Cyclist assaulted

TheExile1878

ted1 wrote: »

You'll be amazed to know that women are involved in more accidents because they obey the rules as oppose to men who asses the situation and make judgement calls on what safe and what's not safe

What utter bollocks.

Chuchote

Isn't it that women have more small accidents, but men have more dangerous ones involving injuries? (If that's so, I'd suppose it's because women tend to have kids in the car.)

ted1

TheExile1878 wrote: »

What utter bollocks.

What a lovely use of the English language.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm

Chuchote

ted1 wrote: »

What a lovely use of the English language.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm

Thanks, ted. That's chilling:

Many of the fatalities involving cyclists happen in collisions with a heavy goods vehicle (HGV). This year, seven of the eight people killed by lorries in London have been women.
Considering that women make only 28% of the UK's cycling journeys, this seems extremely high.

The sooner transparent cyclist-side doors and wide curved windscreens are mandatory on trucks and vans the better.

2RockMountain

TheExile1878 wrote: »

What utter bollocks.

Utter indeed

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/why-women-seem-to-be-more-vulnerable-around-traffic-blackspots-in-london-10341420.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/women-cycling-in-london-must-be-more-assertive-to-protect-themselves-from-killer-lorries-a2488111.html

eeeee

Chuchote wrote: »

The sooner transparent cyclist-side doors and wide curved windscreens are mandatory on trucks and vans the better.

The sooner cyclists educate themselves on the dangers of cycling up beside, near and up the inside of turning HGV's the better. I see it every single day, they simply have absolutely no clue how little the driver can see. We expect understanding from motorists, but in my experience of seeing cyclists interact with HGV's none is extended the other way. I suspect most of this comes from a lack of education and understanding of the vehicle. There are crap HGV drivers to be sure, but they are really in the minority in my experience of been raised and brought up with and around lorries.

Anyway this is all OT, this topic has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads!

ted1

Chuchote wrote: »

Thanks, ted. That's chilling:



The sooner transparent cyclist-side doors and wide curved windscreens are mandatory on trucks and vans the better.

Fish eye camera lenses would be better, use mirrors for redundancy, the cameras could detect cyclists or obstacles and highlight them to alert the driver.

magicbastarder

how about an emergency shut off switch on the left hand side of a truck?
i'm sure the truckers would love that suggestion...

Weepsie

I'm with nee, its up the cyclist to make themselves as visible as possible with hgvs and busses and use common sense. Also agree it's way off topic

eeeee

They also have to look ahead at the road.
There comes a point at which cameras, extra windows and sensors become more distracting than safe, they become dangerous rather than safety features.
Drivers attention has to be on the road, environment around them, not distracted by superfluous technology competing for their attention. Diminishing returns and all that.

Chuchote

ted1 wrote: »

Fish eye camera lenses would be better, use mirrors for redundancy, the cameras could detect cyclists or obstacles and highlight them to alert the driver.

Actually, transparent cyclist-side doors are better, as is the simple factor of keeping trucks out of cities.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3718019.ece

ted1

Chuchote wrote: »

Actually, transparent cyclist-side doors are better, as is the simple factor of keeping trucks out of cities.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3718019.ece

But they can't see half way down the truck, and the truckers would then be required to wear pants

endagibson

nee wrote: »

how little the driver can see.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment; why does society tolerate heavy vehicles with reduced visibility onto village, town and city streets?

magicbastarder

because those vehicles deliver things that society wants to buy.

shootermacg

I'm sorry but truck drivers should always be held totally responsible for ensuring they can see both sides of the truck.

two well placed wide mirrors would do the trick, this blind spot ****e is getting a bit long in the tooth these days.

buffalo

nee wrote: »

They also have to look ahead at the road.

Drivers attention has to be on the road, environment around them, not distracted by superfluous technology competing for their attention. Diminishing returns and all that.

This is also one of the arguments against the 30kph limit - drivers will spend too much time looking at their speedometer to pay proper attention to the road.

Tony EH

Trucks shouldn't be bombing through towns any faster. They have a hard time stopping as it is.

eeeee

shootermacg wrote: »

I'm sorry but truck drivers should always be held totally responsible for ensuring they can see both sides of the truck.

two well placed wide mirrors would do the trick, this blind spot ****e is getting a bit long in the tooth these days.

Unfortunately in real life blind spots apply, alongside the laws of physics apply and humans can only see in one direction at a time.
Cars and vans etc also have spots, I make an effort not to ride into them. Same with a HGV. You know it's there, the same way we expect most motorists to consider how vulnerable we see and compensate accordingly.
Understanding and consideration needs to be extended on both sides. It's really not that difficult.

We expect cars not to pass us close to save a few seconds; we can wait a few to leave a HGV up the road ahead of us at lights, turning left, etc.

Chuchote

buffalo wrote: »

This is also one of the arguments against the 30kph limit - drivers will spend too much time looking at their speedometer to pay proper attention to the road.

Scarcely; you get used to the correct speed, and hopefully traffic generally will hold to the correct speed.

They do it well in Paris; it's 30 in most parts of the city, but rather than having all this goddamn stop-start-stop nonsense, green lights are used fluidly — a car has to give way to pedestrians (or cyclists), but otherwise can flow through a green light at a slow speed. Not so great with bike lanes, though they're increasing a lot.

shootermacg

buffalo wrote: »

This is also one of the arguments against the 30kph limit - drivers will spend too much time looking at their speedometer to pay proper attention to the road.

LMAO and how do these halfwits manage to stay at any speed? By the sound of the wind on the mirrors? Or maybe we should set the speed at 10Km/h more than the average boy racer chickens out of a bend? Just to be safe..

Kaisr Sose

TheExile1878 wrote: »

What utter bollocks.

You write so eloquently!

Motor insurance companies are rarely wrong in the loading principles. Hence they used to offer lower premia to women drivers for that very reason. They are no longer able to do so - downside of EU equality legislation. But the facts remain the same. Women are statiscally better drivers.

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You write so eloquently!

Motor insurance companies are rarely wrong in the loading principles. Hence they used to offer lower premia to women drivers for that very reason. They are no longer able to do so - downside of EU equality legislation. But the facts remain the same. Women are statiscally better drivers.

Not true to say that they can't offer lower premiums. If they have evidence to support their approach, they can price how they like, higher or lower.

I understood that in fact, women drivers had more collisions, but on average, smaller collisions than men.

Kaisr Sose

2RockMountain wrote: »

Not true to say that they can't offer lower premiums. If they have evidence to support their approach, they can price how they like, higher or lower.

I understood that in fact, women drivers had more collisions, but on average, smaller collisions than men.

You may be more knowledgeable than me on this. All I recall is the equality legislation threw a curve ball to the principle of offering women a discount that a male could not also get.

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You may be more knowledgeable than me on this. All I recall is the equality legislation threw a curve ball to the principle of offering women a discount that a male could not also get.

Actually, after a bit of digging, it looks like your knowledge is more current than mine;

https://www.allianz.ie/blog/car-insurance/car-insurance-for-women.html

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You may be more knowledgeable than me on this. All I recall is the equality legislation threw a curve ball to the principle of offering women a discount that a male could not also get.

Which should, logically, mean that it's also illegal to impose a higher health insurance cost on older people. The ageist peegs.

Kaisr Sose

Chuchote wrote: »

Which should, logically, mean that it's also illegal to impose a higher health insurance cost on older people. The ageist peegs.

Let's not go there on this thread!

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

because those vehicles deliver things that society wants to buy.

Does the large lorry with the huge blindspots have to deliver right to the shop door? Deliver to a depot outside of town, put it into vans and make the final delivery in a vehicle that's not so hazardous to share a street with.
I realise that it'll cost more, but I'd rather pay that small fee than accept that occasionally my goods might have been driven over someone's head on the way.

OleRodrigo

endagibson wrote: »

Does the large lorry with the huge blindspots have to deliver right to the shop door? Deliver to a depot outside of town, put it into vans and make the final delivery in a vehicle that's not so hazardous to share a street with.
I realise that it'll cost more, but I'd rather pay that small fee than accept that occasionally my goods might have been driven over someone's head on the way.

Rubbish. People overwhelmingly want things cheap, in as much variety as possible, all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_manufacturing

Would you be happy paying 30 euro for a steak and ordering it 3 days in advance?

tomasrojo

The Germans use that model of having depots on the outskirts of town and smaller delivery vehicles for the final few kilometres. Seems to work fine. Be interested in the input of anyone who lives in a town that uses this system. I don't see much of a downside. It's probably more efficient anyway; once you've made the investment in the depots it would probably make deliveries quicker, given that HGVs don't exactly fly through town.

endagibson

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Rubbish. People overwhelmingly want things cheap, in as much variety as possible, all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_manufacturing

Would you be happy paying 30 euro for a steak and ordering it 3 days in advance?

Is that how it works in other towns and cities in the world where you can't drive a HGV right to the door of the shop? Where you can only make deliveries at night? Soviet-style queuing for food in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.