# Motor home



## kenj (Jun 16, 2015)

New to driving motor home and I don't know if it's my driving or ,I keep getting large lorrys so close sitting on my tail that close  I think they are trying to use the loo moved my car camera to the back window with a smiley under the camera and for some reason they back off are they camera shy?


----------



## redsmall6 (Jun 16, 2015)

*motor home*

hi 

as a lorry driver may I first ask what speed are you sitting at, remember trucks are limited to 56 mph and have a schedule to keep where as when  in motorhome this is our leisure time.


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

Low loader driver here, as above post, our trucks are limited to between 56 and 60 mph and if on motorway were usually foot down to the limiter (making good progress) or on cruise control which means when your whistling or chit chatting to the wifey or hubby and don't notice your speed creeping up or down a few miles per hour us lorry drivers are still on the same speed creeping right up your arse. Try maintaining your speed at around 60 and chances are you will hardly have anther truck on your tail or cut your speed to 54 or less and they will trundle right on by. It amazes me the amount of people who speed up when you try to pass or hold you out in the middle lane or outside lane of a dual carriage way and when you eventually pass they put the foot down and pass you then flip you the finger.. The mind boggles.. Hope this helps you a bit to avoid the truck up your arse syndrome..."


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

let me remind all truck drivers the road is not just for you others can use it and as far as i am aware there is no min speed limit,and as for speed limiters what a joke iv seen trucks pass at well over 80mph and theres nothing worse than one up your a--e .
mind you i do pull in and let those on a mission past which you are required to do by law and as for folk hogging the out side lane on m/ways they should be shot with a ball of there own dung.


----------



## GeorgeandJess (Jun 17, 2015)

When/where have you ever seen a wagon/truck/lorry going 80mph?

Would be quite a sight I bet!


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

Let me remind you Trev - when on the road you have a duty to consider other users. The trucks can't change their maximum speed, who are you to hold them up?

Highway code says you shouldn't do anything to cause another road user to change speed or direction.  

As above, slow down to enable them to pass quickly, or add a couple of mph and get out of the way. 

Steve, not a truck driver.


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> Let me remind you Trev - when on the road you have a duty to consider other users. The trucks can't change their maximum speed, who are you to hold them up?
> 
> Highway code says you shouldn't do anything to cause another road user to change speed or direction.
> 
> ...



thats right so if im doing 45 i should not have to change speed or be pushed by any truck driver to speed up or change direction.think you got it in one.


----------



## listerdiesel (Jun 17, 2015)

Rarely do you see a truck holding up traffic, but regularly see someone in a car doing 50 on a motorway, with a load of trucks in the middle lane trying to get past.

No car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway, it's an express route to get from A to B quickly, not a daydreamer's route.

Also not impressed with folks who join a fast motorway stream of traffic at 50 or less, causing yet more problems.

Peter


----------



## lebesset (Jun 17, 2015)

kenj said:


> New to driving motor home and I don't know if it's my driving or ,I keep getting large lorrys so close sitting on my tail that close  I think they are trying to use the loo moved my car camera to the back window with a smiley under the camera and for some reason they back off are they camera shy?



despite some comments it is true to say that the vast majority of trucks are now limited to 56 mph for reasons of safety and economy ; as a newbie to the motorhoming game you are undoubtedly used to swanning past the truckies with ease and without giving them a thought 
but , never having been a truck driver , one of the first things I learned when motorhoming was that , if I wanted to cruise along easily , I went slowly enough for the trucks to be able to overtake quickly without blocking a lane for miles ..... discourteous to all ..... or fast enough to keep up with their maximum limited speed , otherwise it was me being discourteous

just  part of the learning process !


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> thats right so if im doing 45 i should not have to change speed or be pushed by any truck driver to speed up or change direction.think you got it in one.



At 45 i'll bet you won't be pushed - they'll just overtake. 

Just don't be sat at 52. You have the choice, they don't.


----------



## 2cv (Jun 17, 2015)

There can be no excuse for tailgating in a truck. The potential carnage far outweighs any schedule the truck may have. These vehicles are potentially very destructive, as an example Three dogs were killed and a woman was left with a broken leg after a crash on the M40 | Daily Mail Online

Having said that I find that the badly driven trucks are greatly in the minority, with most driven in a very professional and courteous manner.


----------



## El Veterano (Jun 17, 2015)

My old camper, that I had some years ago was a 1983 four speed VW LT Autotrail Apache, a very rare beast, (most Auotrails in those days were on Mercs) and when I bought it S/H in 1997 it was a genuine one owner with 6k miles on it, and it was immaculate! It did 15mpg, on a good day and was at its happiest at 56 mph on the motorways! The first thing I put on it was cruise control from Conrad Anderson quickly followed by an LPG conversion. This of course was after the 6 new tyres and a cambelt. To begin with, back at the end of the 90's it was fine, but from then on it rapidly became clear that being stuck in the middle of more and more lorries was not a good place to be. It would hold about 60mph on the flat but when you came to a hill that soon dropped to sometimes 50mph and naturally all the lorries that I had struggled past over the last 5 miles came sailing past us, only for us to go sailing past them again on the downhill side of the bank! I was a very tiresome experience, and in the end it became clear that it was a vehicle that came from another era and it was time to move on. I sold it in 2008 with 50k + on it and I was sorry to see it go. 
We now have a 2007 Chausson on a 130 Ducato with cruise and all the other bells and whistles. The driving experience (with a tuning box) is obviously now quite different, easily holding 60mph + for mile after mile, it would probably hold 80mph if I wanted it to. Being mixed up in amongst lorries is thankfully a thing of the past, and if a truck does creep up behind a couple of taps on the cruise control and the lorry disappears in the mirrors. Love it!
Now don't get me started on center lane hogger's - which incidentally the driver can now be fined £90 for....


----------



## Touringtheworld (Jun 17, 2015)

....... check your speedo against a tom tom or something similar. We hired a Ducato many years ago, when I thought we doing 60 with trucks passing us I was thinking 'bl00dy hell they are speeding'  Then I got lost and decided it was about time I purchased a sat Nav. My 60mph was actually 51mph. No wonder truckers think we are a bunch of doddering old farts. Your speedo might be miles out, literally. 


I now have a Sprinter and stick at 100mph so as not annoy boy racers


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

Touringtheworld said:


> ....... check your speedo against a tom tom



Or regularly check your mirrors and see if they're full of Scania lol.


----------



## kenj (Jun 17, 2015)

I try and drive at the speed limit and my sat nav says I am 4 mph slow the van says 60 the sat nav 56 I drive at satnav most of the time if I come up to a slow driver I do not sit on there tail but leave the safe distance as supposed to! Some of the time these lorrys are in towns and at the speed limit 20-30-50mph.


----------



## vindiboy (Jun 17, 2015)

redsmall6 said:


> hi
> 
> as a lorry driver may I first ask what speed are you sitting at, remember trucks are limited to 56 mph and have a schedule to keep where as when  in motorhome this is our leisure time.


Ha ha ha ha limited to 56 mph some are doing much more than that more like 70 some of them.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

vindiboy said:


> Ha ha ha ha limited to 56 mph some are doing much more than that more like 70 some of them.



UK truck? I very much doubt that's accurate.

Edit: More info - It's the construction and use regulations. Here's an amendment to include even more vehicles:

Transports Friend - Road Speed Limiters


----------



## alcam (Jun 17, 2015)

The whys and wherefores don't matter a monkeys. Sitting on somebody's tail is bad driving. British lorry drivers are not AS guilty as their continental colleagues


----------



## Asterix (Jun 17, 2015)

My mh will do 56 at a push but I usually sit on 50 in the slow lane,trucks just fly past so I think its better than trying to keep up and stress the engine...and my ears!


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Jun 17, 2015)

Remember the sat nav speed will be inaccurate when traveling up and down hills. :rolleyes2:


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

listerdiesel said:


> Rarely do you see a truck holding up traffic, but regularly see someone in a car doing 50 on a motorway, with a load of trucks in the middle lane trying to get past.
> 
> No car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway, it's an express route to get from A to B quickly, not a daydreamer's route.
> 
> ...



there is no min speed on m/ways regardless of what you would like and in n/ireland young folk on r plates are restricted to 45 mph every where.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

redsmall6 said:


> hi
> 
> as a lorry driver may I first ask what speed are you sitting at, remember trucks are limited to 56 mph and have a schedule to keep where as when  in motorhome this is our leisure time.



Your schedule is not an excuse to follow another vehicle too closely.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

Jimhunterj4 said:


> Low loader driver here, as above post, our trucks are limited to between 56 and 60 mph and if on motorway were usually foot down to the limiter (making good progress) or on cruise control which means when your whistling or chit chatting to the wifey or hubby and don't notice your speed creeping up or down a few miles per hour us lorry drivers are still on the same speed creeping right up your arse. Try maintaining your speed at around 60 and chances are you will hardly have anther truck on your tail or cut your speed to 54 or less and they will trundle right on by. It amazes me the amount of people who speed up when you try to pass or hold you out in the middle lane or outside lane of a dual carriage way and when you eventually pass they put the foot down and pass you then flip you the finger.. The mind boggles.. Hope this helps you a bit to avoid the truck up your arse syndrome..."



Actually, it's not up to you what speed other drivers choose to drive at. I do agree it's amazing how many people speed up or hog lanes when you're trying to overtake.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

Steve, it's considerate driving. If you can get out of the way - be it speed up or slow down - then do! It doesn't cost you anything.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 17, 2015)

ColinD said:


> Remember the sat nav speed will be inaccurate when traveling up and down hills. :rolleyes2:



Not the Euclidean and Pythagorean versions, they're spot on.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

listerdiesel said:


> Rarely do you see a truck holding up traffic, but regularly see someone in a car doing 50 on a motorway, with a load of trucks in the middle lane trying to get past.
> 
> No car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway, it's an express route to get from A to B quickly, not a daydreamer's route.
> 
> ...



Actually, I see trucks holding up traffic on an almost daily basis. Perhaps you've never been stuck in one of of those slow queues trying to get past a slow moving lorry trying, often unsuccessfully, to overtake an even slower moving lorry uphill on a motorway.

Oh, and you are completely wrong in stating _no car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway_ in the UK (there is a minimum speed in some countries), or have I missed a new law being passed? A motorway is simply an alternative route, not necessarily an express one. In fact, due to slow moving lorries on the M1 near me it's often slower than the A5/A5183.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 17, 2015)

What Mr. Truck driver needs to remember is, that his licence and livelihood ultimately depends on him not tailgating, and never mind that the vehicle in front is going slower than he is. Overall longer term Logistics planning should take account of that fact.


----------



## Rob H (Jun 17, 2015)

*Motor home.*

I've a sneaky feeling cruise control on motorways causes as many motorway problems as it resolves.

I prefer to control my clear braking distance ahead and to a certain extent dozy tailgaters behind, with full conscious right foot control of my motorway speed.

Rob H


----------



## RogerV (Jun 17, 2015)

Courteous driving is not spelled out in law.

Driving sufficiently slowly on a motorway that all lorries have to over take causes other vehicles to have to pull into lane three to overtake them thus causing congestion.

That sort of poor driving is one of the causes of the tailback with no apparent cause and they affect us all.

As has been said, lorries are limited to 56 mph +/- 2mph. They're on schedules and if they're late the consignee gets upset who causes the driver's boss to be upset and he or she then asks the driver awkward questions.

The reason that lorries struggle to overtake uphill is partly because of the limiter and partly because the part of their engine power band at which they're operating efficiently is narrow. Waste fuel and the boss asks more awkward questions. They need to maintain momentum in order to overcome inertia due to a relatively low power to weight ratio; something cars are not affected by. Most modern vans are also highly powered.

Lorry drivers are always making best speed. Just because they're travelling slower than non-limited vehicles doesn't make them the cause of the hold-ups.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been on a single carriageway "A" road travelling at 35-40 mph with a lorry apparently the the front only to discover the leading vehicle is someone out for a Sunday afternoon drive in the middle of the week.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not, never have been and never will be a lorry driver. I did spend a couple of years as a trade plate drive delivering cars and other vehicles across the country and was always in a hurry.


----------



## RogerV (Jun 17, 2015)

Rob H said:


> I've a sneaky feeling cruise control on motorways causes as many motorway problems as it resolves.



It depends on the conditions. If the road is crowded I agree, foot control is better.

One late evening I drove from Bothwell Services to the M56 using cruise control and didn't have to touch the pedals at all.

Horses for courses and all that.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> Steve, it's considerate driving. If you can get out of the way - be it speed up or slow down - then do! It doesn't cost you anything.



I agree, up to a point, but I would NEVER consider increasing my speed above what I consider safe and appropriate for the prevailing conditions. There is a big difference between being courteous and minimising disruption to other road users and being provoked by thoughtless and inconsiderate drivers.


----------



## jimbo (Jun 17, 2015)

Hi all I bought a peugeot  compass  about  4 month ago and it's not very fast 65 if you are lucky when you come to an incline it just dies on you and goes down to around 45 miles an hr and it's really  embarrassing   but  I have looked at other forums and this motorhome is all the same if I am on a road that there is a bit I can go into I pull in and let who ever is behind  pass  so sorry if I have held any one up maybe I should put a sticker on the back window or a neon light  any way happy motoring and be safe where ever you are Jim


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

Steve121 said:


> I would NEVER consider increasing my speed above what I consider safe and appropriate for the prevailing conditions. There is a big difference between being courteous and minimising disruption to other road users and being provoked by thoughtless and inconsiderate drivers.



Absolutely agree.


----------



## vindiboy (Jun 17, 2015)

People seem to forget that speed limits are a maximum, NOT a target, it really annoys me when driving the van at around sixty and a large HGV tries to overtake and can't exceed my speed and then blasts his horn expecting me to slow down, and  the HGVs that pull out alongside another HGV and travels side by side for miles because they haven't got the power or speed to pass the other vehicle, where are the Police when you need them?


----------



## Bigpeetee (Jun 17, 2015)

GeorgeandJess said:


> When/where have you ever seen a wagon/truck/lorry going 80mph?
> 
> Would be quite a sight I bet!



I remember in the early 70's being on a full coach going up the M6 at almost 120mph trying to make time after the exhaust became loose.

A poor little Mini bounced about as we flew past!!

At the time I was too young to see all the dangers and just enjoyed the thrill, the driver did say that it would go even faster on the Autobahn's!!


----------



## RogerV (Jun 17, 2015)

Sparks said:


> Even worse when you've got a trailer behind the van on the motorway and you can't use the outside lane.
> I've been overtaking trucks in the middle lane when they've indicated and tried to nudge me into the outside lane. I'm sure it doesn't even click with them when they see the trailer.



When I'm overtaking a vehicle which starts to indicate as wanting to pull out, I take it that he's indicating to vehicles behind me.

I've never yet had a lorry pull out while I've been alongside.


----------



## RoaminRog (Jun 17, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> let me remind all truck drivers the road is not just for you others can use it and as far as i am aware there is no min speed limit,and as for speed limiters what a joke iv seen trucks pass at well over 80mph and theres nothing worse than one up your a--e .
> mind you i do pull in and let those on a mission past which you are required to do by law and as for folk hogging the out side lane on m/ways they should be shot with a ball of there own dung.[/QUOT
> 
> That would be Irish lorry drivers, who are well known for their high regard of the law. The speed limit for a HGV in this country on a motorway is 60mph. However, EU regulations stipulate that ALL lorries of member states must be governed to 90 km/hour, which equates to 56 mph. The offenders are normally Irish or Italian.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

RogerV said:


> When I'm overtaking a vehicle which starts to indicate as wanting to pull out, I take it that he's indicating to vehicles behind me.
> 
> I've never yet had a lorry pull out while I've been alongside.



A few years ago I was travelling north on the M1 towards Birmingham and saw a LHD truck indicating to overtake a slightly slower truck. There was a Vauxhall Corsa using lane 2 to pass the truck which was indicating to pull out. I was in lane 3 and intending to overtake the Corsa. Sensing impending disaster, I held back. Lucky I did:

The Corsa had almost got past the indicating truck when it pulled out. The result was very minor contact between the front right corner of the truck and left rear corner of the Corsa, putting the Corsa into a spectacular 2½ revolution spin across the front of the truck. The Corsa ended up high on the embankment at the side of the motorway. Luckily nobody was injured, but the young lady driving the Corsa was in a state of shock. The Corsa was an obvious write-off.

This happened in the morning rush hour, but I was the only person who bothered to stop and give a statement to the police. The truck driver was British who spent most of his time in Europe, hence the LHD. I see now that drivers of LHD trucks entering the UK are being given adhesive wide angle lenses to apply to their side windows. Good idea, I think.


----------



## listerdiesel (Jun 17, 2015)

Steve121 said:


> Actually, I see trucks holding up traffic on an almost daily basis. Perhaps you've never been stuck in one of of those slow queues trying to get past a slow moving lorry trying, often unsuccessfully, to overtake an even slower moving lorry uphill on a motorway.
> 
> Oh, and you are completely wrong in stating _no car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway_ in the UK (there is a minimum speed in some countries), or have I missed a new law being passed? A motorway is simply an alternative route, not necessarily an express one. In fact, due to slow moving lorries on the M1 near me it's often slower than the A5/A5183.



Steve:

We tow our 3.5tonne 6-wheel trailer in the UK and for the last 3 weeks in Holland and France, so plenty of experience of mixing with the heavies. Driving on Dutch anf French motorways was far better than in the UK. Our loaded train weight is nearly 6 tonnes with the Discovery towing.

My 'statement' was an expression or opinion, I was not quoting any law, which a few people seem to have thought.

Motorways 'were' built as express routes, look back in history and see the raison d'etre for them in the first place.

Peter


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

Steve121 said:


> Actually, it's not up to you what speed other drivers choose to drive at. I do agree it's amazing how many people speed up or hog lanes when you're trying to overtake.



At no point did I dictate what speed someone should drive at if you read it properly it's a suggestion Steve.


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

Byronic said:


> What Mr. Truck driver needs to remember is, that his licence and livelihood ultimately depends on him not tailgating
> 
> Hardly likely to forget that mate what with vosa, police, traffic officers, medicals, drivers 5 yearly cpc, company 6 monthly licence check, speed cameras etc etc now are we ?


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

vindiboy said:


> People seem to forget that speed limits are a maximum, NOT a target, it really annoys me when driving the van at around sixty and a large HGV tries to overtake and can't exceed my speed and then blasts his horn expecting me to slow down, and  the HGVs that pull out alongside another HGV and travels side by side for miles because they haven't got the power or speed to pass the other vehicle, where are the Police when you need them?



I agree mate, were not all the same


----------



## RogerV (Jun 17, 2015)

listerdiesel said:


> Motorways 'were' built as express routes, look back in history and see the raison d'etre for them in the first place.



Canals, railways and motorways/dual carriageway were originally built for freight.

Passenger traffic was secondary.

Officially, motorways are "Special Roads". That's why different rules apply.

Special Roads


----------



## molly 2 (Jun 17, 2015)

In my opinium the key to safe motorway driving is patience arrive late and safe ,as they used to say speed kills,


----------



## RogerV (Jun 17, 2015)

molly 2 said:


> In my opinium the key to safe motorway driving is patience arrive late and safe ,as they used to say speed kills,



I agree with being patient, but it's the sudden stop that does the damage. No one ever got hurt travelling at high speed.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

listerdiesel said:


> Rarely do you see a truck holding up traffic, but regularly see someone in a car doing 50 on a motorway, with a load of trucks in the middle lane trying to get past.
> 
> No car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway, it's an express route to get from A to B quickly, not a daydreamer's route.
> 
> ...





listerdiesel said:


> Steve:
> 
> We tow our 3.5tonne 6-wheel trailer in the UK and for the last 3 weeks in Holland and France, so plenty of experience of mixing with the heavies. Driving on Dutch anf French motorways was far better than in the UK. Our loaded train weight is nearly 6 tonnes with the Discovery towing.
> 
> ...



If you'd had said _In my opinion_ No car or van should be doing less than 60 on a motorway, it would have made some difference, but does this opinion of yours apply to the many miles of reduced speed limits on our motorways?

Whatever historical reasons there were to build motorways are hardly relevant today.


----------



## n brown (Jun 17, 2015)

just by the way 
i find the most tiring part of any m/way trip is the seemingly endless 50mph sections [well they never tell you how long they go on for ] trying to keep up with the traffic and not overdo the average speed is mind numbingly boring. 
at least when moving fast and changing lanes  etc you stay attentive and alert


as i understand it, motorways are primarily built for military use , but we are temporarily allowed on them


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

n brown said:


> ... not overdo the average speed is mind numbingly boring.
> at least when moving fast and changing lanes  etc you stay attentive and alert



I'm the same, much more likely to miss something if I'm staring at the back of the same motor for ages.


----------



## El Veterano (Jun 17, 2015)

Touringtheworld said:


> ....... check your speedo against a tom tom or something similar. We hired a Ducato many years ago, when I thought we doing 60 with trucks passing us I was thinking 'bl00dy hell they are speeding'  Then I got lost and decided it was about time I purchased a sat Nav. My 60mph was actually 51mph. No wonder truckers think we are a bunch of doddering old farts. Your speedo might be miles out, literally.
> 
> 
> I now have a Sprinter and stick at 100mph so as not annoy boy racers



It's quite usual for the speedo to be 4 or 5 mph faster than a GPS, which is what mine is. I set the cruise to just over60mph on the GPS, the Fiat speedo will be showing 65. I also us the GPS speed for speed limits and cameras, not been caught out yet, so my assumption is it must be right.


----------



## El Veterano (Jun 17, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> UK truck? I very much doubt that's accurate.
> 
> Edit: More info - It's the construction and use regulations. Here's an amendment to include even more vehicles:
> 
> Transports Friend - Road Speed Limiters



I've definitely witnessed trucks doing way more than 56mph, usually the Irish ones for some reason.


----------



## vindiboy (Jun 17, 2015)

Someone should do regular random checks on transport companies and check drivers Taco records and fine any that have been speeding, Simples ?


----------



## El Veterano (Jun 17, 2015)

Rob H said:


> I've a sneaky feeling cruise control on motorways causes as many motorway problems as it resolves.
> 
> I prefer to control my clear braking distance ahead and to a certain extent dozy tailgaters behind, with full conscious right foot control of my motorway speed.
> 
> Rob H



You can do exactly that, and I do, often, without affecting the setting of the cruise control. Just accelerate passed something using the throttle, let your foot off it and the speed drops back to whatever you have set the cruise to.


----------



## RogerV (Jun 17, 2015)

El Veterano said:


> I've definitely witnessed trucks doing way more than 56mph, usually the Irish ones for some reason.



I'm led to believe that the Irish have a ... errrrm ... more flexible attitude to the rules than the Brits. 

I used to drive a Bedford CF. Best speed was about fifty.

One Saturday afternoon I was driving round the south side of the M25. I only recall two lorries. Both of them were going like the clappers, Jose was heading towards Dover and Paddy for Holyhead.


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

vindiboy said:


> Someone should do regular random checks on transport companies and check drivers Taco records and fine any that have been speeding, Simples ?



VOSA already do that mate, although drivers cannot be fined for speeding just by looking at their tachograph records they can only be done by being caught red handed so to speak.....


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

Jimhunterj4 said:


> At no point did I dictate what speed someone should drive at if you read it properly it's a suggestion Steve.



OK, at no time should you _suggest_ what speed I, or any other driver, should drive at.

It's the prerogative of the overtaking driver to pass a slower vehicle safely.


----------



## Hildahaddon (Jun 17, 2015)

*Courtesy*



jimbo said:


> Hi all I bought a peugeot  compass  about  4 month ago and it's not very fast 65 if you are lucky when you come to an incline it just dies on you and goes down to around 45 miles an hr and it's really  embarrassing   but  I have looked at other forums and this motorhome is all the same if I am on a road that there is a bit I can go into I pull in and let who ever is behind  pass  so sorry if I have held any one up maybe I should put a sticker on the back window or a neon light  any way happy motoring and be safe where ever you are Jim



I agree I have had several old motorhomes which are pretty slow in some situations so I either pull over if I see  a queue or on a clear straight I signal and slow to allow overtaking which is usually appreciated by those behind with a wave or a toot!

I have also been bullied by a tailgating truck going down the Rest and Be Thankful, which is a narrow and steep hill road. I was going as fast as I could with traffic in the opposite lane busy, no lay by or places to pull over, it was terrifying as he was right behind me all the way down as close as he could get. 
My friend who is disabled was with me and she tried to wave him back but he just kept tight as he could. I then did slow a bit as if I had to stop he would have flattened my old Highlander van. He was an idiot too as it then did slow things down!
When I did manage to pull off he whizzed by so I could not get his details. We were really shaken up!


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

Merely suggested to OP an answer to his question, At no time should you suggest to me or any other driver how to pass or overtake a slower vehicle..


----------



## GWAYGWAY (Jun 17, 2015)

The worst thing about  speed limiters is that it encourages ELEPHANT RACING  when one truck goes a bit faster on acceleration than the other starts going past the first which then hit he same speed at 56 mph and they sit there for mile alongside each other and it all depends on who got the newest tyres as to who gets past in the end. I followed two truck from the Lydden lights  on the A2 and at Canterbury they were still alongside each other, talk about macho bollocks driving, neither will give up.
I did have a problem with my car and a trailer coming down the M20  for miles and miles I followed a cement lorry at exactly the right speed but there was a French lorry behind me and  in the end he was purple in the face with frustration, he got alongside me, sceaming abuse out of the open window then purposely swerved left into my lane, I went  across the hard shoulder and up the bank to get away or we would have been totaled.  No excuse as he didn't get passed the Rugby Cement tanker, lorry for 2 more miles and was still in sight at Folkestone. What did he get from that, nothing.  Had I been allowed to phone the Police I would have done so, Now I have a dashcam on  both the Van and the car.


----------



## Steve121 (Jun 17, 2015)

Jimhunterj4 said:


> At no time should you suggest to me or any other driver how to pass or overtake a slower vehicle..



I didn't.


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jun 17, 2015)

Steve121 said:


> OK, at no time should you _suggest_ what speed I, or any other driver, should drive at.
> 
> ((((((((It's the prerogative of the overtaking driver to pass a slower vehicle safely.


)))))

Will agree to disagree then ?


----------



## saxonborg (Jun 17, 2015)

vindiboy said:


> Ha ha ha ha limited to 56 mph some are doing much more than that more like 70 some of them.



I dont think limiters work when a truck is going downhill.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 17, 2015)

saxonborg said:


> I dont think limiters work when a truck is going downhill.



The do. They will automatically brake.


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

RoaminRog said:


> trevskoda said:
> 
> 
> > let me remind all truck drivers the road is not just for you others can use it and as far as i am aware there is no min speed limit,and as for speed limiters what a joke iv seen trucks pass at well over 80mph and theres nothing worse than one up your a--e .
> ...


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

RogerV said:


> Canals, railways and motorways/dual carriageway were originally built for freight.
> 
> Passenger traffic was secondary.
> 
> ...



ah i see now thats why the folk trying to get to dover hang under the trucks,someone should tell them about this secondary business. :lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::wave:


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

n brown said:


> just by the way
> i find the most tiring part of any m/way trip is the seemingly endless 50mph sections [well they never tell you how long they go on for ] trying to keep up with the traffic and not overdo the average speed is mind numbingly boring.
> at least when moving fast and changing lanes  etc you stay attentive and alert
> 
> ...



they were for this chap in germany not here.


----------



## trevskoda (Jun 17, 2015)

El Veterano said:


> I've definitely witnessed trucks doing way more than 56mph, usually the Irish ones for some reason.



just a mater of time before poor paddy got the blame.:scared::lol-053::lol-049::wave:


----------



## redsmall6 (Jun 18, 2015)

*motorhome*



Steve121 said:


> Your schedule is not an excuse to follow another vehicle too closely.



at no point did I say my schedule, only pointing out a possible reason for tailgating trucks.
and as I have this knowledge then when I am driving my m/home on motorway I try to maintain a speed of around 60 then I don't have the problem of tailgating trucks.
and have eased of the throttle when driving truck to allow other road users who are unable to properly perform an overtaking manoeuvre, mainly due to lack of concentration. or in some motorhome cases possibly overloaded. 


once last point.  everything you have bought in a shop has at one time been delivered by a truck


----------



## redsmall6 (Jun 18, 2015)

*motorhome*



GeorgeandJess said:


> When/where have you ever seen a wagon/truck/lorry going 80mph?
> 
> Would be quite a sight I bet!



he would know, comes from an area known for "fast" trucks. red in colour


----------



## ChrisInNotts (Jun 18, 2015)

When we had a motorhome holiday in New Zealand it struck me how much more considerate their driving was.  It was considered the norm for motorhome drivers to pull over regularly to let drivers behind get past.  Here, it is rarely seen except for some HGV's.  I don't know about anyone else but if I had a long queue of frustrated drivers behind me then I would pull over.

Obviously, caravans are the worst offenders :mad2:

Keith


----------



## Beemer (Jun 18, 2015)

I drive according to my sat nav speed, which is usually at 62mph (100kmh).
My vehicle is a 4.5t max, 2.8JTD Fiat with tuning box, and has seen 90mph (oops!).
I do not have cruise on my van, but find a speed that the van feels and sounds comfortable, look at the sat nav speed and it usually reads 62/63 mph.  My vehicle speedo reads 70mph.
This means I usually creep up on lorries, blip the throttle to get past, tuck back in to the inside lane and back to 70 on the speedo.

If I am in a traffic queue, I find it advantageous to get behind a lorry in the inside lane, because they will always try to maintain a speed, which reduces my gear changing and clutch pumping.
Sometimes lorries flash me once I have passed them to let me know I am clear to move in.


----------



## 1 Cup (Jun 18, 2015)

*it's not tailgating below 60 MPH in the middle lane*

Just remember the 2 second rule at any speed 
At 50 mph its only dangerous when we fall asleep. 
ARAF!  PLONGEY!.
More vehicle's the bigger the 10%, are you the 1 in 10?

Dashcam captures the drama as lorry pushes car along the motorway - YouTube


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

If only truck driver could give others the same level of courtesy that they demand.
I have had trucks flashing me because I'm not going at the spped that they want.
I have had trucks pulling out in front of me forcing me to hit the brakes.
I have had trucks not moving into an empty middle lane when I'm joining the motorway.
I have had trucks forcing themselve onto the motorway when I'm unable to move into the middle lane.
I find truck drivers to be some of the worst on the road.
Let's not start on the anti-cycling stickers that they carry. :mad2:


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jun 18, 2015)

I presume by anti cycling you mean the signs trying to warn them it is dangerous to pass on the inside!
I've driven trucks for over 30 years, we did fly about years ago, but today the vast majority are limited, unfortunately with the congested roads and time sensitive deliveries
there does seem to be a big increase in tailgating, never a good idea it only takes a split second for things to go wrong!


----------



## blackstone (Jun 18, 2015)

Bigpeetee said:


> I remember in the early 70's being on a full coach going up the M6 at almost 120mph trying to make time after the exhaust became loose.
> 
> A poor little Mini bounced about as we flew past!!
> 
> At the time I was too young to see all the dangers and just enjoyed the thrill, the driver did say that it would go even faster on the Autobahn's!!



120 mph????      120kph  is much more likely


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> I presume by anti cycling you mean the signs trying to warn them it is dangerous to pass on the inside!


The ones that say "Do not pass on the inside", until there is a law that says you can't filter on the inside or makes these stickers legal, I'll consider them to be anti-cycling and responsibility passing.


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jun 18, 2015)

blackstone said:


> 120 mph????      120kph  is much more likely



The tacho doesn't go up to 120 mph, and the prominent numerals on it are in KPH there were many cases of passengers looking over the coach drivers shoulder and thinking they were
travelling at warp factor!


----------



## n brown (Jun 18, 2015)

i was nearly hit by an angry cyclist today. i stepped off a bus onto the pavement outside my gaff,never thought to look left ,just assumed i was safe. nasty sod never slowed ,even though seeing a bus pull up in front may have given him a clue that an obstruction could be stepping out . his handlebar grazed me as he shouted,oi! watch out! in a pi55y voice


i didn't have time to humbly apologise,he'd gone


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> The ones that say "Do not pass on the inside", until there is a law that says you can't filter on the inside or makes these stickers legal, I'll consider them to be anti-cycling and responsibility passing.



Feel free to ignore good advice! you should try driving an articulated vehicle through London, i do it too bloody often, i have no wish to injure or kill anybody, due to the way articulated vehicles
work there will always be blind spots, riding a bike along the nearside of a large truck is extremely dangerous, but we have to be responsible for other peoples safety even when they put themselves in a risky position. Although i have driven trucks for 30+ years, i also ride a bike, i am not anti anyone, live and let live, but please don't see those signs as anything other than they are,
i don't know if you've ever sat in a large hgv, there is a large area on the nearside where it is impossible to see anything, i'm sitting typing this in the drivers seat,(i have parked up for the evening!) i have 6 large mirrors around me, even if they found a way of fitting more I'm afraid I'm the standard model and have only 2 eyes!!


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

n brown said:


> i was nearly hit by an angry cyclist today. i stepped off a bus onto the pavement outside my gaff,never thought to look left ,just assumed i was safe. nasty sod never slowed ,even though seeing a bus pull up in front may have given him a clue that an obstruction could be stepping out . his handlebar grazed me as he shouted,oi! watch out! in a pi55y voice
> 
> 
> i didn't have time to humbly apologise,he'd gone



Was the cyclist wearing a sticker warning you to get out of the way. If so it was entirely your fault. Perhaps you were in his blind spot. Was he a cycle courier with a deadline to meet? 

On a more serious not, I can only apologise for this idiot's behaviour. Fortunately out of the many cyclists out there very few are as idiotic as this. I cannot and will not defend the actions of idiots. But I also refuse to be tarred with the same brush because of the highly publicised actions of a few...... Or I will react with the same level of hyperbole and hysteria. 



> Feel free to ignore good advice! you should try driving an articulated vehicle through London,


By using the words "Do not...." we have moved away from good advice and into the world of ordering and secondly driving an articulated loory through London is in itself part of the problem. There are capital cities out there where articulated lorries are allowed within the city, and much nicer places they are too.
I'm all for advice and common sense, it's kept me alive so far, but I won't accept buck passing simply becuse a sticker is put in place. As you are now aware of the blind spots and the increased number of cyclist in London, I assume that you have adjusted your driving style. If not, you must (friendly advice).


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> I'll consider them to be anti-cycling and responsibility passing.



Ah, you're one of those. 'Everyone hates me because I ride a bicycle.'

The stickers are to try and prevent injuries/deaths. Nothing more.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 18, 2015)

n brown said:


> i was nearly hit by an angry cyclist today. i stepped off a bus onto the pavement outside my gaff,never thought to look left ,just assumed i was safe. nasty sod never slowed ,even though seeing a bus pull up in front may have given him a clue that an obstruction could be stepping out . his handlebar grazed me as he shouted,oi! watch out! in a pi55y voice
> 
> 
> i didn't have time to humbly apologise,he'd gone



He was just an inconsiderate obnoxious git who happened at the time to be a cyclist. He's probably an inconsiderate obnoxious git, if and when he's a bus passenger.


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Was the cyclist wearing a sticker warning you to get out of the way. If so it was entirely your fault. Perhaps you were in his blind spot. Was he a cycle courier with a deadline to meet?
> 
> On a more serious not, I can only apologise for this idiot's behaviour. Fortunately out of the many cyclists out there very few are as idiotic as this. I cannot and will not defend the actions of idiots. But I also refuse to be tarred with the same brush because of the highly publicised actions of a few...... Or I will react with the same level of hyperbole and hysteria.



I agree, the same goes for truck drivers, car drivers and even motorhome drivers, this press driven 'war' on our roads helps nobody, there are good and bad in all walks of life, i hear people complaining that every day they hear or a road closed by a truck accident, you don't hear of the thousands of other RTA's that happen because the size and type of vehicle doesn't block the road!





This is me today in Brighton garden centre, if i put this sideways there aren't many roads it wouldn't close!!


----------



## n brown (Jun 18, 2015)

one nearly got me on a footpath in Eastville Park recently, not sure if it was the same bloke or not . 
don't like the idea of some cyclepath stalking me


----------



## RogerV (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> The ones that say "Do not pass on the inside", until there is a law that says you can't filter on the inside or makes these stickers legal, I'll consider them to be anti-cycling and responsibility passing.



What the law says what is courteous and what is sensible for survival are not the same.

Everyone on the road is responsible for their own safety. Any road user failing to be aware of the limitations of other vehicles and putting themselves in danger needs to take time to think.

Quite how a warning to others is "anti" and passing responsibility I'm not at all sure.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> Ah, you're one of those. 'Everyone hates me because I ride a bicycle.'


No, I'm not one of those. I am aware that when cycling (or driving) the vast majority of other road users are considerate, courteous and follow the law. I object to the few that carry these stickers that make a demand on other road users.
So no it's not another case of "everybody hates me..." :sleep-040:


> Everyone on the road is responsible for their own safety.


Not entirely true. We all, as road users, have a responsibility to look out for the safety of others.
Or if I follow your logic, the folks who were nearly hit by cyclists, in posts above, should obviously have been more careful.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

ashbyspannerman said:


> *I agree, the same goes for truck drivers, car drivers and even motorhome drivers, this press driven 'war' on our roads helps nobody, there are good and bad in all walks of life,* i hear people complaining that every day they hear or a road closed by a truck accident, you don't hear of the thousands of other RTA's that happen because the size and type of vehicle doesn't block the road!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. :heart:


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

I'm not sure how you can object to something that may save somebody's life. Do you take offence to the 'do not run' sign at the swimming pool? Should they make everything from rubber and have people stationed in the pool to catch anyone who might slip into the deep end?


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> I'm not sure how you can object to something that may save somebody's life. Do you take offence to the 'do not run' sign at the swimming pool? Should they make everything from rubber and have people stationed in the pool to catch anyone who might slip into the deep end?


Do not run at the swimming pool is a good instruction all of the time as the poolside is always dangerous.
It is not illegal to filter down the left hand side of a vehicle, as a driver you should be aware of this and drive accordingly, I do. "Do not.." gives the driver a get out of jail free card as they don't have to look for more vulnerable road users because they have a sticker and it's obviously the victim's fault for not following the advice.
We have boxes at the junctions that allow cyclists to put themselves in a visible position of safety where you will be able to see them, that is when there isn't a motorised vehicle preventing the cyclist access to this area. :lol-053:


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> gives the driver a get out of jail free card as they don't have to look for more vulnerable road users because they have a sticker



I will be hugely surprised if that works in court. Do you have any evidence of it?


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> I will be hugely surprised if that works in court. Do you have any evidence of it?


I think that the ridiculously lenient sentences that are handed down to drivers that kill would hint that this is the case, obviously there's no evidence and it's an absurd request. When the press has the ability to polarize views and demonize it's not hard to believe that a jury of our motorized vehicle driving peers are influenced. 
Just because there is no evidence to pull out, does not mean that it's not what I believe. The fact that I'm being told to adhere to this _"advice" _ or be responsible for the consequences is enough for me.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> The fact that I'm being told to adhere to this _"advice" _ or be responsible for the consequences is enough for me.



Well, you won't have to worry about being responsible when you're dead, squashed under a truck turning left....

You've got some odd views on this mate, what's the root cause of that?


----------



## n brown (Jun 18, 2015)

i once backed into a guy on a motorbike.i was in my bus and reached a place where the road narrowed and parked cars made it impossible to go any further, so... into reverse gear,look in the mirrors,nothing in sight,start slowly going backwards, heard a scream, stopped. guy comes up and starts shouting at me. i pointed out- the road was getting very narrow- i'd stopped for a good few minutes- my reversing light was on- and above all, this guy was right in the middle of the road and at no point thought it a good idea to look in my mirror. 
so maybe these stickers are for the more mentally bereft . 
i didn't hurt him or his bike,by the way


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> Well, you won't have to worry about being responsible when you're dead, squashed under a truck turning left....
> 
> You've got some odd views on this mate, what's the root cause of that?


The root cause is that you think it's acceptable to blame the victim when a lorry hits them when turning left. I'm sorry, but it's you that has the odd view if you think that this is correct.




> so maybe these stickers are for the more mentally bereft .


Maybe. Darwin was probably onto something.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> The root cause is that you think it's acceptable to blame the victim when a lorry hits them when turning left.



Could you possibly quote where I've said this please?





I'll save you the trouble looking - I've never said that. For the record my view is that every case would need to be assessed individually for correct blame to be apportioned.

Do I think the driver _could _be at fault? Absolutely.
Do I think the cyclist _could _be at fault? Absolutely.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> Could you possibly quote where I've said this please?


Here would appear to be stating that a lorry turning left onto a cyclist is the resposibility of the cyclist and the cyclist won't have to worry about that resposibility once dead.


> Well, you won't have to worry about being responsible when you're dead, squashed under a truck turning left....





> Do I think the driver could be at fault? Absolutely.
> Do I think the cyclist could be at fault? Absolutely.


So there's no need for those ridiculous stickers then, is there?


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Here would appear to be stating that a lorry turning left onto a cyclist is the resposibility of the cyclist and the cyclist won't have to worry about that resposibility once dead.



You know full well that was in response to something you said. Please try harder.



> So there's no need for those ridiculous stickers then, is there?



There is every need. They will save lives. There are many people who just don't see the dangers. The same type of people who will run at the swimming pool.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 18, 2015)

n brown said:


> i once backed into a guy on a motorbike.i was in my bus and reached a place where the road narrowed and parked cars made it impossible to go any further, so... into reverse gear,look in the mirrors,nothing in sight,start slowly going backwards, heard a scream, stopped. guy comes up and starts shouting at me. i pointed out- the road was getting very narrow- i'd stopped for a good few minutes- my reversing light was on- and above all, this guy was right in the middle of the road and at no point thought it a good idea to look in my mirror.
> so maybe these stickers are for the more mentally bereft .
> i didn't hurt him or his bike,by the way



H. C. Rule 202


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> There is every need. They will save lives. There are many people who just don't see the dangers. The same type of people who will run at the swimming pool.


There are speed limit signs, people speed. 
Idiots will always be idiots. But these stickers are not needed, you've already said that each accident should be decided on its merits and I totally agree with this. I firmly believe that there are drivers out there who believe that just because they carry these stickers that they then have less of a responsibility to look out for the vulnerable. After all, it's already been said that one has to look after one's own safety. This is easier to say in a car or lorry than on a bike, and the bike always having to be submissive is not the correct answer. We all have to look after each other and protect each other. And I see these sign as not helping.
I might just put a "don't overtake me" sticker in my car tomorrow.


----------



## n brown (Jun 18, 2015)

Byronic said:


> H. C. Rule 202


 if i'd really hurt him i'd have felt terrible about not getting out and walking round the back for a look, but as a biker myself , i was seriously surprised to meet a fellow biker with such a useless sense of self preservation ! as i couldn't imagine myself in such a situation,i'd have made sure i could see the driver


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> There are speed limit signs, people speed.
> Idiots will always be idiots.



You're looking at it the wrong way. Speed limits exist, and lives have been saved because of it.



> But these stickers are not needed,



OK, let me ask a question. Do you think it possible that at some point in the past, or future, that just one person has looked at that sticker and thought they should be careful and has therefore avoided an accident?



> and the bike always having to be submissive is not the correct answer.



Interesting you use 'submissive'. Were you dominated as a child? :lol-053:

I think it's absolutely correct the cyclist should be the most _defensive_ as they are the most likely to be seriously hurt.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> I think it's absolutely correct the cyclist should be the most defensive as they are the most likely to be seriously hurt.


And that's where you're wrong. Cars should be more defensive because lorries can do more damage? How absurd.
I have an idea, we'll piut these powerful stickers in the cabs of commercial and HGVs that simply says "Are you 100% sure there isn't a cyclist on your nearside?" All these drivers will observe them and everyone will be safe.
Cyclist are only hurt because poor drivers drive into them. 
Fin.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 18, 2015)

n brown said:


> if i'd really hurt him i'd have felt terrible about not getting out and walking round the back for a look, but as a biker myself , i was seriously surprised to meet a fellow biker with such a useless sense of self preservation ! as i couldn't imagine myself in such a situation,i'd have made sure i could see the driver



Raison d'etre for Rule 202, to take account of the unobservant/blind bloke behind. I'd say 50% culpability for each of you... and 5 years with no chance of remission, take them both down!

Only luck I haven't tapped someone myself when reversing the van.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

You didn't answer my question.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> You didn't answer my question.


I would have expected you support your point with evidence, otherwise it's pure speculation which can be responded to with the equally speculative point of how many drivers have swung left confident that there is no one on the nearside because they're carrying a sticker. Bring me the evidence.
Do you have an objection to all cabs having stickers on the inside as I suggested?


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Cyclist are only hurt because poor drivers drive into them.
> Fin.



Really? No other reasons? Drivers always at fault and cyclists always in the right?


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> I would have expected you support your point with evidence,



Don, I've asked for your view. How am I supposed to evidence your view?

Again,



st3v3 said:


> OK, let me ask a question. Do you think it possible that at some point in the past, or future, that just one person has looked at that sticker and thought they should be careful and has therefore avoided an accident?



It's a yes or no answer.



> Do you have an objection to all cabs having stickers on the inside as I suggested?



No, but I'm not sure how much it would help.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

hextal said:


> Really? No other reasons? Drivers always at fault and cyclists always in the right?


I think so, I've never hit a cyclist, even a dickhead cyclist. But then I'm more aware of their vulnerability and drive accordingly.


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> I think so, I've never hit a cyclist, even a dickhead cyclist. But then I'm more aware of their vulnerability and drive accordingly.



That's you, not all cyclists. You never having hit a cyclist doesn't appear to demonstrate that any cyclist involved in a collision is free from fault, or cause.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> It's a yes or no answer.


Like you, I can't respond without evidence. Do I think it's possible? Anything's possible.


> No, but I'm not sure how much it would help.


You should be about as sure as you are that stickers on lorries reduce the number of cyclist injuries and you're pretty confident on this.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

hextal said:


> That's you, not all cyclists. You never having hit a cyclist doesn't appear to demonstrate that any cyclist involved in a collision is free from fault, or cause.


No it doesn't, but it does demonstrate that it is possible to drive many 1,000s of miles per year without hitting cyclists simply by taking them into consideration, giving them enough space when overtaking, not pulling out on them at junctions, looking in the near side mirror before turning left, anticipating what they might do, etc... Simply really and I've not been late for an appointment yet...


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Like you, I can't respond without evidence.



You don't need evidence for a view. You've aired plenty of views so far without any evidence.



> Do I think it's possible? Anything's possible.



Good, so we're finally agreed as it's possible they may save a life they're a good idea right?



> You should be about as sure as you are that stickers on lorries reduce the number of cyclist injuries and you're pretty confident on this.



The thing that doesn't make me so sure is that lorry drivers go though a significant amount of formal, regularly assessed, training.

Cyclists potentially are young people with very little fear and ability to foresee danger (and that's clinically proven) with absolutely no training.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> (and that's clinically proven)


WTF?
Seriously?




> Good, so we're finally agreed as it's possible they may save a life they're a good idea right?


But you seem to think that it's not a good idea when applied to drivers. Can you make up your mind, please?



> Cyclists potentially are young people with very little fear and ability to foresee danger (and that's clinically proven) with absolutely no training.



I don't even know what this means... :rolleyes2: Can you produce some evidence to support this, please?


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> No it doesn't, but it does demonstrate that it is possible to drive many 1,000s of miles per year without hitting cyclists simply by taking them into consideration, giving them enough space when overtaking, not pulling out on them at junctions, looking in the near side mirror before turning left, anticipating what they might do, etc... Simply really and I've not been late for an appointment yet...



I'm sure a fair few million drivers around the UK have also managed such a feet. I know I have, but I'm not quite sure what bearing it has on the issue at hand.

I'd suggest that believing that any one group of road users is never at fault is a risky and naive attitude.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> WTF?
> Seriously?



Yes, there's a part of the brain that doesn't develop fully until around 21 IIRC that's responsible for fear and hazard perception kinds of things. Do some research, your time will be better spent than trying to argue this lol.




> But you seem to think that it's not a good idea when applied to drivers. Can you make up your mind, please?



I've said I wouldn't discount it, but drivers are already well aware.




> I don't even know what this means... :rolleyes2: Can you produce some evidence to support this, please?



What? You want me to provide evidence lorry drivers go through training, kids have no fear and you can ride a bicycle on the road with no training?


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> I'd suggest that believing that any one group of road users is never at fault is a risky and naive attitude.


Not naive at all. I also believe that "accident" in an overused and incorrectly used word. There is a hierachy of responsibilty on the water where boats are concerned. I believe that when we should have automatic liability against the motor vehicle where collisions involving cars are concerned, thatis the motor vehicle driver is presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. We (cyclists) are playing with higher stakes and I believe are less likely to go toe to toe with 1.5 ton+ of vehicle. Naive? Absolutely not.


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Not naive at all. I also believe that "accident" in an overused and incorrectly used word. There is a hierachy of responsibilty on the water where boats are concerned. I believe that when we should have automatic liability against the motor vehicle where collisions involving cars are concerned, thatis the motor vehicle driver is presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. We (cyclists) are playing with higher stakes and I believe are less likely to go toe to toe with 1.5 ton+ of vehicle. Naive? Absolutely not.



Again, how does the above statement demonstrate that cyclists are never at fault?


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

hextal said:


> Again, how does the above statement demonstrate that cyclists are never at fault?


Because it's not OK to run them over simply to prove that they're at fault. :banana:


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> I've said I wouldn't discount it, but drivers are already well aware.


Apparently they're not as they keep turning left and running over cyclists. And running over one is one too many.


> Yes, there's a part of the brain that doesn't develop fully until around 21 IIRC that's responsible for fear and hazard perception kinds of things. Do some research, your time will be better spent than trying to argue this lol.


The woman who was run over in London today was in her late 20s, a large proprtion of injured and killed cyclists (hint: they're commuters) are adults and well over the 21 yr old threshold you put in your clinical figures. Very few children are killed and injured because they're too bloody scared to go on the road. But I like your justification and style of arguing.


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Because it's not OK to run them over simply to prove that they're at fault. :banana:



Whilst I think we can all agree that running cyclists over is, on the whole, not a good thing for any party involved.  How does your statement demonstrate that cyclists are never at fault?


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> are adults and well over the 21 yr old threshold



Fair enough, so it's down to training and not paying attention potentially. I'll avoid stupidity, as I don't think that's fair. That's on the occasions that the driver isn't at fault of course.



> But I like your justification and style of arguing.



Thanks.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 18, 2015)

hextal said:


> on the whole,



lol.


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> How does your statement demonstrate that cyclists are never at fault?


Never at fault of what?


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> Fair enough, so it's down to training and not paying attention potentially. I'll avoid stupidity, as I don't think that's fair. That's on the occasions that the driver isn't at fault of course.


Perhaps, at the times when the driver is at fault, they could have something, I don't know.... Maybe a sticker or something to remind them, then if one life is saved then it'll be worth it. You seem to be trying to insist that it's the cyclist's fault and moving your argument to suit. It's as if you believe that you have a greater right than cyclists to be on the road which, of course, is absurd as cyclists don't need permission.


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> No it doesn't, but it does demonstrate that it is possible to drive many 1,000s of miles per year without hitting cyclists simply by taking them into consideration, giving them enough space when overtaking, not pulling out on them at junctions, looking in the near side mirror before turning left, anticipating what they might do, etc... Simply really and I've not been late for an appointment yet...



Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the concept of the 'blind spot', sitting where i am right now it would be possible to strategically place a good number of cycles in my blind spot,
i could look in all of my six mirrors and they would still not be visible, when i am traveling around cyclists i have to keep them under observation at all times, also pedestrians, also other road users, if i glance in my offside mirror as a vehicle is coming alongside me i cannot also see the cyclist that comes up my nearside, placing themselves in my blind spot by the time i have looked back.

If you live in one of the areas i travel through I'd like to meet up, let you sit where i do and let you get an appreciation of why it really is not a good idea to travel up the nearside of a truck,
I'm not defending truck drivers carte blanche, there was a trial recently where a cyclist had been killed by a truck turning left, the driver didn't even hold a license to drive that vehicle!

You may know where it is safe to position yourself, not everyone does, the sign on the back of trucks warning them about passing on the nearside is the equivalent of the writing on a MacDonalds apple pie warning that the contents mat be hot!


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Never at fault of what?



You seem to have lost some energy in this discussion....

To recap

You said:


don simon said:


> Cyclist are only hurt because poor drivers drive into them. Fin.



I asked:


hextal said:


> Really? No other reasons? Drivers always at fault and cyclists always in the right?



You responded:


don simon said:


> I think so, I've never hit a cyclist, even a dickhead cyclist. But then I'm more aware of their vulnerability and drive accordingly.



etc.....

So, on what basis are you suggesting that cyclists are never at fault and drivers are always at fault?


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jun 18, 2015)

As i have to drive my 44 tonne 65 foot long truck around and be observant at all times I'll let others carry on this conversation now, I'm going to bed, wild camping in my Volvo in Hook Hampshire.:cool1::cool1:


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

ashbyspannerman said:


> As i have to drive my 44 tonne 65 foot long truck around and be observant at all times I'll let others carry on this conversation now, I'm going to bed, wild camping in my Volvo in Hook Hampshire.:cool1::cool1:



yeah same here - i've got to be up early to shout at contractors/designers


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

hextal said:


> You seem to have lost some energy in this discussion....
> 
> To recap
> 
> ...


Already answered:
"But then I'm more aware of their vulnerability and drive accordingly."


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> is the equivalent of the writing on a MacDonalds apple pie warning that the contents mat be hot!


Darwinism at its finest.
Remember my objection is to the "Do not pass.." signs and not a general warning. I object to the "Do not pass..." sign as it doesn't give any room for interpretation, including junctions where there is a cycle lane one the left leading to the ASL. It's not a warning, it's an instruction and woe betide anyone who ignores it. Filtering up the left is not illegal.
I have lived in Spain where you have motorbikes and scooter coming at you from all angles. You know what? I never had a single close call. It's not hard.
It was also a capital city where HGVs weren't permitteed to enter, heaven... 
Back to the McDonalds story, I've got a whole host of American legal cases which are completely absurd. Is this our future?


----------



## hextal (Jun 18, 2015)

don simon said:


> Already answered:
> "But then I'm more aware of their vulnerability and drive accordingly."



And as I have already said, That just demonstrates that you are aware of them, which doesn't demonstrate that all drivers are at fault or that cyclists are always in the right.


----------



## n brown (Jun 18, 2015)

well, goodnight all ! that was a very well behaved discussion, with no blood spilt -well done !


----------



## don simon (Jun 18, 2015)

> And as I have already said, That just demonstrates that you are aware of them, which doesn't demonstrate that all drivers are at fault or that cyclists are always in the right.


It demonstrates that all drivers should be aware and drive accordingly. As I've said, I've lived and driven in Spain and in general the level and attitude to driving in this country is appallling. I say this as a car driver too. 
Sweet dreams and I'm happy to meet and talk face to face with any of you and swap positions. Ooh Eer!


----------



## 1 Cup (Jun 18, 2015)

*how to become kind*

I am human! am I?
 complacency you are human your make mistakes, 

Conplacency is the killer, It is to safe out there, the more things die there should be more room complacency .


99% of what populated the earth / world is extinct, You are the last 1 % you have time!

 GET OUT OF THE WAY that sign is dangerous 
The more you see it the less notice you'll take
I will only disfigure you as I'm trying not to kill you


----------



## maingate (Jun 19, 2015)

If I knew how to upload some of my dashcam video then I could show you a real idiot on a bike.

Single carriageway in a village, I am driving a large wide motorhome (7'6"), cars parked on my side of the road, a solid line of traffic stationary or slow moving (traffic lights) coming the other way.

One of the vehicles coming the other way was a 44 tonner (one of the Elddis Haulage Company), I am passing parked cars and approaching the HGV (not much room to play with due to parked cars.

And who pops up? The biggest tosser in the North East of England, overtaking the cars and heading straight for a non-existent gap. :rolleyes2: He did not slow down or even see a potential problem, his legs kept pumping away and I had to slam the brakes on as I saw him late. My concentration was on the parked cars and HGV. He had no high viz equipment (shorts and T-shirt but he was wearing a helmet ...... not much good if you pedal into a 4.5 ton vehicle coming the other way).

The HGV driver must be a good lip reader because I gave the cyclist a mouthful of abuse. When I looked at the HGV driver he just shook his head and basically repeated what I had said.


----------



## hextal (Jun 19, 2015)

don simon said:


> It demonstrates that all drivers should be aware and drive accordingly. As I've said, I've lived and driven in Spain and in general the level and attitude to driving in this country is appallling. I say this as a car driver too.
> Sweet dreams and I'm happy to meet and talk face to face with any of you and swap positions. Ooh Eer!



Well, despite my sweet dreams I always wake up grumpy:lol-053:

There's no argument that being aware of other road users is a good thing.

I'd suggest that the best way to be aware of other road users is (like you) to have used the varying types of vehicle, I use bicycle, motorbike, car, van, motorhome.

However, your assertion that "cyclists are only hurt because poor drivers drive into them" suggesting that cyclists are never at fault, appears to have no supporting evidence, and based on your responses I suspect you actually know this as you keep trying to argue a different issue.



If it please the Court, exhibit A (no sniggering in the jury).:lol-053::lol-053:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MckKqYHoLJI

I believe that this is an example of an incident between cyclist and car that shows the cyclist to be at fault.  As such, it demonstrates at least one case of the driver not being at fault, demonstrating that your assertion that "cyclists are only hurt because poor drivers drive into them" is flawed.



Now, in terms of the issue of drivers not seeing cyclists/pedestrians/motorbikes, there was an interesting study undertaken some time ago.  In brief, it demonstrated that when driving along, the amount of data that needs to be processed by the human brain is so high that the brain subconsciously filters the incoming information based on what it deems pertinent and irrelevant data in order to aid the decision making ability of the conscious brain.  One of the things it was found to be doing with a lot of people was to subconsciously discount items within a few feet of the footpath/verge and objects below a certain size as irrelevant, the former were viewed as stationary or slow speed items and the latter not cars or larger vehicles, so in both cases not relevant to decisions relating to driving.

Clearly, it doesn't help the situation, but it was interesting to get a bit of an idea as to why there are so many incidents of drivers looking but not seeing.


----------



## barryd (Jun 19, 2015)

I think there are two main problems in the UK.  Firstly our roads are too busy and secondly everyone is in a hurry and tolerance and patience levels are way too low.

I drive a car, motorhome, scooter and a cycle.  Ive probably made mistakes in all four as most people will have if we own up to it.  I Really dont think any category of vehicle be it a cycle, bike, motorhome, car or truck can be totally trusted or is likely to be any better behaved than the other but I have taken to cycling around Darlington lately when Mrs D is in the gym (long story) and on every trip I have at least one incident where I have a close shave with another vehicle and its always down to them "pushing it", trying to get ahead and being in too much of a rush.  From riding motorbikes and scooters for years though you just expect it and assume everyone is out to kill you and act accordingly.  In my experience though the UK is the worst place for this kind of behavior.


----------



## don simon (Jun 19, 2015)

> Now, in terms of the issue of drivers not seeing cyclists/pedestrians/motorbikes, there was an interesting study undertaken some time ago. In brief, it demonstrated that when driving along, the amount of data that needs to be processed by the human brain is so high that the brain subconsciously filters the incoming information based on what it deems pertinent and irrelevant data in order to aid the decision making ability of the conscious brain. One of the things it was found to be doing with a lot of people was to subconsciously discount items within a few feet of the footpath/verge and objects below a certain size as irrelevant, the former were viewed as stationary or slow speed items and the latter not cars or larger vehicles, so in both cases not relevant to decisions relating to driving.
> 
> Clearly, it doesn't help the situation, but it was interesting to get a bit of an idea as to why there are so many incidents of drivers looking but not seeing.



This is why the current suggestion is that when a cyclist approaches a junction, they should take the (completely legal) primary position in order to be seen. Any cyclist who has taken the primary position will recognize the aggro that they receive from drivers who believe that bikes should be ridden in the gutter. I'll take the primary position when approaching a traffic island as I'm sick of vehicles trying to overtake where there simply isn't room. Interestingly enough most of the instructions or comments from driver have no real basis or follow any logic. 
we all need to get on.
as the video above shows, the driver clearly wasn't aware of highway code 242.... :rolleyes2: :lol-049:


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 19, 2015)

don simon said:


> your argument



My argument is simply that the stickers on the back of trucks have a value. And I think we've proved that. Don't get hung up on the wording - they need to make an impact with people who can't see the risks. I'm betting you can, so I wouldn't expect you to not filter past a truck, just please stay alert.



don simon said:


> I'm happy to meet and talk face to face with any of you



Likewise, just because I have a belief/knowledge/opinion doesn't mean I can't sit around with a few beers and discuss it like an adult


----------



## hextal (Jun 19, 2015)

don simon said:


> as the video above shows, the driver clearly wasn't aware of highway code 242.... :rolleyes2: :lol-049:



So you'd say that the person mainly at fault was???


----------



## don simon (Jun 19, 2015)

hextal said:


> So you'd say that the person mainly at fault was???


Obviously the driving instructor for letting the pupil park in such a dangerous place and causing an obstruction. Obviously.


----------



## hextal (Jun 19, 2015)

don simon said:


> Obviously the driving instructor for letting the pupil park in such a dangerous place and causing an obstruction. Obviously.



Yeah - those straight sections of road are just the worst.:lol-053:

So you are saying that a cyclist has no responsibility for looking where he/she is going?  

Interesting.......:scared::lol-053:


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 19, 2015)

hextal said:


> So you are saying that a cyclist has no responsibility for looking where he/she is going?
> 
> Interesting.......:scared::lol-053:



I'm thinking (hoping) his comment was a little tongue in cheek.


----------



## Deleted member 37170 (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## hextal (Jun 19, 2015)

st3v3 said:


> I'm thinking (hoping) his comment was a little tongue in cheek.



Same here (he's lasted this long so i'd hope so).  Either that or i'll be PMing him for some lottery numbers:lol-053:


----------



## don simon (Jun 22, 2015)

Lorry drivers have no more excuses when it comes to cycling blind spots | Charlie Lloyd | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## maingate (Jun 22, 2015)

don simon said:


> Lorry drivers have no more excuses when it comes to cycling blind spots | Charlie Lloyd | Environment | The Guardian



Training courses are an excellent idea for Lorry drivers.

When are they going to start them for cyclists?


----------



## RogerV (Jun 22, 2015)

All road users should learn about the limitations of different types of vehicles, pedestrians included.

To this end, it is my belief that everyone (physical and mental health permitting) should have to learn to ride a push bike before being allowed to learn to ride a motorcycle before being allowed to learn to drive a car before being allowed to learn to drive a large vehicle.


----------



## don simon (Jun 22, 2015)

> When are they going to start them for cyclists?


A valid point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_Proficiency_Test was a part of my school's curriculum. Kid's used to cycle to school in those days too, we had less obesity too...
I guess cuts and/or lack of interest in cycling has led to this being dropped.
 I find it sad that people are scared of cycling because of the dangers on the road and the irony of that.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 22, 2015)

Good to see some things being done, and awareness raised.

From the London Cycling Campaign:








> Our message to cyclists is stay out of the risk zone at the front-left of the lorry.



and from TfL






The Trixie mirrors might be quite good. What do you think?


----------



## don simon (Jun 22, 2015)

> The Trixie mirrors might be quite good. What do you think?


Like any mirror, they're only good if they're used.


----------



## st3v3 (Jun 22, 2015)

don simon said:


> Like any mirror, they're only good if they're used.



Absolutely, but I thought the placement was quite good.


----------



## don simon (Jun 22, 2015)

> Absolutely, but I thought the placement was quite good.


It's a step in the right direction.


----------



## molly 2 (Jun 22, 2015)

Jimhunterj4 said:


> Low loader driver here, as above post, our trucks are limited to between 56 and 60 mph and if on motorway were usually foot down to the limiter (making good progress) or on cruise control which means when your whistling or chit chatting to the wifey or hubby and don't notice your speed creeping up or down a few miles per hour us lorry drivers are still on the same speed creeping right up your arse. Try maintaining your speed at around 60 and chances are you will hardly have anther truck on your tail or cut your speed to 54 or less and they will trundle right on by. It amazes me the amount of people who speed up when you try to pass or hold you out in the middle lane or outside lane of a dual carriage way and when you eventually pass they put the foot down and pass you then flip you the finger.. The mind boggles.. Hope this helps you a bit to avoid the truck up your arse syndrome..."


Thanks for your professional comments 54 is a good speed. To drive a motorhome economically ,if that suites 
Truckers it suits me. If passing truck slows down i slow down to let him pass .after all i am playing truckers are working.  Ps good post.


----------



## barryd (Jun 22, 2015)

Im quite enjoying cycling round the busy roads of Darlington of late.  Keeps you on your toes trying to avoid death every few minutes.

Today I cycled up from the town centre and I had a carrier bag with a few bits I had bought on the market stuffed in my fleece pocket.  Anyway it fell out on the road coming out of the town centre.   I stopped to pick it up only to be greeted by the two cars behind me blaring their horns and running over me shopping.  They were only coming out of the car park on a side road doing about 10mph but clearly it was too much to expect them to stop for a second while I picked up the bag.  Ill take a back pack or something next time but its just typical of the aggressive me, me, me attitude on the roads really these days.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 22, 2015)

Couldn't have been Yorkshiremen, I'd chalk it down to the Catterick Camp mob! Take a .303 next time.


----------



## maingate (Jun 22, 2015)

barryd said:


> Im quite enjoying cycling round the busy roads of Darlington of late.  Keeps you on your toes trying to avoid death every few minutes.
> 
> Today I cycled up from the town centre and I had a carrier bag with a few bits I had bought on the market stuffed in my fleece pocket.  Anyway it fell out on the road coming out of the town centre.   I stopped to pick it up only to be greeted by the two cars behind me blaring their horns and running over me shopping.  They were only coming out of the car park on a side road doing about 10mph but clearly it was too much to expect them to stop for a second while I picked up the bag.  Ill take a back pack or something next time but its just typical of the aggressive me, me, me attitude on the roads really these days.



It could have been worse Barry, it could have been me in my motorhome. :scared:

I don't take prisoners. :lol-049:


----------



## barryd (Jun 23, 2015)

maingate said:


> It could have been worse Barry, it could have been me in my motorhome. :scared:
> 
> I don't take prisoners. :lol-049:



Neither do I if you run over me pies!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 :hammer::hammer:


----------



## 1 Cup (Jun 23, 2015)

*out of control*

Cycling for work.  that's where the risks are highest !
More heath and safety for people that use cycle for work. ie getting there commuting.  Rush rush rush
Just watch the Tour de France they have all the road and still fall off,   professionals rider's? Lol:lol-053:


----------

