HGV Awareness campaign from LFGSS

UnworthyPapaLazaru

I see it as an awareness campaign. No blame on either side, just making people think.

biondino

snooks wrote:

Seems that the can of worms I opened have run of in completely the wrong direction...the post was to high-light the campaign by London FG SS forum

My poster was posted again from a previous thread. The unfortunate fact is that 25 cyclist were killed by HGVs last year. The message behind the poster is for cyclist to think when they are near HGVs...Read any of the recent articles on the recent deaths and they are more unambiguous about what's been happening on our roads recently

from the London FG SS thread, they came up with this:


Which I was going to get printed (with my own hard earned cash) on the other side of my A6 flyer therefore whichever side you looked at, you'd get the message.
.

I think snooks' flyer is a lot less apportioning blame than this flyer is (and I don't disagree with this one)!

WE AS CYCLISTS CAN ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS.

prj45 I understand where you're coming from but frankly your opinion seems to indicate cyclists will read the flyer and say "how dare they blame me for this, why, I'm going to cycle down the left side of that lorry on purpose now as is my right!" It's not a blame game. The facts are people are being killed and if people who aren't aware of the dangers ARE made aware of the dangers then everyone's a winner.

p.s. brilliant post by zanes.

prj45

biondino wrote:

prj45 I understand where you're coming from but frankly your opinion seems to indicate cyclists will read the flyer and say "how dare they blame me for this, why, I'm going to cycle down the left side of that lorry on purpose now as is my right!" It's not a blame game. The facts are people are being killed and if people who aren't aware of the dangers ARE made aware of the dangers then everyone's a winner.

I think what I object to is the assertion that all of those already got killed did so by cycling up the inside of a lorry and were stupid to do so. Disrespectful to them IMO, incorrect to boot.

prj45

biondino wrote:

WE AS CYCLISTS CAN ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS.

Disagree with that too as a general statement. If a lorry is going to run you over from behind suck you up and spit you out, or overtake then pull a straight left then there's not really much you as a cyclist can do about that.

biondino

No, that's exactly what I'm saying! We can only be responsible for what WE do - which is why we can choose to NOT go up the inside of a lorry and it might save our life, but if we get left hooked by a lorry who overtakes and then turns then there's nothing we could have done - it's one of the risks of being on the road.

biondino

i.e. we can't do anything about what the lorry does - therefore it's our responsibility, for our own safety, to minimise the risk from lorries in areas we can control - such as filtering up the left of the f***ers.

prj45

biondino wrote:

No, that's exactly what I'm saying! We can only be responsible for what WE do - which is why we can choose to NOT go up the inside of a lorry and it might save our life, but if we get left hooked by a lorry who overtakes and then turns then there's nothing we could have done - it's one of the risks of being on the road.

Which is another reason I feel any campaign that makes people think that any cyclist that get's killed/injured could've avoided it with their own actions is dangerous.

"Oh, another cyclist dead, they must've been being stupid".

prj45

biondino wrote:

i.e. we can't do anything about what the lorry does - therefore it's our responsibility, for our own safety, to minimise the risk from lorries in areas we can control - such as filtering up the left of the f***ers.

Yup, misread your statement, thought you meant we are fully responsible for our saftey ont he road, we are not, others are too.

biondino

prj45 wrote:

biondino wrote:

No, that's exactly what I'm saying! We can only be responsible for what WE do - which is why we can choose to NOT go up the inside of a lorry and it might save our life, but if we get left hooked by a lorry who overtakes and then turns then there's nothing we could have done - it's one of the risks of being on the road.

Which is another reason I feel any campaign that makes people think that any cyclist that get's killed/injured could've avoided it with their own actions is dangerous.

"Oh, another cyclist dead, they must've been being stupid".

I can see your logic but if the payoff is people making your assumptions vs cyclists' lives being saved by heeding the warning, I'll go with the latter.

snooks

prj45 wrote:

f a lorry is going to run you over from behind suck you up and spit you out, or overtake then pull a straight left then there's not really much you as a cyclist can do about that.

1st example I'll give you, the second one the cyclist can brake! Agreed they shouldn't have to, but I do it all the time, the last place I want to be is on the inside of a lorry, turning or not

prj45

snooks wrote:

the second one the cyclist can brake!

If they get a chance, and it might be the worst thing to do.