Freedom at last...

esuhl

Nebulous2 wrote: »

You know modsandknockers, you've changed tack so often it is difficult to keep up.

That's the problem with people who just want an argument. They aren't really trying to debate anything in particular; just moan about anything that doesn't fit in with their own self-centred agenda.

What they say doesn't even have to make sense. (Healthy people cost the NHS more! It's not people who don't drive who want public transport; it's cyclists in winter! Ha ha!) But it doesn't matter when the nonsense can be quickly forgotten as the "discussion" morphs into completely different arguments... all of them as spurious as the first.

Anything to make sure that everyone notices that massive chip on their shoulder. OP, I think we all understand your ignorance. Nothing is going to change by discussing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

modsandmockers

Nebulous2 wrote: »

You know modsandknockers, you've changed tack so often it is difficult to keep up. I haven't been primarily referring to commuting through this thread, though I do that.

That's where we differ then - my comments have been entirely about commuting/shopping/family bike rides/biking to school, and nothing at all to do with competitive sport. Like everything else, children learn their roadcraft from an early age, and cycling on the road used to be completely normal for the majority of children. It is now almost normal for young drivers to be involved in collisions within the first couple of years of being given a driving licence. In my opinion, that happens because their parents (and/or grandparents) never included roadcraft in the list of essential life skills

esuhl wrote: »

That's the problem with people who just want an argument. They aren't really trying to debate anything in particular; just moan about anything that doesn't fit in with their own self-centred agenda.

What they say doesn't even have to make sense. (Healthy people cost the NHS more! It's not people who don't drive who want public transport; it's cyclists in winter! Ha ha!) But it doesn't matter when the nonsense can be quickly forgotten as the "discussion" morphs into completely different arguments... all of them as spurious as the first.

Anything to make sure that everyone notices that massive chip on their shoulder. OP, I think we all understand your ignorance. Nothing is going to change by discussing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Preventive medicine comes in many shapes and forms, and I find it hard to believe that the cost of providing a total or partial redesign of road systems and motor vehicles is likely to provide the best value for money.

I have no problem at all with the freedom of cyclists to choose to use the roads, but I object to the fact that so many cyclists seem to think that other road users should be required to modify their vehicles or their behaviour in order to make special allowances for cyclists' self-imposed vulnerability. I especially object to the increasing acceptance of the fact that it is reasonable for cyclists to start riding on the pavement when they don't feel comfortable on the road.

As a truck-driver, I regularly made myself unpopular by insisting on having my mirrors properly adjustable so that I could eliminate blind spots. I will happily provide more information upon request.

And as a bus-driver, it was always the occasional users, rather than the regulars, who complained most bitterly about late running.

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

That's where we differ then - my comments have been entirely about commuting/shopping/family bike rides/biking to school, and nothing at all to do with competitive sport.

No they haven't. They have been about cycling on the pavement and the behaviour of cyclists more than anything else. That last one I replied to was you denying the health benefits of commuting.

Mine have been primarily about the benefits of exercise. It's important to get children out and moving rather than staying in their house and slowly morphing into an extra from Wall-e.


Like everything else, children learn their roadcraft from an early age, and cycling on the road used to be completely normal for the majority of children. It is now almost normal for young drivers to be involved in collisions within the first couple of years of being given a driving licence. In my opinion, that happens because their parents (and/or grandparents) never included roadcraft in the list of essential life skills

Young people have always crashed cars, where they can afford them at a young age, regardless of roadcraft. That's because young people are risk takers and they lack driving experience. They take a long time to learn their own vulnerability. That's also why so many teenage pedestrians have accidents.

Preventive medicine comes in many shapes and forms, and I find it hard to believe that the cost of providing a total or partial redesign of road systems and motor vehicles is likely to provide the best value for money.

I have no problem at all with the freedom of cyclists to choose to use the roads, but I object to the fact that so many cyclists seem to think that other road users should be required to modify their vehicles or their behaviour in order to make special allowances for cyclists' self-imposed vulnerability. I especially object to the increasing acceptance of the fact that it is reasonable for cyclists to start riding on the pavement when they don't feel comfortable on the road.

There are many fundamental changes happening to transport, with cycling only being part of it. This is likely to be the last generation of people who learn to drive for instance. Driverless cars will become the norm very quickly.

As a truck-driver, I regularly made myself unpopular by insisting on having my mirrors properly adjustable so that I could eliminate blind spots. I will happily provide more information upon request.

And as a bus-driver, it was always the occasional users, rather than the regulars, who complained most bitterly about late running.

Why do you think the occasional users complained?

hugheskevi

Mine have been primarily about the benefits of exercise. It's important to get children out and moving rather than staying in their house and slowly morphing into an extra from Wall-e.

As well as the health benefits, I think there are very big benefits in terms of attitude and responsibility.

Initially a bicycle and possibly later a low-powered motorbike give children independence before their peers get to drive cars. That may well lead to greater responsibility, and it will almost certainly lead to them being better drivers when they do get to drive a car.

It is a shame that so many go straight to driving a car after minimal tuition and a quite easy test. If the route to driving a car was more commonly via kids starting to walk to school on their own, then cycle on their own, then have a motorbike and finally a car then driving standards would be vastly improved (in my opinion).

Even so, I have to admit that the very occasional kid on a bike going to school I see (always with an adult) does invoke an immediate response in me of "wow, I wouldn't my kids cycling on these roads." So there is rather a disconnect between my idealism and practical reality. That disconnect might solve itself via improved cycling infrastructure, if not, it will probably lead to even longer tailbacks of cars going nowhere - which at least makes my journeys by bike safer as there is now only about a couple of miles on my 8 mile trip to work where I expect cars to be going quicker than I will be over any decent stretch.

modsandmockers

It’s good to hear from someone who is able to see a bigger picture.

In the mid-1990s I was, briefly, a fully qualified ADI, and most of my pupils were teenagers. I gave up partly because it was intensely repetitive, and partly because I was getting no exercise.

But my biggest problem was that I was horrified by some of the attitudes which the kids had learned from their parents. And I was equally bothered by the fact that, out of the 30 or so individuals who I taught, there were only two who I would have been willing to lend my car to. Interestingly, one of the two was one of only two of my pupils who failed to pass the test at the first attempt. And I did in fact lend her my car, immediately after she passed her test, so that she could practise reversing a trailer. There was one sixth-former, from a multi-car-owning family, who genuinely had no idea that it was necessary to go clockwise round a roundabout.

At the time, I had not really made any connection between a pupil’s previous cycling experience and their progress with their driving lessons. But motorcyclists were always easy to teach - they were much more conscious of their vulnerability, and they even noticed the potholes in the road.

I used my very expensive ADI training to qualify for trucks and buses, and moved on.

Now that I have become predominantly a pedestrian and bus-user, I have become almost painfully aware of the lack of awareness and consideration of young cyclists - maybe I should just accept that life is no more than a game of chance and I am lucky enough, so far, to be one of the survivors.

On a completely separate subject, it’s interesting that nobody has responded to either of the two references which I have made on this thread to the issue of HGV blindspots, which, sfaik, is one of the issues which cycling campaigners are interested in.

When I began driving HGVs, I found it hard to understand the total acceptance by truck-owners and truck-drivers of the unavoidability of HGV blindspots. I spent a bit of time experimenting, and I found that it was possible to eliminate blindspots completely by very precise mirror-positioning and a willingness to stretch my neck occasionally in order to see into the cracks. I have tried many times to persuade cycle campaigners and truck drivers to share my experience, but to no avail. I am constantly surprised by the failure of highly-paid legal people to challenge the widespread acceptance of HGV blindspots. Traffic cops are no better - I have never heard of a collision investigator asking a trucker to demonstrate that he had taken the trouble to position his mirrors correctly before leaving the yard.

I would really like to open up a discussion about this, but it needs a separate thread.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I am constantly surprised by the failure of highly-paid legal people to challenge the widespread acceptance of HGV blindspots. Traffic cops are no better - I have never heard of a collision investigator asking a trucker to demonstrate that he had taken the trouble to position his mirrors correctly before leaving the yard.

I would really like to open up a discussion about this, but it needs a separate thread.

It's a very basic aspect of an accident reconstruction. If it is deemed to be a factor in an injury collision, mirror position will be checked.
I've done it many times.
I can't understand why you might think this wouldn't happen!???

modsandmockers

Nebulous2 wrote: »

There are many fundamental changes happening to transport, with cycling only being part of it. This is likely to be the last generation of people who learn to drive for instance. Driverless cars will become the norm very quickly.

Why do you think the occasional (bus)users complained?

If and when the roads become dedicated to driverless cars, then I am 100% certain that pedestrians and cyclists will be excluded, just as they are currently excluded from motorways and railways.

Buses run late because they have to share the roads with other types of road user. Occasional bus users are tempted to assume that bus drivers have some kind of supernatural ability to get through the traffic in order to stick to the published timetables.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

It's a very basic aspect of an accident reconstruction. If it is deemed to be a factor in an injury collision, mirror position will be checked.
I've done it many times.
I can't understand why you might think this wouldn't happen!???

At last, the discussion begins! Why is there a growing pressure on truck manufacturers to provide all sorts of electronic gadgetry if the existing mirrors are adequate to provide the necessary information?

Why are left-turning truck incidents frequently blamed upon HGV blindspots when, as your post appears to accept, HGV blindspots are completely avoidable?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

If and when the roads become dedicated to driverless cars, then I am 100% certain that pedestrians and cyclists will be excluded, just as they are currently excluded from motorways and railways.

Buses run late because they have to share the roads with other types of road user. Occasional bus users are tempted to assume that bus drivers have some kind of supernatural ability to get through the traffic in order to stick to the published timetables.

I have some views on the future of transport, and the general consensus is for more segregation of road user groups. Pedestrians are much more segregated from other traffic these days and, notwithstanding the horrible incident going on in Glasgow at the moment, our town centres have been largely reprioritised to facilitate the safety of vulnerable road users.
Technological innovation will control the way transport develops throughout the 21st century and it would be wrong to constrain that too much with plans and ideas from 2014.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

At last, the discussion begins!

You didn't answer my question asking why you said that we don't check HGV mirrors after a collision.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Why is there a growing pressure on truck manufacturers to provide all sorts of electronic gadgetry if the existing mirrors are adequate to provide the necessary information?

Why are left-turning truck incidents frequently blamed upon HGV blindspots when, as your post appears to accept, HGV blindspots are completely avoidable?

I didn't ever say that the existing mirrors are adequate. The HGV industry needs a dreadfully belated kick up the jacksy in respect of proximity awareness.

It's not an easy issue. The more aids you provide for all round vision, the more things the driver has to look at when manoeuvering. Technology will hopefully soon provide the solution, but the pressure on HGV manufacturers needs to remain high to keep the momentum going.