-
-
-
-
I agree with you
But the bit you quoted was referring to this post
Wow - Kidboy deleted his post
Yeah my post wasn't really directed at you but a general point as everyone seem to be ignoring that part and going on about ped's being in the wrong, i just happened to pick your post out.
I then decided i couldn't be arsed getting involved in another argument, already had one with a car driver and a van driver this morning which is more than enough for me. -
-
-
-
-
I'm with Balkin on the UK fish and chips opinion. Why bother with the calories if it tastes so shite - not worth it.
Best fish and chips in the world? A-salt and Battery, Brisbane OZ. Their crumbed baramundi and salt and pepper calamari are to die for... plus its byo and there is a bottle-o next door.... plus the sun is guaranteed to be shinning. MMMMMMMMMMM!Can't comment on the fish as i don't eat the stuff, but the worst chips i have had anywhere was in Australia, and not just in one place, they always seemed to be bad immitations of macdonalds fry's with more salt than seemed physically possible to get on a chip!
On the flip side they did do battered potato scallops which were great.
-
-
frankly I sympathise with courier, their job do require (even thought it claim not to) to run a red in order to meet daily quota (like atk).
it's just the normal commuter I don't sympathise with.
So do you sympathise with taxi and delivery drivers that go through red as they are on deadlines etc but not normal drivers?
Not commenting on the OP as i don't know them, but i've seen couriers fly through red lights not giving a fuck about who if anyone was crossing.
In saying that I see enough cars, van and scooters rlj and not getting pulled over for it. -
And far less effective. Aim high.
Far less effective for who? Banning lorries in London won't help people in Oxford, manchester or anywhere else in the rest of the country (or even outside central london), so in essence you're not solving the problem, making trucks safer for other road users should be the priority or you will still see people being killed.
-
kidboy - have to agree. I think it would make it more dangerous during the off peak hours... Night time deliveries could be brought back, but then we have to work around noise complaints.
.It wouldn't just be noise though, some of the most dangerous vehicles are those associate with building sites (dump trucks, cement mixers, scaffold), so potentially it could mean whole building sites going onto night work, i'm no enginner but i know cement has a set time to be mixed and laid, then that will knock on the the cement works too. Also that industry may argue that it is already the most dangerous industry to work in and forcing it to work at night would increase the risk to it's workers etc.
-
Although taking trucks out of central London seems like a good idea, it's not really solving the problem. There have been cyclist killed in the outter boroughs, and others killed outside of rush hour. In fact isn't rush hour safer due to the number of cyclists on the road at that time?
So if you restrict the times truck are allowed in, won't it just make it more dangerous to cycle in the city at those times the trucks are allowed in, as the same amount of journeys will still be made but in a shorter time frame? Or a lot of the loads are switched to smaller vehicles, but using far more journeys, e.i 1 truck = 5 vans (i'm guessing here), although i've no idea if this would be safer or not.
-
To me the report leaves too many unanswered questions (was the lorry indicating and for how long, what about the road layout etc etc). But in regards to undertaking etc, the driver (assuming it's the truth) said the first time he saw high vis in the mirror he stopped, if he'd have over taken her then he would have seen the high vis before and hence it wouldn't have been the first time. But that's just how i read it and is probably making more assumptions.
-
[QUOTE=Oliver Schick;1058128]
(I'm not going to speculate on what happened, nor accept the finding of the inquest as given, as I'm not convinced by the evidence that she fell of her own accord rather than being 'closed in on' by the lorry in the turning manoeuvre.
Surely you're speculating by by offering an alternative?
I'll have to re-read the details as it was last night when i read the whole thing, but they know the rider fell off, but have no evidence of contact (apart from the comming together bit which was vague), so can only say she fell off but without saying why.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I thought that's what he said, to be fair he was right though!