Bicycles, road accidents, & what to watch out for

alcyst

Apologies if I am late noticing this. Article in Guardian newspaper 1st Feb 2013 titled "Construction lorries 'disproportionately responsible for cyclist deaths'".

Most motorists & cyclists probably worry about cars & bicycles but reality is that "In (London) around 50% of all cyclist deaths involve lorries, which comprise only about 5% of traffic, with a high proportion happening when left-turning trucks crush cyclists."
"In 2011, of the 16 cyclist deaths in London nine involved lorries, of which seven were construction vehicles."


Any accidents I've had were due to road surface (ice, rail tracks, broken surface), but for cyclists as whole advice is to be careful around any vehicle, and more careful around heavy trucks & lorries.

lennymc

I try to notI generally dont go up the inside of a truck or large vehicle (or any vehicle really) if it is turning left. Also, If im turning left, i try to do so in a manner that means that the vehicle behind me has to wait until i complete my turn before it can turn, so i dont give them a chance to put me on their inside when they are turning left.

rp

lennymc wrote: »

I try to notI generally dont go up the inside of a truck or large vehicle (or any vehicle really) if it is turning left. Also, If im turning left, i try to do so in a manner that means that the vehicle behind me has to wait until i complete my turn before it can turn, so i dont give them a chance to put me on their inside when they are turning left.

Its dangerous even if they aren't turning left: last week, I was passing a stationary bus on the left, in an on-road cycle lane. When the bus started to move, he just pulled into the cycle lane, with me still to his left, I had to hammer on the side of the bus to get him to look in the mirror and notice me.

Iwannahurl

A Garda report a few years ago highlighted the fact that three out of four cyclist fatalities in their study involved left-turning HGVs.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055485641

I never overtake on the left side of any vehicle if I can help it, though I find Irish local authorities seem to be determined that I do.

seamus

The problem is that we expect all vehicles to "drift" left in the same way that cars do, so novice cyclists and motorcyclists and even some pedestrians assume that they will have time to move out of the way and the turning vehicle will move past you as they turn.

Of course long vehicles don't drift when they turn. Their turn is more circular - with the rear wheels at the centre of the circle, the front of the bus moves left or right while the rear wheel remains almost static. So if you're standing or cycling halfway between these two points, the bus won't move past you as it turns, it will just turn across you.

If at all possible, avoid overtaking any long vehicle on the left, and if you are to overtake one, ensure that you can overtake them swiftly in one go (if the bus is pulling away or moving quite quickly, you may not be quick enough to complete the overtake, so just sit back). If a long vehicle makes an incomplete overtake of you (busses can be bastards for this), then your first instinct should be to remove yourself from that position - preferably slow down until the vehicle has passed you, or if you can, speed up to put the vehicle behind you.

One thing which still catches me out every now and again is whether to overtake a bus which is stationary but is quite close to the kerb. Murphy's law says that if you do this, then the lights will go green and the bus will start to move just when you don't want it to. Best practice here is to wait behind the bus or overtake on the right.

Cyclists deaths practically disappeared in Dublin when the HGV ban came in.

hardCopy

Patience is a virtue with HGVs around. It's never worth passing one on the left. If it's not safe to pass on the right or you think the lights might be about to change, just wait behind it. Once the lights go green the truck will be up to speed quick enough that it won't hold you up.

I used to hate cycling to college in DCU during the Port Tunnel construction, Collins Avenue was just a procession of tipper trucks at all hours of the day, passing cyclists with minimal clearance with mud and dust flying off them. Terrible yokes altogether, at least their not in town anymore.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

Cyclists deaths practically disappeared in Dublin when the HGV ban came in.

The 30 km/h zone also made a big difference in terms of road casualty reductions.

cdaly_

Got passed by a B&Q truck this morning. Large sign on the rear left:

"Cyclists! Danger!
Do not attempt to pass this truck if it is turning"

Useful stuff, should be on all trucks.

Run_to_da_hills

seamus wrote: »

Cyclists deaths practically disappeared in Dublin when the HGV ban came in.

Cyclists should all thank the Fianna Fail Government for the Dublin Port Tunnel which got rid of most of the large trucks out of the capital. :pac:

Bertie OHern will eventually become the Saint of Irish Cycling for protecting the lives of so many cyclists.

seamus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Cyclists should all thank the Fianna Fail Government for the Dublin Port Tunnel which got rid of most of the large trucks out of the capital. :pac:

Bertie OHern will eventually become the Saint of Irish Cycling for protecting the lives of so many cyclists.

I do believe the port tunnel, the HGV ban, the 30km/h limit and the Dublin bikes scheme were all either proposed by or implemented under a Labour-led Dublin City Council.

Run_to_da_hills

seamus wrote: »

I do believe the port tunnel, the HGV ban, the 30km/h limit and the Dublin bikes scheme were all either proposed by or implemented under a Labour-led Dublin City Council.

But didn't FF get all the flack over the cost and over budget of the Port Tunnel?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-waste-of-10bn-in-10-years-26326371.html

mrbike

The HGV ban has made a huge difference. However, nobody sticks to the 30km/h limit in the city. For two weeks people did, and the city was a much so much more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians. Like many laws in Ireland, it's just not enforced so everyone ignores it.

Run_to_da_hills

mrbike wrote: »

The HGV ban has made a huge difference. However, nobody sticks to the 30km/h limit in the city. For two weeks people did, and the city was a much so much more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians. Like many laws in Ireland, it's just not enforced so everyone ignores it.

The only effective way they could enforce a strict 30km/h limit is through the installment of ANPR average speed cameras throughout the city as they have done in London, Civil liberties activists would of up in arms if they attempted to do this.

2011abc

The 30kmh speed limit is such a crock !Have some sympathy for the poor motorists .Any cyclist worth their salt will be faster than cars ,trucks etc already , within the city confines without needing a 'handicap'!Few simple pleasures in life more fun than weaving in and out of traffic on way into town before a sprint interval workout all the way to Heuston to catch all the lights on way home !

Iwannahurl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The only effective way they could enforce a strict 30km/h limit is through the installment of ANPR average speed cameras throughout the city as they have done in London, Civil liberties activists would of up in arms if they attempted to do this.

No they wouldn't. Reactionary vested interests would be, though.

Iwannahurl

2011abc wrote: »

The 30kmh speed limit is such a crock! Have some sympathy for the poor motorists.

mrbike wrote: »

The HGV ban has made a huge difference. However, nobody sticks to the 30 km/h limit in the city. For two weeks people did, and the city was a much so much more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians. Like many laws in Ireland, it's just not enforced so everyone ignores it.

My understanding is that the average (mean) speed fell after the 30 km/h limit was introduced, though I have no hard info on that.

According to the RSA, the introduction of 30kph/20mph zones elsewhere have led to decreases of up to 70% in the number of serious collisions. The research indicates that reducing mean speed even by seemingly small amounts can potentially lead to a significant decrease in casualties.

A 10% reduction in total traffic volume would be expected to result in a 6.5% reduction in road fatalities. The same decrease in the level of drink-driving would reduce fatalities by 1%, and if the non-wearing of seatbelts was similarly reduced road deaths would drop by 0.8%. In contrast, a 10% reduction in the mean speed of traffic can be estimated to reduce the number of road accident fatalities by 38%. Source: https://www.toi.no/article17882-29.html

It has crossed my mind that one reason (among a range of possibilities) for the lower number of road deaths in Dublin, despite the absolute bog standard absence of enforcement, is that motorists are driving with much more care. They know that if they have a serious crash in a 30 km/h zone, and if it can be shown that they were speeding, then they are automatically culpable. The surge in the number of cyclists is also a factor: more cycling equals safer cycling, even if, as one Councillor put it to me, many of them look like they've never even been up on a rocking horse.

Civilian_Target

alcyst wrote: »

Any accidents I've had were due to road surface (ice, rail tracks, broken surface), but for cyclists as whole advice is to be careful around any vehicle, and more careful around heavy trucks & lorries.

That's actually the case.
Depending on the statistics you look at, in 50-60% of all cycling accidents (where the cyclist goes to hospital) there is no other party involved, the cyclist simply falls off their bike - due to slippery roads, holes, tracks, swerving to avoid something etc. It is in these kind of accidents that a helmet is useful.
Another 15-20% are accidents between two bicycles.

But 93% of all fatal bicycle accidents involve a motor vehicle. (See John Forester, Effective Cycling, Chapter 28). Those accidents are much less frequent, but much more dangerous.

stoneill

cdaly_ wrote: »

Got passed by a B&Q truck this morning. Large sign on the rear left:

"Cyclists! Danger!
Do not attempt to pass this truck if it is turning"

Useful stuff, should be on all trucks.

Some trucks have the "passing side" sign on the right and "suicide" sign on the left.

on_the_nickel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

alcyst

The surprising thing for me in the original article was the construction connection. Not sure why they would be so dangerous. Are they are under more time pressure than say, a food service delivery truck?
Would agree that cars seem much more aware in recent times. You will always get someone to misbehave (very tight overtaking, the famous overtake to pull in in front of you) but I often notice car drivers adjusting their angle to make a bit of space.

Wishbone Ash

alcyst wrote: »

The surprising thing for me in the original article was the construction connection. Not sure why they would be so dangerous

From my experience of the industry, and I hope I'm not offending anyone out there, but construction truck drivers (especially tipper drivers carrying soil, sand, gravel, stone etc) would be at the bottom end of the trucker food chain. They tend to be the least educated and least trained and their trucks are not required to meet the same standards as trucks in other industries. They also tend to be paid per tonne so there is a temptation to speed and overload to boost income.

Drivers in the haz chem and bulk food industry tend to be the best trained and best drivers. They have to undergo much more stringent training and test than a construction driver. Many of the premises they visit insist on very high standards regarding truck cleanliness and some will reject a truck for something as minor as a cracked indicator light.

One way to tell that a company takes safety standards seriously is to look at the wheel nuts. If they have the yellow plastic wheel nut movement indicators present it's usually a better sign than those who don't. Truck wheel nuts aren't like car wheel nuts and are supposed to be checked daily but very few drivers do it.

HivemindXX

When I was in school I used to live near a quarry so I have a lot of experience being passed by that kind of truck. Whatever about the quality of driving, the design of those trucks does not lend itself to cyclist safety. If you get overtaken by a standard 18 wheeler you will usually see rails all along the side which should ensure that if you get side swiped you bounce away from the truck. With a tipper truck you have nothing. If a truck like that side swipes you, then you are probably going under the wheels.

On another note, am I the only one who sees that blind spot video and wonders how it can be legal to drive such a clearly unsafe vehicle?

hardCopy

HivemindXX wrote: »

On another note, am I the only one who sees that blind spot video and wonders how it can be legal to drive such a clearly unsafe vehicle?

It's baffling really. With modern cameras and sensors there's no logical reason for blindspots to exist. No car should really be legal without full visibility at either side, but especially not such a large vehicle.

Iwannahurl

HivemindXX wrote: »

On another note, am I the only one who sees that blind spot video and wonders how it can be legal to drive such a clearly unsafe vehicle?

Possible reasons:

1. Vested/commercial interests.

2. The libertarian imperative to privatise risk.

3. Institutional inertia.

4. Cyclists (and pedestrians) don't matter as much as other road users.

Lawr

I don't think libertarian is the right word. Neo-Liberalism?

Wishbone Ash

HivemindXX wrote: »

a standard 18 wheeler

You're watching too much American TV. You'll rarely find standard 18 wheelers in Ireland. Articulated trucks here and in the rest of Europe use "super single" wheels on the trailer. The vast majority of "artics" here have 12 wheels - 6 on the tractor, 6 on the trailer.

(...and the trailers are 45 feet - not 40 feet as commonly thought.)

HivemindXX wrote:

you will usually see rails all along the side which should ensure that if you get side swiped you bounce away from the truck. With a tipper truck you have nothing. If a truck like that side swipes you, then you are probably going under the wheels

The rails on the sides of artics are designed to prevent car drivers from being decapitated if they T-bone the trailer at a junction. I doubt very much that they would be of any benefit to cyclists. The reason that tipper trucks don't have them is that there is a lot less empty space in a tipper as most have 4 axles which take up a lot of space and the chassis rails are lower down.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Possible reasons:

1. Vested/commercial interests.

2. The libertarian imperative to privatise risk.

3. Institutional inertia.

4. Cyclists (and pedestrians) don't matter as much as other road users.

I'd say the main reason is that consumers would be unwilling to pay more for their goods.

MrCreosote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd say the main reason is that consumers would be unwilling to pay more for their goods.

Ah now, tonight! I doubt adding a couple of reversing-type cameras would add much to the supermarket price of our horseburgers.

Wishbone Ash

MrCreosote wrote: »

Ah now, tonight! I doubt adding a couple of reversing-type cameras would add much to the supermarket price of our horseburgers.

I meant that if articulated trucks were banned due to the blind spots created when the tractor is at an angle to the trailer. Rigid trucks have less payload and therefore more expensive to operate.

EdRedbird

Again this might be useful for us that can.

However, can my fellow cyclists, please stick to the rules of the road as well.
Iejits that keep switching between two lanes and using full lanes without indicating... motorists/drivers are not clairvoyant either

OK just found this: http://dublincycling.com/node/365

Step 6
If the vehicle belongs to Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann then make a call before the close of the day to HQ or local garage to seek the retention of the in-cab CCTV footage for Garda inspection. This is crucial!

Dublin Bus: 59, Upper O’Connell Street, Dublin 1. Tel. No. 01-872 0000. The entry in commercial section of Eircom Directory gives numbers for each garage. Pick the one appropriate for your service.

Bus Eireann: HQ, Broadstone, Dublin 7. Tel. No. 703 3395.

Aircoach: Arrivals Level, Dublin Airport, Collinstown, Co. Dublin. Tel. No. 01-844 7118.

Wishbone Ash

EdRedbird wrote: »

Aircoach: Arrivals Level, Dublin Airport, Collinstown, Co. Dublin. Tel. No. 01-844 7118.[/B]

Interesting that Aircoach don't give the address of their depot in the Airport Business Park (where the office is located). I can't see the dispatcher at arrivals being much use in the event of an incident.

Iwannahurl

MrCreosote wrote: »

Ah now, tonight! I doubt adding a couple of reversing-type cameras would add much to the supermarket price of our horseburgers.

They could offset the cost of such safety measures by increasing their margins using cheap ingredients like donkey meat.

Win-win for me, as a cyclist who doesn't eat stuff such as cheap burgers.

EdRedbird

on_the_nickel wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

Assuming the lorry was indicating the cyclist should not have been there in the first place .

seamus

EdRedbird wrote: »

Assuming the lorry was indicating the cyclist should not have been there in the first place .

I'm sure that will be of great solace to the truck driver as he relives the experience of crushing another human being under his wheels time and time again.

The video is intended to be educational to both drivers and cyclists alike. It doesn't place blame anywhere.

EdRedbird

seamus wrote: »

I'm sure that will be of great solace to the truck driver as he relives the experience of crushing another human being under his wheels time and time again.

The video is intended to be educational to both drivers and cyclists alike. It doesn't place blame anywhere.

As in my other posts, it will not
But the focus is to much on drivers to watch pedestrians and cyclist.
To little on the responsibility of Pedestrians and Cyclists.

Maybe its a cultural thing, I had a cycle exam when going from Primary to secondary school, which would for most people in Holland mean a bigger commute which is done by bike.
the equivalent of the RSA would hammer on visibility (working lights) and point of view right of way.

If you cant see the driver.... he cannot see you
If you cannot see the driver via his mirrors ... he cannot see you
Before turning make eye contact, be sure they have seen you , and you have really seen their behavior intention.

I am surprised by how much courtesy I get from drivers simply by indicating, stopping/slowing down and making eye contact. 9 out of 10 times I get right of way when turning right from incoming traffic.

IMO its really that F ing simple: see and be seen, be friendly and considerate is an added bonus

Wishbone Ash

seamus wrote: »

The video is intended to be educational to both drivers and cyclists alike. It doesn't place blame anywhere.

I think that video would be more helpful if they didn't exaggerate the situation so much.

There are several things which appear to be used for dramatic effect.

1. The standard nearside mirrors appear angled incorrectly to avoid giving a wider view. (Bear in mind that truck mirrors are convexed and offer a much wider view pro-rata than a car mirror).

2. The inside camera pan avoids the cyclops mirror fixed above the nearside door. This would have picked up some of the cyclists.

3. The camera angle appears to be deliberately low. I've never sat in a truck with the dashboard so high. I suspect the air was dumped from the driver's seat before filming, again for dramatic effect.

4. They are using a Foden truck - a rariety on the roads. Why not use the much more commonplace Scania, Volvo, DAF, MAN etc.?

5. The truck is positioned in the right lane for the left turn - something which is often necessary to clear the corner (especially if the other road is narrow). What most drivers would do in a similar situation, where possible, would be to proceed up the left lane and then move the tractor across to the right lane at the lights leaving the trailer at an angle blocking both lanes. A cyclist may be able to get through but it gives a better signal of one's intention and prevents small vehicles from entering that space.

Iwannahurl

Is the video attempting to portray a worst-case scenario (in terms of visibility)?

For me the 'shock' value of the video was the apparent invisibility of the cyclists.

The real-world situation is that, regardless of the exceptions you describe, left-turning trucks are a huge hazard for cyclists.

Anything that deters them from entering the danger zone is worthwhile, perhaps.

EdRedbird

If My Bike was only a Bus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=frPUkXM42pI

DaveyDave

EdRedbird wrote: »

Assuming the lorry was indicating the cyclist should not have been there in the first place .

My thought's exactly. I always keep an eye out at turns for vehicles to see if any are indicating, if a cyclist is paying attention they will see a vehicle indicating well in advance. Blind spots aren't a problem for me because I know not to go in them in the first place. If traffic is matching the speed I am I tend to stay behind large vehicles even if it means slowing down a little because I can't pass them and don't like cruising beside large vehicles.

I take great care whenever I cycle along the quays from Heuston as traffic can be dodgy there and I usually go fast there. I've often seen too many commuters pushing themselves between buses or large vehicles at traffic. If you have to struggle to squeeze yourself in you shouldn't be there in the first place.

I like to hold my position on the road, go fast and don't let motorists push me aside but even I know when something is stupid.

Qualitymark

Just had a call asking for prayers for my buddy's son's friend; he was cycling in Dublin, hit a rock in the cycle lane and came off his bike, and has sustained severe head injuries.

The ambulance took 40 minutes to arrive, while telling his co-cyclist who phoned that they were "top priority".

buffalo

Qualitymark wrote: »

Just had a call asking for prayers for my buddy's son's friend; he was cycling in Dublin, hit a rock in the cycle lane and came off his bike, and has sustained severe head injuries.

The ambulance took 40 minutes to arrive, while telling his co-cyclist who phoned that they were "top priority".

Yikes, hope he recovers okay. Let us know.

kenmc

yeek, hope he gets well soon. fingers xxxd.

friend of mine reported on his friendface page thing he was taken out of it commuting home today too.....


by a cat.

EdRedbird

DaveyDave wrote: »

My thought's exactly. I always keep an eye out at turns for vehicles to see if any are indicating, if a cyclist is paying attention they will see a vehicle indicating well in advance. Blind spots aren't a problem for me because I know not to go in them in the first place. If traffic is matching the speed I am I tend to stay behind large vehicles even if it means slowing down a little because I can't pass them and don't like cruising beside large vehicles.

I take great care whenever I cycle along the quays from Heuston as traffic can be dodgy there and I usually go fast there. I've often seen too many commuters pushing themselves between buses or large vehicles at traffic. If you have to struggle to squeeze yourself in you shouldn't be there in the first place.

I like to hold my position on the road, go fast and don't let motorists push me aside but even I know when something is stupid.

Only undertake a lorry when you made eye contact with the driver and you are 100% sure he knows you are going into his blindspot and make sure you can get out of it in the one go .

I took another mirror of tonight. Known driver who has it in for the fact that I am faster than herself in traffic . Couple of warnings were given this is the last one... If she bothers me during the week the footage goes straight to the Garda...

I started mounting my mobile on my steeringwheel . I can record HD but find that the old SD is doing fine and it has plenty of storage space for a 2 hour cycle (battery is an bigger issue. I still have not finished the dynamo charger)
Handy if things go wrong

TonyStark

EdRedbird wrote: »

I took another mirror of tonight. Known driver who has it in for the fact that I am faster than herself in traffic . Couple of warnings were given this is the last one... If she bothers me during the week the footage goes straight to the Garda...

She hit you?

EdRedbird

TonyStark wrote: »

She hit you?

I had no option to avoid, seemed to bother her that i was faster.. Tried to cut me into the curb, which would have resulted in damage to bike and injury without her hitting me.

Basically she used her mirror to force me back / keep me behind... well that was her idea anyway.

And I am not an pushy alley-cat. I don't swerve to traffic, take right of way etc etc. yes I will undertake a line of traffic (It would be great if drivers actually keep that in mind and give the space especially if they overtook you 20s earlier... Bikes are actually allowed to undertake) If i cant I will overtake where safe visible to drivers and incoming traffic allow. Otherwise i will wait in line

hardCopy

EdRedbird wrote: »

Only undertake a lorry when you made eye contact with the driver and you are 100% sure he knows you are going into his blindspot and make sure you can get out of it in the one go .

I wouldn't, unless you're a long way from any turns or junctions. It's not worth chancing it, no matter how quickly you think you can get out of the way.

Qualitymark

EdRedbird wrote: »

Assuming the lorry was indicating the cyclist should not have been there in the first place .

Moi, I'd say a lorry shouldn't be on a city street.

EdRedbird

TonyStark wrote: »

She hit you?

hardCopy wrote: »

I wouldn't, unless you're a long way from any turns or junctions. It's not worth chancing it, no matter how quickly you think you can get out of the way.

When waiting for a traffic light? As long as I can get in front I would, with the knowledge he knows I am undertaking him. I have the odd one in the mainstreet in the morning and started signaling me it is ok. Friendly wave in the mirror and a hand up after being in front of him.

really most of the time its drivers not seeing you or not expecting your manouvre

I dont fancy being stuck beside one whether that's undertaking or being overtaken

Dermot Illogical

Qualitymark wrote: »

Moi, I'd say a lorry shouldn't be on a city street.

Why not?

Qualitymark

Dermot Illogical, lorries are too dangerous for city streets.

Dermot Illogical

Qualitymark wrote: »

Dermot Illogical, lorries are too dangerous for city streets.

Qualitymark, how should stuff get delivered to business without them?

galwaycyclist

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Qualitymark, how should stuff get delivered to business without them?

1. By directing them to urban redistribution centres where goods get transferred to smaller vehicles for final delivery

2. Where delivery must be by HGV then restricting that delivery to particular time windows that avoid, for instance, school travel hours.

3. By reducing the number of deliveries HGVs must make by finding ways to incentivise full loading or disincentivise sub-optimal cargo loads. For instance should companies that operate "just in time" stock management be required to pay a penalty based on,the number of delivery movements generated?