|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 28, 2013 9:50:50 GMT
The One Show in the UK (Its a TV show called the one show?... ) last night covered the problems of cycles in city centres and the problems they have with Trucks.
(Pedal cycles...)
The suggestion came up that HEAVY goods vehicles should be "Banned" at peak times to make the roads safer for bikes?...
Can those who suggested that please be aware that the next time they are sat in waiting for a Sofa/Fridge/Washing machine to be delivered, they are in last place, and we cant deliver because YOU YOURSELF have banned us from delivering anything during peak times.....
Now to move on.
It has been some concern that cyclists have been crushed under the back wheels of Heavy Goods Vehicles...
The main concern is that whilst making a turn, cyclists get crushed as they try to overtake ON THE INSIDE......
In the BLIND SPOT....
I have a suggestion.
If the vehicle ahead is turning left at a junction, DO NOT try to overtake on the left side....
Simples inst it?...
But back to that suggestion....
Do you all think that banning heavy goods vehicles from city centres at "peak times" is a good idea or not?...
Personally, I think its a completely daft idea.
Especially as we are now moving towards an Internet marketplace, where more people are buying stuff on-line and having it delivered direct to the door......
If you start banning commercial traffic, how is that going to work then?....
The Ban the Bike?...
I suggest that all pedal cyclists who use the roads at Peak Hours be "Licensed"
That way, if they jump red lights, overtake on the inside, do "Stupid" stunts, we can prosecute them the same as other road users.
That way we can remove the idiots, more space for the sensible road users.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Nov 28, 2013 15:31:40 GMT
Just spend a little money on bicycle safety education programs in the schools and adverts on the tv.
Licensing bicycles is just moving to far towards the nanny state mentality.
Banning heavy goods trucks probably is not going to fix the problem, since the problem is the bicycles, not the trucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 28, 2013 15:51:49 GMT
here, we call that the "right hook"
a truck decides to turn right. (in the UK it would be left)
a bicyclist ignores his right turn signal, and tries to pass the truck on the blind side.
the truck turns right.
the bicyclist plows into the side of the truck and gets run over.
the community sets their hair on fire about how these horrible truck drivers have it in for bicycles.
what muddies the waters is we have a scenario that occasionally happens that is similar except that the truck or car driver decides to turn when they are behind the bicyclist - so they overtake the bicyclist and then turn immediately in front of them with the same result.
I agree that bicyclists should have mandatory safety training and pay an annual registration fee. I am willing to allow a bicyclist to pay a single fee for multiple bikes - and I am willing for the fee to be modest. the intended result is that this should not be a nanny state scenario - this should be a "you should have known better than that, so this collision is your fault" scenario.
and yes, have an accident investigation and publish the results. - if the accident was caused by a bicyclist breaking the traffic rules - then the bicyclist is cited and held liable for damages.
(the registratin fee is to cover the fact that bicycles are not a zero footprint vehicle. they certainly don't have the footprint of a car, but they still take up space and require infrastructure investment.)
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 29, 2013 7:46:32 GMT
Precisely....
But the hug-a-tree movement has been having its "day" in politics, and bi-cyclists, almost like gay rights, is "Untouchable" at the moment, because you are racist, or gayist, or bikeist or whatever if you try to say no to them... even IF they break the regular laws.....
This is why Lycra clad lunatic who jump red lights are exempt from the law until they end up under a bus, and then its the buses fault?...
This is something else I want to raise if this gets the go-ahead.
Define a Bus.
In truth, its a heavy vehicle class 2 (C) in the UK, until you put people on it.
So in that case, as it is a heavy vehicle with limited vision, are they going to ban BUSES during peak rimes as well?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 29, 2013 16:00:19 GMT
Precisely.... But the hug-a-tree movement has been having its "day" in politics, and bi-cyclists, almost like gay rights, is "Untouchable" at the moment, because you are racist, or gayist, or bikeist or whatever if you try to say no to them... even IF they break the regular laws..... This is why Lycra clad lunatic who jump red lights are exempt from the law until they end up under a bus, and then its the buses fault?... This is something else I want to raise if this gets the go-ahead. Define a Bus. In truth, its a heavy vehicle class 2 (C) in the UK, until you put people on it. So in that case, as it is a heavy vehicle with limited vision, are they going to ban BUSES during peak rimes as well?... the secret to that is to be involved in the committee that writes the law to make sure that they inadvertently include buses in the restriction. our capitol city had a major traffic problem in the 80s, when cruising was fashionable. (cruising = everybody goes out on Friday night and drives up and down one or more main thoroughfares to show off their cars) so they made a law that if you passed the same point more than 3 times during a congestion time (clearly posted) your car would be impounded. the joke was that the first night of enforcement, they towed 20 cars and 3 buses. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 1, 2013 8:35:07 GMT
Unfortunately, I have raised this question on a "Social media" site...
(Not under my own name, but someone has raised it for me...)
It has spread a little.
Now all Hug-a-tree bicyclists are being hounded by the question as to why they are trying to ban public transport in this area.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 3, 2013 7:30:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 3, 2013 15:01:18 GMT
ok. I have to know what constitutes antisocial driving. "One motorist had a car seized for antisocial driving under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002." I am picturing a guy getting cited for refusing to wave at another driver. When an American Cyclist hears the phrase "share the road" it means the cars are supposed yield to the cyclists. and the guy with the book is just asking to have someone blow an air horn next to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 3, 2013 16:57:59 GMT
What exactly is the myth?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 3, 2013 17:03:58 GMT
What exactly is the myth? that banning trucks will be a solution to the traffic problems. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 5, 2013 7:57:35 GMT
TLW has it right.
The myth is that Trucks CAUSE the accidents.
I put it that we have, as all road users Should know by now, "Do not enter" zones that are our blind-spots....
Its also common sense that when a truck has its left turn indicator on, the last thing you want to do is overtake on the left...
Or overtake right when its right indicator is on....
Or, heck, how about be sensible like all the rest of the traffic and hang back until you are SURE what is going on?....
So the myth to be tested is are the heavy vehicles to blame...
Or is it the bikes?....
Or are people too scared to upset the tree-huggers and just blast away with the truth that all Lycra clad joy-boy bi-cyclists are a bunch of forking idiots who need a lesson or two in road safety and should be banned from the roads until they can prove they can pass a basic proficiency in road knowledge.
There, I have said it, I have opend the door, and let there be discussion...
Why CAN'T you lot, you know who you are, why CANT you take a test and prove you are safe on the roads?...
Driving test theory too hard for you?...
Is that why you ride the bike?... you failed your driving test?...
Am I being too antagonistic?...
Or is it that yesterday a good friend of mine showed me video of some twonka with a death wish hanging on to the ratchet straps on a curtain-sider for a free tow along the road.....
I have seen enough of that type of video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2013 13:02:27 GMT
It could (and has) been argued that one of the main problems is that roads in cities are not designed for cycles. Certainly in London, which has seen something like 5 fatal accidents involving heavy vehicles and bikes in a couple of months, it has been pointed out that the cycle lane is often just a white line at the side of the road.
Another problem of course is that a car that clips a larger vehicle is highly unlikely to result in any injuries, where as a bike rider is much more likely to end up in hospital as they have no real protection - which holds for motor bikes as well, but they tend to be slightly easier to see as they are bigger.
In any case, how do you propose Mythbusters test this?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 5, 2013 14:45:41 GMT
I remember years ago, I saw a bicyclist drafting a traditional American garbage truck.  and the main thought in our heads was "If he has to make a panic stop, he won't even realize he has a passenger until the next stop" unfortunately, I think this is more a discussion topic than a myth that can be busted on half of a 1 hour TV show. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 6, 2013 8:06:31 GMT
Camera's.
Obviously DONT show the KSI's, but, use them to "See" dangerous driving....
Who is at fault... the Cyclist for endangerment-ist being a silly bugger overtaking on the blind side, or the motorist for "Punting" the bike into the kerb....
It may take a few weeks...
Can they utilise the local Plods city road watch camera network and collect incidents?...
This is, after all, a public education thing.
I think it IS important enough to cross the divide between entertainment and education....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 7, 2013 16:00:55 GMT
I'll be honest here - as you are probably aware I have some dealings with members of MB's backroom staff - this is how we got an 'official' disclaimer up, I've been able to secure interviews and of course why I sometimes get to hear of topics they might be interested in. This contact has also given me a fair idea as to the sort of objections they can raise about ideas.
In this case I'd expect them to reject the idea on three grounds;
Its not interesting visually. I'm sure someone out there might find watching traffic for twenty minutes interesting, but most people would be bored to tears after thirty seconds.
It doesn't involve the cast. They would have nothing what-so-ever to do, and analysing traffic patterns is something you'd either need an expert for or a very expensive computer system. So we'd end up watching the cast watching someone else watching traffic patterns for at least a day. Not only would this be very dull for everyone, but it is not how the show works.
Last of all in order to make any judgement on this you'd have to be able to observe traffic patterns in the same places at the same times of day over long periods both with and without heavy vehicles present. This is something that MB could not do, as they have no way to ban such vehicles from SF's roads. Looking at different roads, one where HGV's don't usually travel, would be meaningless.
I'm going to move this to Strange ideas, although I agree with an above comment that this is really a discussion thread rather than a practical show idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 8, 2013 8:59:38 GMT
I aint giving up.....
I think that heavy editing would be required before it gets to showtime, and I agree that cast would be not involved with traffic camera footage....
Can we expect them to volunteer to go ride a bike?...
This is inviting trouble if they do get to "see" bad driving isnt it?...
However, I do think its worth investigating further.
I have asked the local police.....
They are "Thinking".
I am not sure of the legalities involved in actual footage of incidents being shown to Public.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2013 17:07:16 GMT
I aint giving up..... I think that heavy editing would be required before it gets to showtime, and I agree that cast would be not involved with traffic camera footage.... Can we expect them to volunteer to go ride a bike?... This is inviting trouble if they do get to "see" bad driving isnt it?... However, I do think its worth investigating further. I have asked the local police..... They are "Thinking". I am not sure of the legalities involved in actual footage of incidents being shown to Public. in the US, HIPAA prohibits showing anything that would identify the participants until they have all given permission to show them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 8, 2013 19:43:36 GMT
The legalities I was thinking of was in closing roads off to certain types of traffic. MB have zero chance of being able to get the local authorities to do this for them. (Hey, we want to disrupt traffic for peoples enjoyment)
In terms of showing footage, if it is of an accident then the footage becomes evidence and can only be shown once it is no longer needed for an investigation or trial. This could take several years.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 10, 2013 7:52:07 GMT
Ok, then I will try again with local groups here.
I have a bee in the bonnet about this subject, as I am daily harassed by Cyclists being Richards....(D-1-ck's)
They blame traffic, and then go on to bang on about that roadas are for all road users....
Whilst blatantly supporting those who ignore traffic rules.
Traffic rules are for cars not Cyclists.....
Yes I hear that excuse used frequently.
Anyone remember an argument on the old boards where some punk with a skateboard tried to argue he was right to "Ride" dangerously on pavements?....
This is the same thing.
I want investigation now, in my local area, as what is causing these accidents...
Is it Cyclists or Trucks.
]If we are being blamed, then lay the blame at the feet of those who cause the accidents...
If it is Trucks, then I ask for better education for all truck drivers.
Who I am assuming WILL take note of what is happening...
If it is cyclists, then Caveat Emptor.
Buyer beware.
Yes I just did say that.
If you buy a bike, BEWARE!.
Either get with the plan and adhere to traffic rules or become a statistic.
I am more interested in road safety than playing the blame game, but as Cyclists are banding together to blame Trucks alone, I want the proof....
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 10, 2013 15:09:32 GMT
I've been thinking about this some.
It may not be all the fault of the cyclists.
We all know large/long trucks don't turn like a passenger vehicle and must be "swung out" further from the curb to make a turn.
The intersection and the driver dictates how much swing is needed to go into a turn.
Often times in town, with narrow streets, this swing out May be nearly all the way into the straight lane, OUT OF THE TURNING LANE.
(edit to add: some trucks may never even enter the turning lane completely, instead they just barely get over into it, then make their wide turn almost entirely from the straight lane)
So now, you have a bicyclists, who sees a truck moving into the straight lane, out of the turning lane, not realizing the truck is going to make a turn.... We know what could happen next....
So, is it ALL the fault of the bicyclists, or can the blame be spread around some to include the infrastructure design, vehicle design as well as drivers who may not correctly signal their intent to turn?
I think the blame can be spread around.
|
|
