You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Right click and Open Image In New Tab for a bigger, easier to read version.
[img] 
[/img]
He completely misses the irony that further on in the same issue, there is a three page article about Volvo's research in to the cause of truck accidents, complete with several pictures of trucks rolled on their sides, which draws the conclusion that manufacturers are at the limit of what they can do to prevent accidents and it's almost always down to driver error
For those who don't know, CV is short for Commercial Vehicle. CPC is Certificate of Professional Competence, a qualification that all truck and bus drivers need to gain to be able to drive.
'so far managed to keep my alive for another half-a-century'
(whilst I'm driving around in my 40 tonne truck)
And Colin Barnett (although he shares my surname) is short for cock.
'Particularly young female ones' arf arf gurgle gurgle rub rub
Hmmm - dunno it it's 'anti-cycling' really. It does seem quite misogynistic tho. Why do young female cyclists bear the brunt of his anger?
He does agree with the recent suggestions about getting cyclists trained from an early age and I do agree that the cyclist needs to be aware of entering the blind spot of a truck driver. Been there - done stupid things - and I've learnt that a lot of times people don't see a cyclist
Sometimes we cyclists need to admit when something is our fault instead of expecting others to take the blame. HOWEVER his beard suggests he's actually a repressed single-speeder. Maybe even a recumbent cyclist on a mission to provoke a response
Haha recumbent on a mission!! 😀
I agree with him that we need to take some responsibility, that is what he's saying after all, that by sticking yourself in a position where a driver can't see you is not a wise decision.
It's definitely getting better but when the first surge of cyclists hit the roads (edit: in London, where I live, can't speak for the rest of the UK) a couple of years back there was a lot of people doing stupid things, which probably contributes to giving cyclists a bad name. Not me of course!! 😉
Not sure why he had to mention Lycra, but he has a point though - let's tackle the issue from both ends.
Just as speed reduction results in increased likelihood of a child who is hit by a car not being killed, preventing the child from running out in front of a car will result in them not being injured at all.
Balance is the word that comes to mind.
I think he makes some fair points, tbh. The 'young female' thing, I just assumed that he was referring to evidence that this group of cyclists were disproportionately represented in casualty stats. If so, he's got a point, if not, he's a sexist rotter. (Albeit one that makes some fairly pertinent points about personal responsibility and defensive driving/cycling).
Road positioning, anticipation and awareness have kept me alive 20 years on the roads, not advances in CV design.
It's not that biased an artical in my opinion. He doesn't stand against advances in truck safety, but suggests cyclist play a bigger part in not putting themselves in danger. If you look at where cyclists are getting killed by trucks in cities, it's often as a result of the cyclists poor road positioning at junctions.
And females do represent a statistically disproportionate number of CV/cyclist RTAs.
Didn't strike me as particularly anti. It did play to the gallery a bit but his main points were well made and quite reasonable.
A club near me was going for a visit to a hauliers to experience life in the cab so that the cyclist could see what it was like and where the blind spots are for the driver .Might make you think twice about sneaking up the inside if the truck is turning left !
Not very anti, only bit that bugged me was the lycra comment, as I doubt most people killed in incidents with lorries are in lycra...
Drac - Moderator
I agree with him that we need to take some responsibility, that is what he's saying after all, that by sticking yourself in a position where a driver can't see you is not a wise decision.
Quite a few cyclists and lots of other road users have no idea of where a driver cant see you,only yesterday in morisons car park two cars reversed into each other,despite both being fitted with 3 mirrors each , but one was a woman driver.
I don't think he says anything unreasonable.. I think his points are sound enough and of course he is writing from the viewpoint of lorry drivers. I believe there is evidence to support his point about female cyclists as well.
i'm more offended by the type-setting than anything else,...eeesh!
More and more trucks/busses/vans etc in That London now sport either a sticker or plaque that states " cyclists, be prepared for me turning left " or " cyclists,if you can read this sign, I can't see you in my mirrors "
I'm rather glad they're doing something about idiots like me coming up on the inside, fast, and getting squeezed at either junction/lights/kerbs etc.
I've only myself to blame.
Who are these 'anarchists in lycra'? They sound quite scary. Not sure what they've got to do with his issues with the government dropping the cycling proficiency tests.
I *think* that's what he's complaining about. It's hard to tell, he tries to fit a lot of complaints into the article.
I don't think it is anti-cyclist at all...
And from a personal point of view, seeing as I don't try to undertake lorries turning left, I've never felt particularly at risk from them. White vans bother me a lot more, TBH
CPC is Certificate of Professional Competence, a qualification that [s]all[/s] some truck and bus drivers need to gain to be able to drive.
https://www.gov.uk/driver-cpc-exemptions-examples#when-you-dont-need-driver-cpc
FTFY
I thought is was his comment about 'shifting the blame on to drivers' that set the tone of the article.
I thought that, in the majority of KSI incidents involving a truck and a bike, the courts did "shift" the blame on to the driver.
And I took 'individuals taking responsibility for their own safety' as doublespeak for 'never mind Rights of Way, just get out of the way'
I was a lorry driver for many years and witnessed all sorts of dodgy road craft from cyclist, cars, and fellow lorry drivers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the main problem with all these forms of transport is the human.
Anti cyclist, not really. Misogynistic, definitely.
I was being flippant before chaps but just in case you missed it, he says
"Anarchists in Lycra"
Now unless he's talking about the People's front of Whitesnake, that's pretty much targeting cyclists.
Quite a few cyclists and lots of other road users have no idea of where a driver cant see you,only
Precisely.
There's nothing anti-cyclist about that.
It's not exactly pro-cycling, is it.
While I can agree with education, I think it's only right that a proportionate responsibility rests with those operating the dangerous machinery.
A comment I heard at work this week: 'you're allowed to run someone over if they step out in front of you'. I kid you not. Whilst some of the points in this editorial may be valid, the overall tone can portray a vastly different message to the readers.
Dark Side - Member
Anti cyclist, not really. Misogynistic, definitely.
POSTED 40 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Explain please.
Fundamentally it doesn't matter whether you are on a bike, moped, foot, car - if you go up the inside of a lorry or bus you are very likely to be squashed. Survival of the biggest and the cautious.
Article is very inoffensive in my opinion.
Heres the most recent example...
"Cyclist killed by lorry ‘waved at driver to stop him crashing into her’"
Explain please.
What do you need explaining?
While I can agree with education, I think it's only right that a proportionate responsibility rests with those operating the dangerous machinery.
Reading the article that's what he's saying that the driver and the cyclist should both take responsibility, that the blame shouldn't solely lie with the driver.
Dark Side - Member
What do you need explaining?
POSTED 23 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Misogynist - someone who hates or despises women. Just need you to point out which part of the article is misogynistic and explain why.
What have people got against the "Anarchist in Lycra" bit?
We all know the militant "lycra lout" types who run red lights and give us cyclists a bad name. They're an embarrassment to us all. Why so defensive?
Yes, a truck driver from a well-known Speyside company courteously tried to ram me up the arse because I had the temerity to indicate, put my brakes on and turn left while in front of him. (I was in a Mitsubishi Delica, not riding my bike this time). But, some truckers are good, some bad. BUT those that are bad are f*cking dangerous! If a car is a weapon, maybe it's an M16. A truck therefore is a WMD! A bicycle is a sharp poke in the ribs, at worst.
it's clearly his toned-down opinion, said tactfully because it's in a published magazine. I imagine his true opinion is a bit more pointy.
he says it's fashionable to shift blame/ cost to the commercial vehicle companies, but what he doesn't comment on is that the laws protect them from more severe and more appropriate punishments for crimes involving death and injury caused by drivers.
all this stuff about 'it isn't just the drivers fault' sits uneasy with me, for this reason
never seen an anarchist in bibshorts tho 🙂
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the young ladies tragically killed would have been noticed a lot sooner by the drivers had they been wearing Lycra...
His comments seem to assume that because someone is unaware of the dangers they may be facing then it becomes their fault if they get squashed. The truth is that every road user needs to be aware of everything and everyone around them and look out for one another.
All those saying it's not anti-cyclist - did you miss the bit where he complains about shifting the blame onto road transport operators and drivers? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but given all the available evidence, isn't that the correct place to shift the blame. He wants to shift it onto the cyclist.
my perception not "anti cycling" as such but would appear to be shifting the responsibility onto the more vulnerable road user
seems to be suggesting that the road transport industry is being asked to carry the cost (financial cost) of the poor road skills of some cyclists
think the suggestion that cycle training could be improved is good but if only in schools that means generations before get any impact and i'd argue that current scheme misses many of those that would benefit most (eg i've seen kids on bmxs told as not road legal can't do) and at the younger end is only hitting very basic traffic awareness (and yes i know that some instructors are fantastic and sort problem bikes and i know that there is currently a review going on)
think it is sad that an industry representative should be suggesting that the industry should be unwilling to adopt improved designs and new and increasingly relatively cheap technology - this could work its way through in a "generation" of trucks - probably only a few years for major fleets - of course there are those fleet operators who lack social conscience and will do the minimum and as cheap as possibly - citing how competitive the industry is - but it is a "level playing field" with regard to regulation
believe that in urban environments the majority of collisions involving cyclists and trucks are with construction related vehicles - now there are more of these in cities than say container trucks but it can be no coincidence that they are often working in unfamiliar areas with contracturally enforced time deadlines to meet - the industry needs to get off it high horse (get out of its high cabs?) and contribute positively to iniatives and not bleat about being labelled the bad guys and encouraging a (financial) winner does least culture
I'm surprised so many people are defending his writing.
At best, it's ambiguous.
It certainly couldn't be summarised as "Most accidents involving a truck and bike are found in court to be the fault of the truck driver. Let's be careful and look out for other people while we are driving".
Focusing on the one one situation where cyclists are statistically most likely to be at fault, women undertaking a left turning truck, gives the impression that he is trying to shift the blame for all accidents on to cyclists.
Its depressing to read so many people blaming the cyclists, without any evidence they are at fault in lorry/cyclist collisions. Yes, i've seen people act stupidly on bikes, but i'm yet to be convinced its the reason these incidents happen.
Heres (yet another) example
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-who-lost-her-leg-in-crash-with-lorry-scores-legal-win-against-insurer-8616903.html
Truck drivers (my father being one), taxi drivers and bus drivers - all scum of the road.
I refuse to use taxi's and bus's on the principle they people operating them are complete cretins.
We all know the militant "lycra lout" types who run red lights
No, I don't actually.
The people I see running red lights aren't wearing lycra, they're normally wearing a tracksuit and riding a knackered Asda full-suspension bike.
Even if they were wearing lycra they've got nothing to do with me!
Edit: I was nearly turned into a smudge on the tarmac by a HGV a few weeks back. I was riding along, a metre away from the kerb when a HGV overtook much too close, as the cab passed me he then started moving in towards the kerb. I realised what was happening, used my 'buffer' to the left to get out of the way of the rear wheels. By the end of te overtake the wheels of the trailer were running over the bit of tarmac that I'd been occupying just before.
Driver stopped half a mile up the road to murder some prostitutes/buy jazz mags so I said "you were [i]this[/i] ¦---¦ far away from me then". He just told me, several times, that I was riding too far out, so it was my fault. 🙄
Most HGV drivers are fine, but to make out that the danger from HGVs would completely vanish if cyclists didn't undertake them is pretty daft.
I sort-of agree with his point. As a cyclist, my main priority is looking out for number one, and understanding that if I nip up the inside of a big artic then it's asking for trouble. His point is that a number of inexperienced cyclists put themselves in harm's way and that's avoidable. I agree with that.
I don't think his point and the bulk of the article is particularly anti-cyclist, although his 'lycra-clad anarchists' line probably shows his true colours.
These guys in big trucks do put themselves at risk of litigation by the nature of their work and I have sympathy for them wanting to protect themselves - I don't think it's unreasonable at all. In fact, the majority of lorry drivers seem pretty decent and understanding of cyclists. It's the occasional moronic car drivers I worry about who a) don't pay enough attention and b) think cyclists don't deserve to be on the roads.
Truck drivers (my father being one), taxi drivers and bus drivers - all scum of the road.I refuse to use taxi's and bus's on the principle they people operating them are complete cretins
The bus and truck drivers round here (Leeds) are unfailingly good on the routes I ride. What peeves me greatly is double decker buses managing to find enough space to pass safely, but the small hatchbacks and rep-mobiles following them have to pass close enough that they brush the hairs on me legs.
I won't contradict you about taxis though.
On the sexism accusation about the article, I've read stats somewhere about young women being disproportionately represented in the cohort of cyclists going under the wheels of lorries. Can't remember where but it may well have been The Times when they did that big campaign last year, but as it's paywalled and I won't give Murdoch my money, I can't help any further.
This morning I was at a set of traffic lights at Kings Cross. Three lanes of traffic, cement lorry in the nearside lane, indicating to turn left, audible warning signal too.
Most cyclists kept to the right or behind the lorry, but when the lights changed I heard its horn sound - yup, some twit on a pushbike was trying to squeeze in the gap between it and the kerb.
If the cyclist had been killed, there would be more anti-lorry hysteria when actually it would have been, fairly and squarely, the cyclist's fault. I know there are some very dodgy lorry drivers out there, but cyclists have got to take responsibility for their actions too.
I don't think many people would argue cyclists are never at fault but whenever a cyclist and a truck have an accident it's always the cyclist that comes off worse. All a cyclist can do is improve the way they ride but that should only be a part of the solution, not the focus of it. Things like transmitters and additional cameras aren't just there to save the life of an incompetent cyclist, they're aids to competent HGV drivers who don't have x-ray vision. Besides given that one solution involves the cyclist carrying a transmitter I don't see why he then tries to make the point the onus is totally on the HGV side to make things safer.
He talks about the “individual bearing the primary responsibility for their own safety”, as if nobody should be expected to have a duty of care to their fellow man.
That’s an easy thing to believe when you’re sat five feet from the ground in the sound insulated, air conditioned, steel framed cab of a 44 tonne truck. The truck driver’s “own safety” is pretty much guaranteed from the moment their arse hits the air sprung Recaro, and it is from this position that they claim safety is everyone else’s problem.
I don’t buy it.
HGV drivers are unable to see vast swathes of the road they occupy. The industry needs to do whatever it can to overcome this inherent drawback, and anyone objecting to such measures shouldn’t be considered fit to hold a license on grounds of unacceptable attitude.
We are all responsible for our own safety, but we are also equally responsible for the safety of those affected by our actions. Responsibility rises in line with power, and when you wield a 44 tonne, 16 meter long vehicle you have a lot of power to do a lot of harm very easily.
to make out that the danger from HGVs would completely vanish if cyclists didn't undertake them is pretty daft.
This!
It's all very well saying cyclists shouldn't go up the side of trucks - and I completely agree with that - but that doesn't cover cases where HGV drivers run over cyclists who are in plain view directly in front of them, or where they overtake and pull in too early crushing the cyclist.
e.g.
think the suggestion that cycle training could be improved is good but if only in schools that means generations before get any impact and i'd argue that current scheme misses many of those that would benefit most (eg i've seen kids on bmxs told as not road legal can't do)
Headed up the cycle awareness course* in local school for 6 years or so, then bikeability came in & tutors had to have a number of days training @ £ & then charge schools for running courses - my employer was good enough to let me have the Friday afternoons off for ten weeks each year but obviously couldn't get into a semi professional thing with bikeability - result no bike training at local school anymore as it became yet another burden on parents finances when asked to cough up.
* cycle awareness course was at best a good introduction for road safety given the starting point of road awareness & cycling ability of some students, but we worked on a basis of any improvement was better than none so didn't exclude people unless they presented a definite safety hazard 😯
I just contacted a friend of mine who is the editor of a magazine based in London to see if this guys publication was based in the same building and whether it would be appropriate to walk past his desk and flick his ear. However, it is not (based in the same building that is, the ear thing is fair game).
What did emerge from the conversation was that my friend was knocked down by a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing this week. The lights had started to flash yellow just so the cyclist claimed he had the right of way, which he didn't obviously as the flashy yellow one means proceed only if the crossing is clear. My friend had to give up cycling last year after being hit by a car (not in London) and both his elbows broken, one shattered to the point where his restricted movement means he cannot ride.
I guess my point is varying perceptions of what 'a cyclist is'. To us its someone who enjoys outdoor activities, the great british countryside, going fast on bikes and getting covered in the countryside in the process. I guess if you live in London 'a cyclist' can more typically be described as an 'Anarchist in Lycra', particularly in the case of the guy who knocked my friend over.
I think he has some valid points which he delivers in a manner that makes it hard to listen to them. He should sign up on here.
Also,
samuri - MemberPeople's Front of Whitesnake
deserved more recognition!
[i]What have people got against the "Anarchist in Lycra" bit?
We all know the militant "lycra lout" types who run red lights and give us cyclists a bad name. They're an embarrassment to us all. Why so defensive? [/i]
I wear lycra, I'm neither an anarchist, I do not carry out 'antics' on the road and any frustration incurred by powered vehicle drivers is a result mostly of them being sat in their own self-created traffic jams. I'm helping the situation.
I could refer to all lorry drivers as fat, arrogant buggers in yellow jackets but that would be displaying some anti-lorry driver feeling.
If the article was supposed to be factual and aimed at the government (as I said, he blames a lot of other people for the issues he's talking about), he should stick to the facts and blame the government rather than letting his personal feelings come into it.
Of course it's an editorial and it's supposed to be inflammatory which is up to him but then there's no protecting him from his anti-cyclist comments. Statistically he;s correct.
Just as a matter of interest do truck driver clubs arrange similar exchange programs where they ride road bikes whilst "lycra anarchists" drive like ****s passed them in 40 tonne trucks? I've heard of a few [i]cyclists seeing the drivers perspective[/i] exercises but none the other way round.A club near me was going for a visit to a hauliers to experience life in the cab so that the cyclist could see what it was like and where the blind spots are for the driver
HGV drivers are unable to see vast swathes of the road they occupy. The industry needs to do whatever it can to overcome this inherent drawback,
This is a key point. See http://www.seemesaveme.com/
All those saying it's not anti-cyclist - did you miss the bit where he complains about shifting the blame onto road transport operators and drivers? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but given all the available evidence, isn't that the correct place to shift the blame. He wants to shift it onto the cyclist.
I read it as a reaction to the industry developing technology to keep cyclists, who may or may not be in the wrong place, safe. A bit defensive perhaps.
But as already stated, it needs to be attacked from both ends as long as both cyclists and drivers make mistakes.
Said it before and I'll say it again:
Drive a truck round at a plant/depot/factory where workforce are moving about and "Health and Safety" will insist you drive very slowly, you'll likely require one or more people outside the vehicle to guide you and may need other extras like mirrors, sirens etc. Basic "Duty of Care" to the other employees.
But the minute that truck leaves the depot the corporate Duty of Care evaporates and it can go as fast as it legally likes, through busy city streets that are considerably less controlled than the depot it left, and with blind spots big enough to contain a dozen other road users.
That is simply mental.
I read it as a reaction to the industry developing technology to keep cyclists, who may or may not be in the wrong place, safe.
Yes - he appears to be suggesting it is unnecessary if you train up the cyclists - the ones who put themselves in danger deserved it, those who didn't were just unlucky.
Most cyclists kept to the right or behind the lorry, but when the lights changed I heard its horn sound - yup, some twit on a pushbike was trying to squeeze in the gap between it and the kerb.If the cyclist had been killed, there would be more anti-lorry hysteria when actually it would have been, fairly and squarely, the cyclist's fault.
Whilst obvious to most of us, when cycle lanes usually run up the left hand side to the traffic lights and people get irate with you for cycling anywhere else, can you really blame the cyclist? Yes it's a stupid thing to do, but an easy one too.
Pushing blame on to cyclists is not the answer and has absolutely zero chance of reducing the number of accidents (I would think most people value their lives more than the law).
I once had a large van pull up on my right at a crossroads. I was maybe 1.5 meters from the curb, ready to go straight ahead, while the van didn't even hesitate and began to pull out indicating left! My only option was to accelerate ahead of him so I was back into his field of vision, where he could see me calling him a *** * and think about the error of his ways. And in my experience this standard of driving is not uncommon around cyclists. It is NOT just cyclists that need educated. And they should not be treated as an anarchistic and uncontrollable group that should be punished. Most go out of their way so as not to inconvenience other road users, often to the point of putting themselves in danger. It's one thing to endanger yourself, but it's a whole different kettle of fish to endanger others.
Cycling needs invested in if it is to become safer. And the article in the original post makes no positive contribution.
eggsackerly. I only know about the enormity of lorry blind spots because of threads on here and looking into other road safety stuff, prior to that i was not aware of just how dangerous being near a lorry is. Education of cyclists [b]and[/b] drivers is a good thing, as i said I've seen cycle education things* but what about drivers? Are there any awareness campaigns? Only educating the cyclists looks like shifting the blame and responsibility onto cyclists. sure some companies like cemex have made massive improvements but that was only brought about by Cynthia Barlow after a tragedy. Stats seem to suggest** its mainly drivers that cause most accidents and disproportionately lorry drivers of course an advantage to going for the lorry drivers is that you already have names and addresses of them and their employers.when cycle lanes usually run up the left hand side to the traffic lights and people get irate with you for cycling anywhere else, can you really blame the cyclist?
If there [b]is [/b]a concerted effort to educate cyclists they haven't booked prime time tv slots have they, how are they getting the message to joe public cyclists?
*presumably cyclists are sat in a cab and shown a safe cycle overtake and then an unsafe one with cyclist disappearing into the blind spots of the lorry. So how about getting haulier drivers cycling down a road and have a lorry pull a safe overtake then a dangerous one? Might give them an appreciation of what it's like cycling on our roads as whenever I've tackled a driver about a dodgy overtake they've basically said "are you lying broken and bleeding in the road? No, so STFU" and drive away.
**ive no doubt there's a number of minor/no injury cyclist fault accidents that go unreported but we can only work with the numbers we have.
Selectively referencing the case of women cyclists undertaking a left turning truck is no better than the usual "The all run red lights and none of them have got lights. It's their own fault when they get run over".
Justifying his stance by quoting irrelevant statistics at the end is misleading too. I don't see how anyone who buys food from a shop can deny that road transport plays an important role in the UK economy. It's got nothing to do with road traffic accidents though.
Yep, I wonder what the response would be if the same people were asked "Should HGVs be allowed to drive round your child's school at drop off and picking up time?"