Don't get in drivers' blind spots

learn

http://www.independent.ie/videos/have-you-seen/video-cyclist-cheats-death-after-being-run-over-by-14wheel-truck-30852350.html

D!armu!d

How about don't try to overtake/run over a cyclist who's going straight on through a junction when you want to turn right?

NiallBoo

I think it would be nice if lorries were equipped with side and rear cameras as standard, clear up this whole blind-spot thing altogether.

You'd think that it wouldn't be such a big extra cost. If buses can have them so the driver can see who's smoking, it must not be too much?

Pinch Flat

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it would be nice if lorries were equipped with side and rear cameras as standard, clear up this whole blind-spot thing altogether.

You'd think that it wouldn't be such a big extra cost. If buses can have them so the driver can see who's smoking, it must not be too much?

Or if they could fit the mirrors they're meant to have

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2011/HGV-and-Class-VI-mirrors/

Wishbone Ash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Or if they could fit the mirrors they're meant to have

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2011/HGV-and-Class-VI-mirrors/

That's for cyclops mirrors which are fitted to the front of a truck to enable the driver to see pedestrians/cyclists who cross immediately in front of the truck when it is stopped in heavy start/stop traffic. Those mirrors don't aid visibility in side blind spots.

eeeee

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.

Those mirrors aren't infallibale Pinch Flat, you can't look everywhere at the same time. It's very simple, almost all vehicles have a blind spot. Don't cycle in it. the end! Seriously though, I see cyclists cycling up the inside of HGV's in town all the time, or shimmy-ing up the inside to get a head at lights. They are the biggest, slowest and frequently loudest vehicles on the road. You cannot miss them at a junction! Seriously!

As to the cameras, yes good idea but you can't drive ahead and look at them at the same time. Driving a lorry in a city/town is a scary experience. Cyclists disappear around the cab and you can't see where they are or when or where they go. I think awareness and consideration is needed on both sides, but having experience in both worlds here is definitely less awareness, knowledge and consideration from cyclist to HGV's than the other way round. There are dicky HGV drivers obviously, they're not all super considerate and safe but the vast and overwhelming majority are in my experience.

whupdedo

@niallbo


It seems a bit silly to enforce trucking companies to spend money on cameras that aren't needed just because some idiot on a bike can't wait a few minutes or can't take the proper precautions to enable them to complete their journey safely without getting caught in a vehicles blind spot, every lorry has a blind spot, and cyclists who are unaware of this shouldn't be on the road

Crumbs868

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Or if they could fit the mirrors they're meant to have

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2011/HGV-and-Class-VI-mirrors/

You would do well to find a lorry which doesn't have the mirror in your link. Standard on all new trucks and a DOE fail for the last 3 years

Next time a bit of research would be advised before posting ill informed blanket insinuations about an industry

Pinch Flat

http://youtu.be/Y9E1_1M-qhU

Should be watched by all cyclists. As a regular myself I would never get up the inside of a hgv or a bus for that matter but I'm surprised the amount that do.

Jawgap

whupdedo wrote: »

@niallbo


It seems a bit silly to enforce trucking companies to spend money on cameras that aren't needed just because some idiot on a bike can't wait a few minutes or can't take the proper precautions to enable them to complete their journey safely without getting caught in a vehicles blind spot, every lorry has a blind spot, and cyclists who are unaware of this shouldn't be on the road

......and perhaps drivers who don't take account of that fact in how they operate their vehicles should, equally, not be on the road?

The Guards (and RSA, I think) ran an exercise in Dublin recently where cyclists were invited to sit in the cab of a truck to get the 'driver's eye view' - that was a good idea.

What would have made it better would have been rounding up a few HGV drivers and sticking them on bikes so they can see things from the cyclist's perspective - but there again, that would have played against the narrative of cyclists' behaviour being the only behaviour in need of correction.

Pinch Flat

Crumbs868 wrote: »

You would do well to find a lorry which doesn't have the mirror in your link. Standard on all new trucks and a DOE fail for the last 3 years

Next time a bit of research would be advised before posting ill informed blanket insinuations about an industry

But does this not only apply to newer trucks? There are still plenty of older ones that escape this requirement due to their age

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/coroner-calls-for-law-on-truck-mirrors-190533.html

Open to correction as ever though.

bucketybuck

Pinch Flat wrote: »

But does this not only apply to newer trucks? There are still plenty of older ones that escape this requirement due to their age

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/coroner-calls-for-law-on-truck-mirrors-190533.html

Open to correction as ever though.

No, you are incorrect. Older trucks need to have the cyclops mirrors retro-fitted for DOE test. We have been fitting these for a few years now, with the oldest truck we done being a 1996 reg.

whupdedo

Jawgap wrote: »

......and perhaps drivers who don't take account of that fact in how they operate their vehicles should, equally, not be on the road?

The Guards (and RSA, I think) ran an exercise in Dublin recently where cyclists were invited to sit in the cab of a truck to get the 'driver's eye view' - that was a good idea.

What would have made it better would have been rounding up a few HGV drivers and sticking them on bikes so they can see things from the cyclist's perspective - but there again, that would have played against the narrative of cyclists' behaviour being the only behaviour in need of correction.

I agree, there are bad motorists as well as cyclists, but cyclists have the option to hang back in traffic to wait for a lorry to move on from a junction, they also have pretty much 360 vision which a trucker doesn't have, and a trucker can only be responsible for what he sees and what he can anticipate, cyclists have a clear advantage in city commuting, and should be more alert around lorries than they currently are

Pinch Flat

bucketybuck wrote: »

No, you are incorrect. Older trucks need to have the cyclops mirrors retro-fitted for DOE test. We have been fitting these for a few years now, with the oldest truck we done being a 1996 reg.

Ok thanks for claryfying that.

JPF82

If you are a cyclist or any other road user, look at the mirrors of the lorry. If you can't see the driver in them, chances are they can't see you.

Regardless of how much right you have to be in a certain position, there's no point being right if you're dead!

All road users make errors at some stage. All categories of users have those who are crap / inconsiderate.

I'm a casual cyclist myself as well as a petrol head. There has to be understanding from all sides.

Wishbone Ash

Jawgap wrote: »

......The Guards (and RSA, I think) ran an exercise in Dublin recently where cyclists were invited to sit in the cab of a truck to get the 'driver's eye view' - that was a good idea.

What would have made it better would have been rounding up a few HGV drivers and sticking them on bikes so they can see things from the cyclist's perspective - but there again, that would have played against the narrative of cyclists' behaviour being the only behaviour in need of correction.

I don't think that would be particularly effective as I have no doubt the vast majority of truck drivers, if placed on a bicycle, would be very aware of where they position themselves in relation to blind spots. I used to drive buses and trucks and always felt that it was I who had to take most of be safety precautions and compromise when it came to cyclists and junctions. The left turn from Dorset Street to Gardiner Street could be particularly difficult as it had to be approached wide to make the turn. Many cyclists took this space as an opportunity to proceed. It's a horrible feeling seeing a cyclist disappear from view and waiting for them to come into sight again and that's in daylight - think about an unlit cyclist at night.

It doesn't even have to be a truck. An over the shoulder check can't be carried out in a van so the driver is totally reliant on their nearside mirror. Even worse visibility again in a van with panelled rear doors or a full bulkhead.

JPF82

If you are a cyclist or any other road user, look at the mirrors of the lorry. If you can't see the driver in them, chances are they can't see you.

Regardless of how much right you have to be in a certain position, there's no point being right if you're dead!

All road users make errors at some stage. All categories of users have those who are crap / inconsiderate.

I'm a casual cyclist myself as well as a petrol head. There has to be understanding from all sides.

Jawgap

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I don't think that would be particularly effective as I have no doubt the vast majority of truck drivers, if placed on a bicycle, would be very aware of where they position themselves in relation to blind spots. I used to drive buses and trucks and always felt that it was I who had to take most of be safety precautions and compromise when it came to cyclists and junctions. The left turn from Dorset Street to Gardiner Street could be particularly difficult as it had to be approached wide to make the turn. Many cyclists took this space as an opportunity to proceed. It's a horrible feeling seeing a cyclist disappear from view and waiting for them to come into sight again and that's in daylight - think about an unlit cyclist at night.

It doesn't even have to be a truck. An over the shoulder check can't be carried out in a van so the driver is totally reliant on their nearside mirror. Even worse visibility again in a van with panelled rear doors or a full bulkhead.

It's about perspective - I don't doubt that most drivers know their blind spots and check them religiously - it's about artic drivers experiencing what cyclists experience when a truck is in their immediate vicinity.

I just felt that as valuable and all that the exercise no doubt was it can be filed under the same heading as hi-viz and helmets in the cabinet marked "Cyclists are really the problem."

tomasrojo

whupdedo wrote: »

It seems a bit silly to enforce trucking companies to spend money on cameras that aren't needed just because some idiot on a bike can't wait a few minutes or can't take the proper precautions to enable them to complete their journey safely

"Idiot" is harsh. Many people who go up the inside are just inexperienced. And going up the inside of motorised traffic is, to say the least, a very common practice. A novice wouldn't know that it's a much worse idea when the other vehicle is a bus or truck.

It does get a mention here, but it's a tiny mention compared with all the helmet boosting (complete with dubious 85% efficacy claim) and hi-viz boosting:
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf

You'd never know that not passing a HGV or truck on the inside at a junction is easily in the top five most important bits of safety advice you'll get.

(Quite poor punctuation in that document too. Commas in the wrong place, commas instead of full stops, "and or" instead of "and/or"; that sort of thing.)

Wishbone Ash

Jawgap wrote: »

... it's about artic drivers experiencing what cyclists experience when a truck is in their immediate vicinity.....

I'd imagine most truck drivers would come away from that wondering why on earth cyclists would place themselves in such danger. There's not really much a truck driver can do to change the environment or his position for the turn. As has been said earlier, a cyclist has 360 degree visibility and is on a vehicle with high manoeuvrability.

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Idiot" is harsh. Many people who go up the inside are just inexperienced...

+1 .....and many of the fatalities from such incidents are female.

Jawgap

Of course one easy way to help sort this out would be to allow cyclists to make a left turn on red......

.....of course this will immediately be conveyed by certain lobbies as cyclists being permitted to 'jump' red lights - Although I'm not sure that if such a turn could be done legally that it would actually constitute 'jumping' but some mouth-breathers would always see it that way even if the law was changed.

Anyway, one of the reasons it can't be implemented is because of the danger of breaking the internet from the postings that would no doubt follow the proposal and implementation of such a measure.

Saipanne

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.

Those mirrors aren't infallibale Pinch Flat, you can't look everywhere at the same time. It's very simple, almost all vehicles have a blind spot. Don't cycle in it. the end! Seriously though, I see cyclists cycling up the inside of HGV's in town all the time, or shimmy-ing up the inside to get a head at lights. They are the biggest, slowest and frequently loudest vehicles on the road. You cannot miss them at a junction! Seriously!

As to the cameras, yes good idea but you can't drive ahead and look at them at the same time. Driving a lorry in a city/town is a scary experience. Cyclists disappear around the cab and you can't see where they are or when or where they go. I think awareness and consideration is needed on both sides, but having experience in both worlds here is definitely less awareness, knowledge and consideration from cyclist to HGV's than the other way round. There are dicky HGV drivers obviously, they're not all super considerate and safe but the vast and overwhelming majority are in my experience.

That makes far too much sense. Its better that everyone else changes their behaviour.

Jawgap

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd imagine most truck drivers would come away from that wondering why on earth cyclists would place themselves in such danger. There's not really much a truck driver can do to change the environment or his position for the turn. As has been said earlier, a cyclist has 360 degree visibility and is on a vehicle with high manoeuvrability.


..........

As I said it's as much about vicinity / proximity as it is about blind spots - like yourself if I'm coming down the R132 I don't get to choose whether or not a truck overtakes me - plus how close he chooses to overtake me is largely determined by the driver - I can shift left only so far.

Same way a truck and me on a roundabout - I don't get to choose the line the driver takes through the roundabout - particularly on the exit. All you can do is back off and stay as clear as you can, but that doesn't mean you'll get clear every time.

bucketybuck

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Idiot" is harsh. Many people who go up the inside are just inexperienced. And going up the inside of motorised traffic is, to say the least, a very common practice. A novice wouldn't know that it's a much worse idea when the other vehicle is a bus or truck

To be honest if a supposedly rational human being can't immediately see that it might be a bad idea to sit in the blind spot of a HGV, then I'm sorry but idiot really is the correct word. Some things should be blindingly obvious.

tomasrojo

bucketybuck wrote: »

To be honest if a supposedly rational human being can't immediately see that it might be a bad idea to sit in the blind spot of a HGV, then I'm sorry but idiot really is the correct word. Some things should be blindingly obvious.

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

Beer Assistant

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://youtu.be/Y9E1_1M-qhU

Should be watched by all cyclists. As a regular myself I would never get up the inside of a hgv or a bus for that matter but I'm surprised the amount that do.

Worst place in the city for this squeezing up the inside of large vehicles is just before the front entrance of Trinity where the pedestrian crossing is located, not a day goes by where a cyclist doesn't squirms up the inside one foot on the path leaning left to squeeze by, idiots just looking to get squashed.

trek climber

Is it just me, but I found that video clip hard to watch

bucketybuck

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

Being a novice does not automatically mean losing the ability to open your eyes and see what is obvious.

Unknown Soldier

I tried find a full version of that video last night but failed. Did the cyclist go up the inside? Or was he there and then the truck came along?

It seems the truck driver has been "charged" over the incident


+1 on never going up the side of a very large vehicle. Ever.
I learnt that in the most scariest way imaginable. I still shudder at the thought of what might have been. 'twas a bad judgement call on my behalf

galwaycyclist

bucketybuck wrote: »

To be honest if a supposedly rational human being can't immediately see that it might be a bad idea to sit in the blind spot of a HGV, then I'm sorry but idiot really is the correct word. Some things should be blindingly obvious.

What seems obvious to you and me is not always obvious to others. Clearly there are people on bikes who are also drive and have done a test and understand blind spots and still insist on going up on the inside of HGVs at really stupid places.

But there are also people cycling who have never driven and have never recieved any instruction other than "wear a helmet" and "always keep in to the left" and who could be forgiven for believing this is all they need to do to keep safe.

Also for some of us, our awareness of cab blind spots comes from playing with toy cars and toy trucks when we were younger. Ballpark, there is about 50% of the population who were less likely to be given toy trucks as Christmas presents and who missed that lesson as a result.

Jawgap

bucketybuck wrote: »

Being a novice does not automatically mean losing the ability to open your eyes and see what is obvious.

Of course it does, because not all dangers are so obvious.

Experience teaches us, for example, not to assume that a stopped HGV with no turning signal might not go straight ahead. The driver might be turning and simply have forgotten to put the indicator on, or he might cut the corner rather than pull wide while making the turn - that is not something that is immediately obvious, and can only be gained by experience and observation.

Novices respond to signals / stimuli and make unnecessarily optimistic assumptions, about their safety and their mortality. Experience teaches us to temper our assumptions and think in terms of contingencies ('what if') rather than simply respond to the obvious. Also some responses which appear counter-intuitive can only be learned through the benefit of experience (yours, or someone who communicates it to you).

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.

Experience will also teach you which routes are fast, which are safe and which aren't.

galwaycyclist

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

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.

gadetra

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

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

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

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.

galwaycyclist

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

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

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.

gadetra

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.

gadetra

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

[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

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

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.

Swanner

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

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

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

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

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

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.