
>
> Absolutely - if these machines were in a factory Health and Safety
> legislation would require them not to be used where the public has
> access.

And the factory management, realising that the factory is not able to
function properly without these machines, would of course prohibit
public access to areas where the machines operate.

--

Geoff

 

[spindrift]

On 7 Apr, 09:23, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads.  To do so
> >> sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
> >> As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots.  Do pedestrians
> >> and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
> >> spots (I do)?  Do they even know how large lorries operate?  When you're
> >> a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
> >> elephants for your own safety.
>
> > While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
> > laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
> > immense.
>
> OK then the sooner we get started the better!
>
>
>
> > The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
> > large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
> > If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
> > those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.
>
> You have jumped to a conclusion.  You somehow assume that the driver was
> negligent.  Really? - He had eyes in the back of his head but wasn't using
> them?  He could tell by instinct how many cyclists were queuing up to sneak
> in front could he?
>
> > Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
> > responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab.  But as the
> > end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
> > be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users.  And if they do choose to
> > drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
> > while doing so.
>
> Oh I see, lorry drivers should be held responsible not even for their
> actions but their compliance with accepted practice but cyclists who breeze
> along *****-nilly are exempt from personal responsibility.
>
> --
> Peter Fox
> Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more atwww.vulpeculox.net
> (Note web site has moved April 2008)

I repeat, there is no evidence that madeleine was "sneaking" alongside
the lorry or "breeaing along ***** nilly".

A bit less victim-blaming please.

 

[Nick]

Jeff wrote:

>>>
>> It appears that these lorries are inherently unsafe. Last week my
>> local paper had a story about a lorry running over a pedestrian who
>> had walked directly in front of the cab while the lorry was stopped.
>> Apparently the lorry driver couldn't see directly in front of him either.
>>
>> Perhaps we should stop these huge lorries using urban roads until they
>> can be designed to be safer.
>
> As with all such things, beware the law of unintended consequences.
> Radically increased costs of goods, increased numbers of smaller (white)
> vans on the road might well be among the results of such a ban. More
> vans might well result in more cyclist accidents.
>

It seems unlikely. These lorries seem to be significantly more dangerous
than the quite big lorries we used to have. It is like comparing a bendy
bus to a route master.

> Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
> sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others. As
> a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots.
> Do pedestrians and
> cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
> spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
> a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
> elephants for your own safety.

Maybe you would like them to introduce lions and wolves to where you
live so that you can learn about them too. Personally I'm happy just to
watch them on telly while my kids play outside.

 

[GeoffC]

Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> It appears that these lorries are inherently unsafe. Last week my
>>> local paper had a story about a lorry running over a pedestrian
>>> who
>>> had walked directly in front of the cab while the lorry was
>>> stopped. Apparently the lorry driver couldn't see directly in
>>> front
>>> of him either. Perhaps we should stop these huge lorries using
>>> urban roads until
>>> they can be designed to be safer.
>>
>> As with all such things, beware the law of unintended consequences.
>> Radically increased costs of goods, increased numbers of smaller
>> (white) vans on the road might well be among the results of such a
>> ban. More vans might well result in more cyclist accidents.
>>
>
> It seems unlikely. These lorries seem to be significantly more
> dangerous than the quite big lorries we used to have.

Which lorries? The lorry in the OP is 7.5t, which ain't big

--

Geoff

 

[PK]

"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff wrote:
>> Do pedestrians and cyclists consider that and attempt to position
>> themselves in visible spots (I do)?


It is after all very easy to do as the signs on some lorries point out.

"if you can't see the driver, he can' see you"!!!

pk