Safe Speed Forums

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Because he's driving aggressively. He's certainly accelerating.

In my experience pretty much the driver of any aggressively driven truck (especially dump trucks) will have two modes for the accelerator, on and off and nothing much inbetween.

And how exactly can you certainly determine that (which was my question) ... let's see ...


So to sum up: he must be at full acceleration simply because you perceived an attitude of the driver, derived by some proxy you still haven't explained ? Are you sure you want that to be your answer?

"Clearly"!

Do you want to try again or do you wish to concede your "clearly x is occurring" is based purely on nothing more than your own prejudice?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The guy has been reported by the police for driving wiout due care and attention.

You're defending his driving.

And it's me that's being irrational?

Hold on, do police do the reporting or do they receive them? Are you exaggerating?

Of course, the police have to check such incidents as a matter of course, especially as they were called to the scene where damage occurred.
Also, what was the "due care and attention" relating to?


Only certain aspects of it.
I talked about his lack of speed with regard to outright losing his licence to drive (I did say: "Maybe he was a bit fast over the platform"), as well as the plenty of room given to the cyclists (well he was within the other carriageway).


You're certainly selective!

For all your waffle, you still haven't justified your comment of "it's pretty clear to me he was flooring it past the cyclists", which is the only thing I have been asking you for. Do you want to try again, again?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Metropolitan Police officers interviewed the lorry driver under caution.

He has been reported for driving without due care and attention and keeping a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

Earlier reports were suggesting he'd been charged.





By the look of the lorry, the speed he attained after the speed hump, the fact he was overtaking the cyclists who were already moving at quite a speed I think he's flooring it.

Charged with due care, or for the condition?
What reports? Can you link to one because I've just had a Google and I can't find any.
Not that it matters, "suggesting" doesn't mean anything.
So he wasn't "reported by the police"?


Only "the look"? Anyway, what about the look of the lorry?


What speed do you think he attained after the platform and how do you come to that deduction?
Also, what speed do you think he was doing before or on the platform and why?


Or he was just going quicker to begin with? (which he was )
So old Boris and his old chums was travelling at 'quite a speed' even though they all were scoping out locations for new bike lanes?
Using visual cues from the videos, the time difference between the front and rear wheels passing a post (wheelbase 1.2m) of one of the slower cyclists is about 0.35s, so I reckon the slow guys were doing only 8mph. Just look how slow they were going around the corner before the van passes, heck were they even pedalling?

What about the other cyclist (who I have already mentioned twice) who the driver wasn't even catching?

Unless you believe 8mph is "quite a speed" ?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It's got nothing to do with cycling that's for sure.

The moron driving the truck could've killed anybody, pedestrain, motorist OR cyclist, or all three,

In answer to the "doors flying open" issue.

In my experience this used to happen quite often on steels springs. In fact it even happened to me whilst pulling a 20ft container through ( London) Stratford in 1986. That's when you realise why drivers have used a short ratchet strap pulling down on the door handle. Being a n00b trucker back then I hadn't really took much notice of that before.

Maybe this vehicle had steel springs and he was used to air suspension ?

As to his speed.. Do you really want him to kerfaddle past the cyclists or sit up their posteriors ? As a cyclist myself it really is no fun to have a wagon up your ringpiece !! As long as I'm given room as they pass.. Just get thee gone !!

This incident highlights an important issue though.
The importance of DEDICATED, SEPARATE cycleways. Fortunately here in Peterborough we have an abundance of those.

_________________
The Box said "Windows XP or better" ... So I installed Ubuntu

Rubbish.

This guy could've killed a cyclist with or without dedicated cycleways, he could've killed a pedestrain too, or a car driver, or all three.

The important issue highlighted by this is the terrible agressive driving by the truck driver, and if it's true he secured his doors with a wire coathanger (which would indicate he knew there was a problem with them), homicidal negligence.

First we had "so fast" even though we was at 20 (and likely not even that).
Then we had "like that" without an explanation of what "that" was
Then we had "close pass" even though he was in the other carriageway
Then we had "clear to me he was flooring it past the cyclists" but was never substantiated when asked
Then we had "look of the lorry" ...
Then there were the "reports were suggesting he'd been charged." that was never substantiated when asked
Then there was the "the speed he attained after the speed hump" which was never stated when asked

Now we have "terrible agressive driving", do we think weepie will even try to substantiate this new claim?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I think, in Weepej's world, any motor vehicle that gets within 5yards of a cyclist, no matter what speed it is travelling is a raving looney.

It would be interesting to see the outcome of whether the trucker is actually found guilty of any offence in court, before critisising his driving and calling for him to be "hung drawn and quartered"

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

What does it matter what numerical speed he was doing?

He should have hung back behind the cyclists.



Like that = aggressive.



The lorry is very wide , the cyclists were riding two abreast, the lane he used to overtake is partially occupied by the parked cars.



It is pretty clear to me he was making that lorry go as fast as he could.



The lorry is clearly being driven quite hard.



He was questioned under caution after being reported for lack of due care and failing to secure his vehicle.



What does it matter what numerical speed he was doing?

He should have hung back behind the cyclists.



Are we watching the same video? Everybody I've shown this to thinks the lorry driver was driving too quickly, and hit the speed hump too hard.

You stated "the speed he attained after the speed hump" in support for your claim of him "flooring it" - how can you possibly use that as justification for your claims if you can't give any quantitive indication of that speed differential? If you can't do that then your argument inherently fails.


Really? I did say he had about 100m of visibility (not something you’ve countered), and he had plenty of room to pass, so why should that prevent him from passing?

Why should a driver hang back behind cyclists doing 8mph when it is clear to pass? Do you think that's rational?
A driver can even legally straddle and cross double whites to overtake others going that slow.


Look again, there are 2 lanes and 1 more lane for parked cars, the parked cars were within their own lane (the wheels not straddling the dashed line).


Another totally rubbish, made-up claim? Please explain how this is clear to you.
I have asked this repeatedly, yet you still haven't given any form of logical explanation (well, nothing above your prejudice and assumptions)


How on earth can you tell that? I certainly can't. The claim is yours, now please explain how you came to that conclusion.


Now that's not nearly the same as addressing the request of proof of "Earlier reports were suggesting he'd been charged" - that is what I asked for. Where are these reports, or did you make this up too?
Why does your answer not even mention "charged"? Do you know the difference between being 'questioned under caution' and being charged? I guess not, or you don't want to admit you gaffed!


Again, you fail to address my very simple request.
What has that response got to do with showing "terrible agressive driving" ? Even if the speed was too fast (I have already said there is a possibility he went over the platform too fast), was it automatically out of 'terrible aggression', or could it have been out of simple misjudgement?



I think that's your problem: it seems you assume everyone who has gone too fast (in your opinion), for whatever reason, must be 'terribly aggressive'.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

See HERE
And Boris reconsiders the Humps Here

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Hope my moving this won't confuse too many but I figure that it is more to do with humps slightly than trucking BUT both issues are important.
Thanks weepej for noticing it and getting on here so quickly !
I try to keep Topic thread headlines similar to the headlines - or mimic them, so that the Forum/Thread will be picked up by the Browser 'bots' more easily.

I cannot see that the truck is travelling terribly quickly BUT perhaps a little too fast, but I am more worried about the 'closing gap' situ that he is 'entering' and for that reason alone should have been better off pulling back, and slowing - which would have covered both ...
But
... in the real world and especially in London (& other major urban areas) traffic is far more used to being in very close proximity to each other than in many other places.
I totally agree that if the hump were not there then this accident I do not 'think' (depends on how those doors actually close), this would have happened. Quite amazing how the car is 'picked up' ! Thank goodness no one was in (any by the look of it), those cars. The cyclists are so very fortunate not to have been wiped out.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Sadly cats and people alike will often go for a closing gap rather than hold back.

Doing it in a seven tonne truck is another thing altogether though.

Maybe not right there but if it's true this guy had his doors secured with a bit of wire then any sort of knock bump or pothole could've dislodged them.

You can't blame the hump IMO.

For once I'm in agreement
I suspect such negligence was indeed the case. We'll have to wait and see with that one; hopefully there'll be a followup report somewhere.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I do know that humps distract drivers, you have to look at it to gauge the steepness and if there is (usually) a lower bit, and if your vehicle is going to hit it's exhaust etc.
He might have been looking at the hump more than the cyclists ... ! However I do not think that the cyclists should ever go two abreast unless there is nothing coming up behind. I see it on really busy A roads, someone has told them this is safer and it plain and simple is not.
The lorry looks like it is generally progressing constantly, but has to take a wide line over the hump due to the position of the cyclists, and does not appear to back off, but retains his progress. Sadly I see many, many cars do this too now-a-days (damage to suspension is not seen until too late ! ), but nothing to show that they work - just another distraction and damage to cars, one of the negative effects of these humps and another failed road 'safety' policy.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.