Don't get in drivers' blind spots

galwaycyclist · 22-12-2014 12:49pm

Jawgap wrote: »

To use an extreme example, compare the behaviour of an experienced soldier with that of a well trained but inexperienced one - they are absolutely poles apart......and to run this example to the limit of extremity, that's why D-Day was, largely, undertaken by inexperienced troops, because they would be oblivious to dangers that would be apparent to combat veterans.

I recall a grand uncle who was a tank driver in North Africa telling me about how hard it was to avoid crushing their own infantry, who like some cyclists, were not always aware of how little the drivers could actually see when the hatches were closed.

yammagamma · 22-12-2014 12:59pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think perhaps you don't remember what being a novice (at any activity) is actually like.

exact reason why all cyclists should have to obtain a licence to use public roads like all other road users on forms of mechnical transport ,they should first have to pass a theory test then a pratical cycling test like motor cyclists have to,that way they might learn about road traffic law but more importantly road safety, i cant understand how a government funds these bike schemes without first requiring the cyclists have knowlage of road safety and laws, are not the government and the bike scheme sponsors opening themselves up for huge law suits giving a cyclist a mechnical form of transport without this requirment, if you give someone your vehicle and they are involved in an accident you can/are charged also with offences are you not ??

and on a side note re cycle licence,the bike serial number should be registered to that cycle licence to help theft of bikes as cyclist would need to carry licence and prove ownership of bike as it be registered to licence,after all its mainly motorists revenue who pay for these expensive bikes through the bike to work scheme.

22-12-2014 1:02pm

gadetra wrote: »

I said this before at that video but that is 100% cyclist error. You never, ever cycle up the inside or directly in front of a lorry. Ever. It is the stupidest thing you can ever do on a bike.

It's difficult to tell but to me that video does not look like the cyclist cycled up the inside of anything. He is proceeding on the right hand side of the road, the lane on his left is for straight ahead OR right turn, and unless the cyclist is faster than the lorry (unlikely), the lorry has overtaken him and then turned across.

So if you and the many people who thanked you think THAT is "100% cyclist error", there's no wonder we have a serious road safety problem on our hands.

On the broader issue I agree that going up the inside of HGVs is stupid, but I also believe that HGVs in general or ANY vehicle with a large blindspot just shouldn't be around cyclists and pedestrians if at all possible. It's absolute madness.

On that note it's sad to see that HGVs seem to be making a comeback on the quays. Not a hard traffic offence to spot and punish I would have thought, I hope the guards do so.

Jawgap · 22-12-2014 1:04pm

yammagamma wrote: »

exact reason why all cyclists should have to obtain a licence to use public roads like all other road users on forms of mechnical transport ,they should first have to pass a theory test then a pratical cycling test like motor cyclists have to,that way they might learn about road traffic law but more importantly road safety, i cant understand how a government funds these bike schemes without first requiring the cyclists have knowlage of road safety and laws, are not the government and the bike scheme sponsors opening themselves up for huge law suits giving a cyclist a mechnical form of transport without this requirment, if you give someone your vehicle and they are involved in an accident you can/are charged also with offences are you not ??

and on a side note re cycle licence,the bike serial number should be registered to that cycle licence to help theft of bikes as cyclist would need to carry licence and prove ownership of bike as it be registered to licence,after all its mainly motorists revenue who pay for these expensive bikes through the bike to work scheme.

oh dear.......where to begin.......

The bike to work scheme is a tax break / salary sacrifice - it's not funded by anything, much less 'motorists revenue' - I'm not sure what that is but I'm sure I'm contributing, as are many cyclists, through their ownership of cars. The government pays nothing towards the scheme and benefits immensely from it, as does everyone else regardless of whether they cycle or not.

Now, I'm off to help my seven year old nephew study for his theory test (just in case this idea every gets traction)

dreamerb · 22-12-2014 1:10pm

yammagamma wrote: »

[...] if you give someone your vehicle and they are involved in an accident you can/are charged also with offences are you not ??

[...]
after all its mainly motorists revenue who pay for these expensive bikes through the bike to work scheme.

The what now?

Why would you be charged with offences? I'm fairly sure you're making stuff up.

And as for "motorists revenue who pay for these expensive bikes"... No. Just no. It's a tax break for people who are tax-paying workers: they get to pay less tax if they buy a bicycle.

galwaycyclist · 22-12-2014 1:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's difficult to tell but to me that video does not look like the cyclist cycled up the inside of anything. He is proceeding on the right hand side of the road, the lane on his left is for straight ahead OR right turn, and unless the cyclist is faster than the lorry (unlikely), the lorry has overtaken him and then turned across.

So if you and the many people who thanked you think THAT is "100% cyclist error", there's no wonder we have a serious road safety problem on our hands.

On the broader issue I agree that going up the inside of HGVs is stupid, but I also believe that HGVs in general or ANY vehicle with a large blindspot just shouldn't be around cyclists and pedestrians if at all possible. It's absolute madness.

On that note it's sad to see that HGVs seem to be making a comeback on the quays. Not a hard traffic offence to spot and punish I would have thought, I hope the guards do so.

You may be right on the 100% part - the driver may also be at significant fault - we dont seem to see enough of the tape to get an idea of the relative times at which each road user arrived at the junction.

But the cyclist clearly seems to be aware of what is happening and makes a pronounced evasive jink to the right. But he doesnt stay in the turn and try to get himself out of the danger zone. Instead, having jinked right, he turns left back onto his original direction - almost as if he is trying to race the truck through the junction even though he knows its turning.

22-12-2014 1:25pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

You may be right on the 100% part - the driver may also be at significant fault - we dont seem to see enough of the tape to get an idea of the relative times at which each road user arrived at the junction.

But the cyclist clearly seems to be aware of what is happening and makes a pronounced evasive jink to the right. But he doesnt stay in the turn and try to get himself out of the danger zone. Instead, having jinked right, he turns left back onto his original direction - almost as if he is trying to race the truck through the junction even though he knows its turning.

Of course.

I am always acutely aware in any situation like this that someone might turn across me - it happens all the time and you've got to get used to it and learn how to get out of the way. I've taught my children to do the same.

But it's a huge leap from that to the claim that any cyclist who doesn't have advanced "getting out of the way of maniacs" skills is 100% at fault for any accident that then occurs!

DaithiMC · 22-12-2014 1:48pm

Nice tech that will be in cars and trucks in the future to resolve this.... http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/news/jaguar-land-rover-reveals-ghost-car-nav-see-through-pill-article-1.2046216

eeeee · 22-12-2014 3:41pm

it's not a case of the cyclist not having 'get put of the way skills'. You never, ever put yourself in front of or beside a HGV at a junction. Ever. Full stop. IMO that cyclist should have waited behind the lorry before turning end of story. Anything else is pure dangerous.

Also you don't learn anything about blind spots from playing with toys

. The gender assumptions are way off. My favourite toy as a kid was a tin bull-nosed artic. I was also shunting units around a yard as a young teenage...girl! So the 50% of the population is wide of the mark. What I do see are casual lady cyclists tend to take a less aggressive position on the road.

Ultimately it comes down to care and consideration, and being safe and sensible out on the road. Being the cyclist filling in a HGV sandwich is never going to end well no matter what justification you try to put to it. Cyclists and HGV'S have an equal right to the road, and HGV's do an essential job. Lorry drivers also have to do CPC's every 6 months to a year and are very conscious of their vehicle. Like a bike it's the pride and joy. So they're not going round using them in considerately.

Actually town and city infrastructure us becoming ever more HGV unfriendly. It's much, much harder to manoeuvre one in an urban space than it used to be, and as the road space gets tighter something's got to give. I think bad road design has a lot to answer for. As cyclists we see this evey day you get in the bike, HGV's are much the same. Roads are built for cars and cars only now. Take the port tunnel for example. Designed to take HGV traffic off the quays from the port. But they designed it 4 inches too short for supercube trailers, which are the standard height of trailers in Europe and internationally. So all of those have to come up the quays. There would be much, much less HGV cyclist interaction if they consulted hauliers during the planning. But they didn't. Much like cycle lanes, no consultation with cyclists and designed by people who don't regularly cycle.

22-12-2014 3:54pm

gadetra wrote: »

it's not a case of the cyclist not having 'get put of the way skills'. You never, ever put yourself in front of or beside a HGV at a junction. Ever. Full stop. IMO that cyclist should have waited behind the lorry before turning end of story. Anything else is pure dangerous.

I think you are looking at a different video or have seen the full video?

In the one linked from this thread the cyclist and lorry are both in motion at the start of the clip, the lorry is about halfway past the cyclist and then turns across him.

There's no suggestion they were stopped at lights at the junction or that the cyclist 'put himself' anywhere other than at the side of the road where he was overtaken and swiped.

22-12-2014 3:58pm

gadetra wrote: »

Actually town and city infrastructure us becoming ever more HGV unfriendly.

Good!

HGVs should deliver to out-of-town depots from where smaller vehicles make local deliveries.

It is complete nonsense to design urban areas for the benefit of people who want to drive HGVs through them.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 4:30pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good!

HGVs should deliver to out-of-town depots from where smaller vehicles make local deliveries.

It is complete nonsense to design urban areas for the benefit of people who want to drive HGVs through them.

Those HGV's are delivering goods that you purchase, consume or use every day. They're not doing it for sport.

I would agree that a curfew on them is a good Idea and should be enforced but more so to reduce traffic as opposed to protecting a few gob****es on push bikes that don't recognise the obvious dangers of cycling up the inside of a left turning artic.

On that note I'm definitely not in favour of paying more for my goods as result of them going through an extra hub because those same loonies are still cycling up the inside of left turning trucks.

It's reall very simple. Don't do it. And if you do, expect to be crushed under 10 tons of moving metal.

SpaceTime · 22-12-2014 4:32pm

Rule of thumb... Maintain the ability to have eye contact with the driver! If you can't see them, they're not likely to see you.

tomasrojo · 22-12-2014 4:42pm

Swanner wrote: »

I would agree that a curfew on them is a good Idea and should be enforced but more so to reduce traffic as opposed to protecting a few gob****es on push bikes that don't recognise the obvious dangers of cycling up the inside of a left turning artic.

Again, the dangers are not actually that obvious. They're obvious to you and me, but when I started out, they weren't that obvious. I remember a truck brushing my foot with a wheel when I was a teenager. I am by no means stupid, but I just wasn't aware of poor positioning. I was just keeping as far left as possible, as was the advice at the time.

All these rules of thumb and pieces of advice are helpful, but if you don't come from a background with other commuting cyclists and you don't know of the existence of books such as Cyclecraft, you have to pick up all this knowledge the hard way, by going out there and making mistakes.

Remember, the three main precautions advocated by the RSA, which is all the cycling safety advice most people get, are wear a helmet, wear hi-viz and use cycle facilities where provided. Cycle facilities frequently route straight-ahead cyclists up the left side of left-turning traffic. Why wouldn't a novice believe that all they have to do is keep to the special lane they've been given? That's what the RSA said to do, and the RSA said that cycle facilities were provided for their protection. Credulous acceptance of advice from state bodies is not stupidity, but it's something you sometimes have to move on from.

Also, left-turning traffic sometimes hasn't signalled when you start going up the inside and by the time they start signalling you can't see it, or, if there are pedestrian railings, it's too late to do anything about it.

22-12-2014 4:51pm

Swanner wrote: »

On that note I'm definitely not in favour of paying more for my goods as result of them going through an extra hub because those same loonies are still cycling up the inside of left turning trucks.

The point relates to HGVs in general.

They just aren't suitable for urban environments. It's nothing to do with cyclists really, even if there were NO cyclists I would still be against HGVs in town.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 4:55pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Again, the dangers are not actually that obvious. They're obvious to you and me, but when I started out, they weren't that obvious. I remember a truck brushing my foot with a wheel when I was a teenager. I am by no means stupid, but I just wasn't aware of poor positioning. I was just keeping as far left as possible, as was the advice at the time.

All the more reason for some kind of mandatory training or test. I agree that there are some pitfalls not easily spotted but cycling on the inside of a left turning truck is in Darwin Award territory. It's a suicidal manoeuvre and if the person partaking in such a move doesn't see the danger, they really shouldn't be on the road.

tomasrojo wrote: »

All these rules of thumb and pieces of advice are helpful, but if you don't come from a background with other commuting cyclists and you don't know of the existence of books such as Cyclecraft, you have to pick up all this knowledge the hard way, by going out there and making mistakes.

Yet more reasons as to why we need proper training for ALL road users and no, that obviously doesn't include pedestrians.

Jawgap · 22-12-2014 5:04pm

Swanner wrote: »

All the more reason for some kind of mandatory training or test. I agree that there are some pitfalls not easily spotted but cycling on the inside of a left turning truck is in Darwin Award territory. It's a suicidal manoeuvre and if the person partaking in such a move doesn't see the danger, they really shouldn't be on the road.

Yet more reasons as to why we need proper training for ALL road users and no, that obviously doesn't include pedestrians.

Yes, because training, testing and licensing have stopped other road users from causing serious injuries and fatalities on our roads.

And trucks never pull up to cyclists who have already stopped! - if cyclists shouldn't go up the left of stopped or slowly moving trucks then maybe drivers should stop well short of any cyclist who is already stopped at the junction or red light?

Also it would be helpful if the area defined by the ASL was made much bigger and if drivers actually respected this particular piece of legislation - and if cyclists were allowed turn left on red (subject to them yielding to pedestrians).

There you go, three things we could introduce tomorrow without the need for some useless, unenforceable licensing regime.

tomasrojo · 22-12-2014 5:08pm

Swanner wrote: »

All the more reason for some kind of mandatory training or test. I agree that there are some pitfalls not easily spotted but cycling on the inside of a left turning truck is in Darwin Award territory. It's a suicidal manoeuvre and if the person partaking in such a move doesn't see the danger, they really shouldn't be on the road.

Again, it isn't always obvious that a truck is about to turn left. And in my case, the truck was going in the same direction as me, he just came nearer to me when he took off when the light changed

I stay well clear of the inside of trucks now, but I contend that it's not as obvious as you make out.

Rather than extensive training, the RSA could take half the resources they spend on promoting helmets and do campaigns (without graves, grieving families and blood bags) that warn about the dangers of passing on the inside of trucks and buses. About 70% of cyclists killed in urban areas are killed this way, so it would actually be a much better use of resources anyway (given how few cyclists die of isolated head injuries).

tomasrojo · 22-12-2014 5:09pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Also it would be helpful if the area defined by the ASL was made much bigger

Good point. As with the straight-ahead cycle track placed to the left of a left-turn lane, the shallow ASL should be avoided (since it's an invitation to place yourself in a HGV blind spot), but a novice wouldn't know that.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 5:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, because training, testing and licensing have stopped other road users from causing serious injuries and fatalities on our roads.

I would hazard a guess that training, testing and licensing have made the roads far safer for everyone. there will always be gob****es. There will always be collisions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to reduce fatalities and injuries. What's your point ?

Jawgap wrote: »

And trucks never pull up to cyclists who have already stopped - if cyclists shouldn't go up the left of stopped or slowly moving trucks then maybe drivers should stop well short of any cyclists who is already stopped at the junction or red light?

So are you suggesting a truck driver will pull up beside a stopped cyclist and proceed to turn left without waiting to see the cyclist proceed first ? In 25 years driving i've never seen that happen. I see the reverse almost every day. I've also witnessed a cyclist being killed in this very manner. Something i'll never erase from my memory. No doubt his family nor the truck driver have ever forgotten either.

Jawgap wrote: »

Also it would be helpful if the area defined by the ASL was made much bigger and if drivers actually respected this particular piece of legislation - and if cyclists were allowed turn left on red (subject to them yielding to pedestrians).

a very significant proportion of cyclists pay zero heed to red lights anyway. Why would this make any difference ?

Jawgap wrote: »

There you go, three things we could introduce tomorrow without the need for some useless, unenforceable licensing regime.

The fact that you are so opposed to any kind of regulation doesn't make it unenforcable. We have lots of traffic laws that are not enforced. In general people try to abide by them. Sure, some don't but that doesn't mean we should just abandon them.

tomasrojo · 22-12-2014 5:18pm

Licensing and training requirements for motorised vehicles are because they are dangerous to others. You can certainly make a case that mandatory training would result in better informed cyclists, but no jurisdictions, or very few, have introduced such measures, since they don't really pass cost-benefit analysis (big cost; very small, possibly unknowable number of lives saved), and they would result in fewer cyclists, which is not an outcome generally desired in Europe these days, at least.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 5:20pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Again, it isn't always obvious that a truck is about to turn left. And in my case, the truck was going in the same direction as me, he just came nearer to me when he took off when the light changed

I stay well clear of the inside of trucks now, but I contend that it's not as obvious as you make out.

But effective training would give cyclists the opportunity to learn this without ever putting themselves at risk. Surely that has to be a better option then figuring it out as the wheels are coming for you.

Rather than extensive training, the RSA could take half the resources they spend on promoting helmets and do campaigns (without graves, grieving families and blood bags) that warn about the dangers of passing on the inside of trucks and buses. About 70% of cyclists killed in urban areas are killed this way, so it would actually be a much better use of resources anyway (given how few cyclists die of isolated head injuries).[/QUOTE]

I would agree to a point. I think anyone that cycles without a helmet is taking a risk. That's their call. I've spent enough time in the NRH to know it's not a chance I would take. I would go quite a bit further with the education though and introduce mandatory training.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 5:22pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Licensing and training requirements for motorised vehicles are because they are dangerous to others. You can certainly make a case that mandatory training would result in better informed cyclists, but no jurisdictions, or very few, have introduced such measures, since they don't really pass cost-benefit analysis (big cost; very small, possibly unknowable number of lives saved), and they would result in fewer cyclists, which is not an outcome generally desired in Europe these days, at least.

Then we accept that these fatalities will happen. We make the assumption that we can't reduce them and we move onto the next issue. I'm not saying that wrong, just the alternative.

Jawgap · 22-12-2014 5:26pm

Swanner wrote: »

The fact that you are so opposed to any kind of regulation doesn't make it unenforcable. We have lots of traffic laws that are not enforced. In general people try to abide by them. Sure, some don't but that doesn't mean we should just abandon them.

Just because something is unenforced doesn't make it unenforceable - licensing of cyclists has been discussed ad nauseam - if could be done, it would have already been done in another jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction that has tried it has abandoned it in practice - it may still be on the statute books, but it has been wholly abandoned. Can you point to somewhere that has successfully introduced such a scheme?

Also, if it could be made to work I don't doubt that our dogmatic RSA would be pushing it as potential policy - the fact they are not should tell you plenty.

And even if you could get around the the 'enforceability' issue you still be left with cyclists who, as a class of road user, are still inherently vulnerable.

tomasrojo · 22-12-2014 5:26pm

Swanner wrote: »

Then we accept that these fatalities will happen. We make the assumption that we can't reduce them and we move onto the next issue. I'm not saying that wrong, just the alternative.

Well, as I said, you could run safety campaigns that explain why you shouldn't go up the inside of large vehicles near junctions and site/factory/retail entrances. Quite a bit cheaper, and worth trying.

jinkypolly · 22-12-2014 6:26pm

Swanner wrote: »

a very significant proportion of cyclists pay zero heed to red lights anyway. Why would this make any difference ?

Really? Could you link us to the stats you're using?

Wishbone Ash · 22-12-2014 7:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

it's sad to see that HGVs seem to be making a comeback on the quays. Not a hard traffic offence to spot and punish I would have thought, I hope the guards do so.

What makes you think that it is illegal for a HGV to be on the quays? It is a 5 axle ban - not a HGV ban. (The truck featured in the link in China would not be subject to the ban as it has 4 axles).

There are several other perfectly legal reasons why a 5 axle truck may be on the quays including:

1. Time.
2. DPT may be temporarily closed at short notice.
3. Delivering/picking up within the ban zone.
4. Truck/load unsuitable for motorway/DPT
5. Learner driver (accompanied) not permitted to use motorway/DPT.

etc.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 7:06pm

jinkypolly wrote: »

Really? Could you link us to the stats you're using?

How would you propose we get reliable stats on RLJ'ing among cyclists ?

It's a pointless request but then you already know that.

What i do have is personal experience and I see it happening all day, everyday. Its pretty much the norm that a cyclist will break the light once they think it's safe to do so.

Cyclists in Dublin are a little more adherent because they have to be but outside of the city centre I would say I see more cyclists braking red lights then stopping at them.

Jawgap · 22-12-2014 7:10pm

Swanner wrote: »

How would you propose we get reliable stats on RLJ'ing among cyclists ?

It's a pointless request but then you already know that.

What i do have is personal experience and I see it happening all day, everyday. Its pretty much the norm that a cyclist will break the light once they think it's safe to do so.

Cyclists in Dublin are a little more adherent because they have to be but outside of the city centre I would say I see more cyclists braking red lights then stopping at them.

There's stats available for London, but you won't like them

and is London likely to be better, worse or about the same in terms of cyclist behaviour?

Personally, I'd say about the same.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2014 7:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

There's stats available for London, but you won't like them and is London likely to be better, worse or about the same in terms of cyclist behaviour?

Personally, I'd say about the same.

I'm aware of those stats. That's why I added the word "reliable" above.

Not sure why you think I wouldn't like them.

Do you have stats to show that cyclists in London exhibit the same behaviour as those in Dublin ?

Of course you don't. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume it's a fair comparison.

An obvious case in point would be the very different standard of motorway driving both here and in the UK but that's for another section of boards.

Don't get in drivers' blind spots

Comments