We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
20 mph speed limits.
Comments
-
Norman_Castle wrote: »The wagon may need to use that lane to turn left but he should have been checking properly as he's crossing a lane where other road users wouldn't expect it. If he had slowed properly before turning he would have had more time to check and the cyclist is likely to have questioned the wagons road position and speed.
Would be interesting to hear the wagon drivers thoughts after viewing the video.
He would have had FOUR indicators blinking away. The laws of physics only allow mirrors to bend light so much.
I've been reversing into a place with all hazards going on, a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS REVERSING" being sent out very loudly by the vehicle, the reverse lights on, I've been moving backwards and I've had a pillock on a bicycle trying to get down the gap between me and the kerb which was non-existent. It was only by sheer luck I saw the muppet.
Cyclists in London seem to think their safety is everyone else's responsibility and ride around like they've had their brains removed. The lorries my company has now have a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT" sounder that comes on every time the left indicator comes on and they still try to cycle down the left hand side.Norman_Castle wrote: »Choosing not to take the lane does not mean she was not riding sensibly and defensively. Claiming she is partially responsible is nonsense. From 13 to 19 seconds she is in clear view of the wagon who is about to cross the lane.
No, IN YOUR OPINION AS A CAR DRIVER WHO HAS NEVER DRIVEN A LORRY she is clearly visible. As a lorry driver with a quarter of a century's experience I can see that clearly she is actually in his blind spot.
Here go educate yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE
She is entirely responsible for the situation she placed herself in. She was behind the lorry when it started its manoeuvre which it clearly indicated it was going to do and she chose to continue to ride down the inside of the lorry. Even the cyclist who made the video agreed it wasn't the truck driver's fault and she was an idiot otherwise he'd have been giving the driver a right earful like most cyclists do.
If that video was shown to the Police and the CPS there would be no case to answer.If there had been an accident I suspect the driver would be prosecuted for lack of due care as a minimum based on his speed and lack of observation.Feel free to quote the post that clearly explains.
You are either fine with the vehicle blindly reversing or not
I would argue given the lack of observation/vision leading up to that manoeuvre it's not a safe scenario.
The vehicle wasn't blindly reversing. It was forced to make that reversing manoeuvre as a result of taking avoiding action to avoid running the stupid cyclist over. Had it not had to it would have made the corner.
If you don't like trucks in London and cities the solution is simple, stop buying stuff, stop building stuff. Trucks are only there because they're delivering stuff you're wanting. And before some muppet says put it on vans it takes 24 to 26 vans to carry an artic load assuming that the load is divisible enough to be put on a van and that would cause far more congestion and safety issues than a single lorry. Some of the stuff, especially for the construction isn't so the only option is a lorry.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
I understand cyclists often put themselves in danger by undertaking and entering blind spots but that is not what happened here.He would have had FOUR indicators blinking away. Indicating doesn't entitle anyone to turn The laws of physics only allow mirrors to bend light so much. Presumably the driver knows this. Before crossing the lane shouldn't he have checked it was clear?
I've been reversing into a place with all hazards going on, a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS REVERSING" being sent out very loudly by the vehicle, the reverse lights on, I've been moving backwards and I've had a pillock on a bicycle trying to get down the gap between me and the kerb which was non-existent. It was only by sheer luck I saw the muppet. Stupid, but not what happened here.
Cyclists in London seem to think their safety is everyone else's responsibility and ride around like they've had their brains removed. The lorries my company has now have a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT" sounder that comes on every time the left indicator comes on and they still try to cycle down the left hand side. Again, not what happened here.
No, IN YOUR OPINION AS A CAR DRIVER WHO HAS NEVER DRIVEN A LORRY she is clearly visible. As a lorry driver with a quarter of a century's experience I can see that clearly she is actually in his blind spot. Checking his blind spot is his responsibility. She didn't enter it, he turned while passing her.
Here go educate yourself. Thanks, I'm aware of blind spots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE
She is entirely responsible for the situation she placed herself in. She was behind the lorry when it started its manoeuvre The manoeuvre started at 14 seconds while the cab of the wagon was in line with the cyclist and while overtaking her although planning the manoeuvre should have started long before when choosing the right hand lane for this left turn. He put her in that situation. which it clearly indicated it was going to do and she chose to continue to ride down the inside of the lorry. Even the cyclist who made the video agreed it wasn't the truck driver's fault and she was an idiot No he didn't. The driver expected an argument, the cyclist explained he shouted because the driver hadn't seen the cyclist. otherwise he'd have been giving the driver a right earful like most cyclists do.
"Initially thought I was berating him for the lights I think. Certainly initially v defensive until realising I just stopped him from crushing the woman."
"I don!!!8217;t believe he was aware of the cyclist at all until I said there was one there."
If that video was shown to the Police and the CPS there would be no case to answer.
If there had been an accident the driver would have been responsible for it.
You might be more capable of an unbiased opinion if you step out of your drivers seat.0 -
OK, I'm not female, but how about if we only brought in evidence-based policies.
The fact that earlier attempts at blanket 20 mph speed limits have had adverse effects screams out "This isn't the answer (to whatever your question was)!".There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
He would have had FOUR indicators blinking away. The laws of physics only allow mirrors to bend light so much.
I've been reversing into a place with all hazards going on, a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS REVERSING" being sent out very loudly by the vehicle, the reverse lights on, I've been moving backwards and I've had a pillock on a bicycle trying to get down the gap between me and the kerb which was non-existent. It was only by sheer luck I saw the muppet.
Cyclists in London seem to think their safety is everyone else's responsibility and ride around like they've had their brains removed. The lorries my company has now have a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT" sounder that comes on every time the left indicator comes on and they still try to cycle down the left hand side.
No, IN YOUR OPINION AS A CAR DRIVER WHO HAS NEVER DRIVEN A LORRY she is clearly visible. As a lorry driver with a quarter of a century's experience I can see that clearly she is actually in his blind spot.
Here go educate yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE
She is entirely responsible for the situation she placed herself in. She was behind the lorry when it started its manoeuvre which it clearly indicated it was going to do and she chose to continue to ride down the inside of the lorry. Even the cyclist who made the video agreed it wasn't the truck driver's fault and she was an idiot otherwise he'd have been giving the driver a right earful like most cyclists do.
If that video was shown to the Police and the CPS there would be no case to answer.
The vehicle wasn't blindly reversing. It was forced to make that reversing manoeuvre as a result of taking avoiding action to avoid running the stupid cyclist over. Had it not had to it would have made the corner.
If you don't like trucks in London and cities the solution is simple, stop buying stuff, stop building stuff. Trucks are only there because they're delivering stuff you're wanting. And before some muppet says put it on vans it takes 24 to 26 vans to carry an artic load assuming that the load is divisible enough to be put on a van and that would cause far more congestion and safety issues than a single lorry. Some of the stuff, especially for the construction isn't so the only option is a lorry.
Simply frightening,and you allege to be a professional driver.
A perfect example of the problem.
The vehicle wasnt blindly reversing. He couldnt see behind him, but you know thats what he's gotta do and if anyone is caught under the wheels. Well thats just the way it is.
Well done on a perfect example for us all to see of the warped mindset of many drivers.0 -
Are you aware that using hazard lights when moving is illegal (with one exception which doesn't apply here)?He would have had FOUR indicators blinking away. The laws of physics only allow mirrors to bend light so much.
I've been reversing into a place with all hazards going on, a "WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS REVERSING" being sent out very loudly by the vehicle, the reverse lights on, I've been moving backwards and I've had a pillock on a bicycle trying to get down the gap between me and the kerb which was non-existent. It was only by sheer luck I saw the muppet.
If your hazards are on, no-one knows in which direction you intend to reverse.0 -
So put a Banksman there and the kings of the road think it doesn't apply to them.
http://youtu.be/sPxGL6011uY
He got it wrong, read the clip description
"Did I misread this situation, or did the HGV Banksman simply believe that in stopping main traffic lanes, he had also stopped my cycle lane."Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Are you aware that using hazard lights when moving is illegal (with one exception which doesn't apply here)?
If your hazards are on, no-one knows in which direction you intend to reverse.
I read it as that there are 4 indicators on each side of the truck. So 4 indicators flashing to indicate the truck driver's intention to turn left.
Maybe I'm wrong ......0 -
-
People choose to work night shifts, in full awareness of the disruption on their lives caused by working outside of normal hours.People who choose to work outside core hours make that decision in full light of the knowledge that they will be out of time-sync with the rest of the world.
How 20th century of you.
There are people for whom the only choice is "work the hours we give you" or "Don't work" (Usually the people on near minimum wage to start with)
If they choose the "Don't work" option, they don't get benefits.
I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science)0 -
No, there are jobs where the choice is "these hours" or "don't work here".There are people for whom the only choice is "work the hours we give you" or "Don't work" (Usually the people on near minimum wage to start with)
So work somewhere else.If they choose the "Don't work" option, they don't get benefits.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards