Don't get in drivers' blind spots

odyssey06

In relation to the blind spots, and other tips that can help 'novice' cyclists (especially those who aren't experienced road users e.g. they don't drive), how about a sticker campaign in locations (low on traffic lights, signposts etc) with one sentence tips?
Somewhere that a cyclists' eye line would be drawn to when stopped at lights (ok, assuming they stop)?
And maybe also beside Dublin bike stands, DART station, city centre bike locking stations etc

gadetra

gadetra wrote: »

Getting rid of HGV's from city centres is nonsense. Where are you going to build these depots? Who is going to pay for them? Goodbye greenbelt! And who is going to pay for 4 drivers instead of one, quadrupling the delivery traffic - and vans suffer significant blond spots too i might add - tax, insurance diesel, not to mention the environmental cost of it. And for what? Because a small subsection of road users can't understand blind spots?

No, because they are unpleasant, dangerous and damage the urban environment.

This isn't some sort of pie in the sky nonsense, Paris does it, you can read about it here: https://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/one-year-on-a-post-about-lorries-cyclists-and-paris-deja-vu/

It isn't a blanket ban, but it's aimed at restricting very large vehicles from city streets that they are not designed for anyway. From the article:

"HGV’s haven’t been banned from the Ville de Paris, there are however rules on when HGV’s can enter Paris. If a lorry has a surface area greater than 43m² it can’t enter Paris at all. If a vehicle is between 43m² and 29m² it can enter the city between 10pm and 7am. If it is less than 29m² entry is restricted to between 10pm and 5pm, in other words only excluded between 5pm and 10pm."

I am actually slightly mystified by your logic - do you think it is desirable to have HGVs in city centres?

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

This one is soley the reserve of cyclists. You just wouldn't get away with it in a car. Drive through red lights as routinely as some cyclists do and you'll either total your car or rack up 12 points quicker then you can say "Ban Me" and be put off the road.

So a cyclist can 'get away' with something that would 'total' a car? LOL. Do you even listen to yourself?

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

...This isn't some sort of pie in the sky nonsense, Paris does it...

Paris doesn't have a port/ferry terminals which makes it much easier.

A better example would be to identify a city on the coast which has a major port area.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Paris doesn't have a port/ferry terminals which makes it much easier.

A better example would be to identify a city on the coast which has a major port area.

The vast majority of HGVs from Dublin Port all drive immediately to the M50 via the port tunnel. Or at least they should.

monument

gadetra wrote: »

I said this before at that video but that is 100% cyclist error.

Maybe you had the sound off? Chinese police say that the fault is the driver's.

odyssey06 wrote: »

In relation to the blind spots, and other tips that can help 'novice' cyclists (especially those who aren't experienced road users e.g. they don't drive), how about a sticker campaign in locations (low on traffic lights, signposts etc) with one sentence tips?
Somewhere that a cyclists' eye line would be drawn to when stopped at lights (ok, assuming they stop)?
And maybe also beside Dublin bike stands, DART station, city centre bike locking stations etc

If you were to bother with something like that Dutch-style traffic light mirrors (which are placed at old design junctions or more confined junctions on busy streets) would be 100 times more useful.

Swanner wrote: »

This one is soley the reserve of cyclists. You just wouldn't get away with it in a car. Drive through red lights as routinely as some cyclists do and you'll either total your car or rack up 12 points quicker then you can say "Ban Me" and be put off the road.

Motorists breaking red lights happens all the time -- some times it results in Luas trams being hit and little girls being knocked down.

gadetra wrote: »

Getting rid of HGV's from city centres is nonsense. Where are you going to build these depots? Who is going to pay for them? Goodbye greenbelt! And who is going to pay for 4 drivers instead of one, quadrupling the delivery traffic - and vans suffer significant blond spots too i might add - tax, insurance diesel, not to mention the environmental cost of it. And for what? Because a small subsection of road users can't understand blind spots?

This kind of thing is already done in other cities, it's not as unworkable as you're making it out to be.

First, pedestrians also highly at risk from HGVs -- they are not a small subset of anything. Bicycles now accounts for nearly up to 30% of traffic at some Dublin city centre junctions.

HGVs are also usually highly polluting at a very local street level where people are packed into a relatively small space; there's also noise pollution and damage to narrow city centre streets.

The environmental costs of more smaller drop offs can be lowered because runs into the centre of city/town centres are done on more environmentally-friendly means (hybrids, full electricty, gas, cargo bike etc).

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

The vast majority of HGVs from Dublin Port all drive immediately to the M50 via the port tunnel. Or at least they should.

Yes - but some are unsuitable for tunnels/motorway bridges and some carry loads which are not permitted in tunnels. Some are delivering/picking up from businesses which have established in and around the port area or other areas within the city and 5 axle ban area and are therefore exempt.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Yes - but some are unsuitable for tunnels/motorway bridges and some carry loads which are not permitted in tunnels. Some are delivering/picking up from businesses which have established in and around the port area or other areas within the city and 5 axle ban area and are therefore exempt.

No HGV that is legal in ireland is unsuitable for the tunnel - this is a myth.

Your objection was that we had a port and Paris didn't. My point is that we built a tunnel to remove this issue.

Of course we can choose exactly what exemptions we want to put in place, but if we WANTED to we could direct all port traffic to the M50 without giving them a choice. I am not saying we should, just pointing out that the existence of the tunnel means we can do exactly what paris does if we so wished.

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

No HGV that is legal in ireland is unsuitable for the tunnel - this is a myth..

Some loads are unsuitable i.e. to high or too wide.

odyssey06

monument wrote: »

If you were to bother with something like that Dutch-style traffic light mirrors (which are placed at old design junctions or more confined junctions on busy streets) would be 100 times more useful.

They would be v helpful... Something to suggest to Dublin city council's new cycling czar if he makes himself available (like UPC do) on Boards...

eeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No HGV that is legal in ireland is unsuitable for the tunnel - this is a myth.

Your objection was that we had a port and Paris didn't. My point is that we built a tunnel to remove this issue.

Of course we can choose exactly what exemptions we want to put in place, but if we WANTED to we could direct all port traffic to the M50 without giving them a choice. I am not saying we should, just pointing out that the existence of the tunnel means we can do exactly what paris does if we so wished.

Not a myth but a fact. The port tunnel cannot take supercube trailers, which are standard in the UK and on the continent where the vast and overwhelming majority of HGV's are coming from off the boat. The port tunnel is 4 inches too small.

And at no point did I say HGV's are desirable in city centres :rolleyes: They are a nesessity. To people saying there are alternative means do you know how much actually fits in an artic? Even a rigid lorry can fit more pallets than a van due to ceiling height, also weight restrictions come into play.

If you want groceries and goods in shops in the cities for the same price as rural shops then you are going to have HGV's. I will ask again. Who do you think should pay for these depots? Upon what land are they going to be built? Who is going to pay for the site? Who is going to pay 4 drivers wages instead of 1? Who is going to pay for tax, insurance, maintenence and diesel for 4 vehicles instead of one? And you honestly can't think 4 vehicles produce less emissions than 1?! HGV's are built to be efficient now. It makes economic sense to design a lorry to use as little diesel as possible. They have been doing just that for years.

I find it incredible anyone can think you can ban HGV's from the city without any consequences. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not willing to pay more for my shopping because some people cannot look around them or look out for a blind spot.

As a cyclist you are traffic on the road and you sign up for that and all it entails, including dealing with pedestrians, cars, vans, and HGV's. In the city centre they go extremely slowly, they are big and slow, you can't possibly miss them. They affect you way more going at speed on a country road for example than moving slowly, highly visibly through a town.

Curfews are a happy medium I think.

Jawgap

gadetra wrote: »

......
I find it incredible anyone can think you can ban HGV's from the city without any consequences. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not willing to pay more for my shopping because some people cannot look around them or look out for a blind spot.

.......

So if it could be demonstrated that a HGV ban in a city or town centre could save just one life you'd be against it because you want cheap apples in January and day fresh milk?..........lovely!

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

So if it could be demonstrated that a HGV ban in a city or town centre could save just one life you'd be against it because you want cheap apples in January and day fresh milk?..........lovely!

And how many lives will cheap apples in January and "nutritious" day fresh milk save?
Remember, some of those HGVs will be carrying medicines and medical equipment.

I don't think that's a good argument to bring into any debate... Banning cycling in the city centre could reduce road traffic fatalities, for example, under that argument, because it's so open ended and almost impossible to add up all the side effects. Less HGVs means more smaller vehicles which means more traffic which means more pollution etc etc

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

And how many lives will cheap apples in January and "nutritious" day fresh milk save?
Remember, some of those HGVs will be carrying medicines and medical equipment.

I think you're exaggerating, are HGVs making daily deliveries of medicines to city centre hospitals? Or is it temperature controlled vans

The apples will still be nutritious, as will the milk, if it's two days old - plus we've lost the concept of seasonality in our food chain - paring it pack I'd say about 75% of HGVs deliveries in city centres are not essential - they are to support marketing and value attributes put about by retailers.

Anyway, diet-wise the Irish national diet wouldn't exactly miss the apples.

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think that's a good argument to bring into any debate... Banning cycling in the city centre could reduce road traffic fatalities, for example, under that argument, because it's so open ended.

It's the usual story here - 'change, we fear it' - as a society we are great with coming up with reasons not to do things, be it bans on smokey coal, plastic bag levies, smoking bans, the LUAS, one-way flows on the Quays in Dublin, the narrowing of O'Connell Street - there's always the doomsayers who say it will never work, it will cost humungous amounts of money. Of the course they forget that people adapt, systems adapt and life goes on.

jinkypolly

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's blatantly obvious that a significant proportion of cyclists think that traffic laws are optional for them. And if you think it isn't, you don't have your eyes open in Dublin city centre. Just stand at any significant junction during rush hour.

If you want stats... here you go... from Dublin, two thirds of cyclists don't stop at red lights.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-cyclists-dont-stop-at-red-lights-29436118.html

As it happens I think cyclists should be able to turn left on red - if there are no pedestrians. It might make them less likely to dodge their way at speed through pedestrians crossing at a busy junction with a green man.

FFS, :pac:
Well there you have it...

But in one short 20-minute period, between 11.37am and 11.57am, on Friday we spotted 21 bike riders who broke the lights and only nine came to a stop and obeyed the rules of the road.

...case closed.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

It's the usual story here - 'change, we fear it' - as a society we are great with coming up with reasons not to do things, be it bans on smokey coal, plastic bag levies, smoking bans, the LUAS, one-way flows on the Quays in Dublin, the narrowing of O'Connell Street - there's always the doomsayers who say it will never work, it will cost humungous amounts of money. Of the course they forget that people adapt, systems adapt and life goes on.

What I mean is that the "will save one life" justification in an argument implies that the only factor to consider in any decision is safety to the exclusion of all others - time, expense, convenience, practicality. I'm interested in what is the best decision assessing all the factors and impacts.

For example, in the current scenario, we're talking about the problems caused by sharing roadspace between HGVs and bicycles. The "will save one life" argument just as easily supports banning bicycles as banning HGVs. For example, one could argue that HGVs supply essentials such as food, medicines (I've seen Boots HGVs), etc - therefore if we're going to ban one thing to reduce road traffic casualties, it should be cyclists as they are the most vulnerable and don't service an essential purpose.

Disclaimer... that's not my argument or position, I'm playing devil's advocate here.

gadetra

gadetra wrote: »

Not a myth but a fact. The port tunnel cannot take supercube trailers, which are standard in the UK and on the continent where the vast and overwhelming majority of HGV's are coming from off the boat. The port tunnel is 4 inches too small.

And at no point did I say HGV's are desirable in city centres :rolleyes: They are a nesessity. To people saying there are alternative means do you know how much actually fits in an artic? Even a rigid lorry can fit more pallets than a van due to ceiling height, also weight restrictions come into play.

If you want groceries and goods in shops in the cities for the same price as rural shops then you are going to have HGV's. I will ask again. Who do you think should pay for these depots? Upon what land are they going to be built? Who is going to pay for the site? Who is going to pay 4 drivers wages instead of 1? Who is going to pay for tax, insurance, maintenence and diesel for 4 vehicles instead of one? And you honestly can't think 4 vehicles produce less emissions than 1?! HGV's are built to be efficient now. It makes economic sense to design a lorry to use as little diesel as possible. They have been doing just that for years.

I find it incredible anyone can think you can ban HGV's from the city without any consequences. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not willing to pay more for my shopping because some people cannot look around them or look out for a blind spot.

As a cyclist you are traffic on the road and you sign up for that and all it entails, including dealing with pedestrians, cars, vans, and HGV's. In the city centre they go extremely slowly, they are big and slow, you can't possibly miss them. They affect you way more going at speed on a country road for example than moving slowly, highly visibly through a town.

Curfews are a happy medium I think.

I don't want to BAN them, I want them to be controlled (as they are in fact).

Supercube trailers are not legal in Ireland.

Dublin's experiment with controlling HGVs has been a huge success in terms of quality of life, and other cities and towns should follow suit.

Your worries about depots etc etc are frankly just a little odd. Most of them exist already. Most businesses do deliver in smaller vehicles when you get down to the local level because it makes economic sense.

Jawgap

Well the IRHA seems comfortable enough with the idea of each fatality costing about €1 million, and they seem satisfied with a benchmark for accidents of two incidents per million kilometres - so I suppose we're stuck with HGVs in cities until some judge decides to increase the tariff attributable to a life.

monument

odyssey06 wrote: »

What I mean is that the "will save one life" justification in an argument implies that the only factor to consider in any decision is safety to the exclusion of all others - time, expense, convenience, practicality. I'm interested in what is the best decision assessing all the factors and impacts.

For example, in the current scenario, we're talking about the problems caused by sharing roadspace between HGVs and bicycles. The "will save one life" argument just as easily supports banning bicycles as banning HGVs. For example, one could argue that HGVs supply essentials such as food, medicines (I've seen Boots HGVs), etc - therefore if we're going to ban one thing to reduce road traffic casualties, it should be cyclists as they are the most vulnerable and don't service an essential purpose.

Disclaimer... that's not my argument or position, I'm playing devil's advocate here.

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the save one life argument, but your so-called "devil's advocate argument" stinks to high hell.

1. Banning bikes would have direct and indirect negotiate health impacts.

2. An increase in cycling had been linked to a decrease in general road traffic deaths in Dublin City by traffic gardai.

3. The idea that cycling does not "service an essential purpose" is outright nonsense -- just like the Dutch before it, Dublin is now relying on cycling to service the transport needs of a growing population and growing workforce. Alternatives to large trucks can be safer and less polluting -- there's no realistic alternatives to bicycles which do the same.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Less HGVs means more smaller vehicles which means more traffic which means more pollution etc etc

That's not the experance in places in Europe which has have low to zero emission vehicles replacing HGVs.

gadetra wrote: »

They are a necessity To people saying there are alternative means do you know how much actually fits in an artic? Even a rigid lorry can fit more pallets than a van due to ceiling height, also weight restrictions come into play.

If you want groceries and goods in shops in the cities for the same price as rural shops then you are going to have HGV's. I will ask again. Who do you think should pay for these depots? Upon what land are they going to be built? Who is going to pay for the site? Who is going to pay 4 drivers wages instead of 1? Who is going to pay for tax, insurance, maintenence and diesel for 4 vehicles instead of one? And you honestly can't think 4 vehicles produce less emissions than 1?! HGV's are built to be efficient now. It makes economic sense to design a lorry to use as little diesel as possible. They have been doing just that for years.

I find it incredible anyone can think you can ban HGV's from the city without any consequences.

I find it incredible that we're still using the "we're different" / "Dublin's different / Ireland is different.

Nobody is saying it would be easy or cost free but other cities manage it and you're not really giving any good reasoning why "we're different" works in this case... As another poster mentioned we've already got that excuse for bus lanes, the bus gate, DublinBikes, Luas, O'Connell St, etc.

gadetra wrote: »

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not willing to pay more for my shopping because some people cannot look around them or look out for a blind spot.

As a cyclist you are traffic on the road and you sign up for that and all it entails, including dealing with pedestrians, cars, vans, and HGV's. In the city centre they go extremely slowly, they are big and slow, you can't possibly miss them. They affect you way more going at speed on a country road for example than moving slowly, highly visibly through a town.

If you're actually reading the thread there's more than one good reason to ban HGVs from city centres:

Safety for pedestrians
Unsuitable narrow city streets
Congestion added to because the above
Less noise pollution
Less air pollution (when you follow best examples)
Less damage to city centre streets

gadetra wrote: »

Curfews are a happy medium I think.

Might be more believable if we did not have large HGVs delivering to the likes of M&S on narrow busy streets in the middle of the day.

It might be more believable if truck manufactures did not screen and kick to avoid the redesign of future trucks so that they would be safer.

odyssey06

monument wrote: »

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the save one life argument, but your so-called "devil's advocate argument" stinks to high hell.
1. Banning bikes would have direct and indirect negotiate health impacts.
2. An increase in cycling had been linked to a decrease in general road traffic deaths in Dublin City by traffic gardai.

In the next 10 years, someone on a bike will die in an accident with a HGV in Dublin city centre. Banning bikes in the city centre would "save one life".
The devil's argument of "just one life" does not consider if other actions will save more lives, or if the solution has indirect side effects of causing more deaths, or if there is a cheaper\practicable\efficient\timely way to save the life. All it considers is that its direct action will save 1 life. Which is why I'm saying it's a bad argument and yes, it stinks to high hell, so please people stop using it as a justification.

monument

odyssey06 wrote: »

Which is why I'm saying it's a bad argument and yes, it stinks to high hell, so please people stop using it as a justification.

Your apprent "devil's advocate argument" stinks far, far, far more.

Other cities have already implemented full city-centre HGV bans and they work. It's not just theory.

Banning cycling would have clear and fairly well established negative health and safety impacts.

RainyDay

New RSA / Garda campaign to warn cyclists about truck blind spots

http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-rsa-and-garda%C3%AD-target-new-campaign-cyclists-and-hgv-drivers

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/610402238658424832

Cookie_Monster

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.

while I understand you will get some blind spots regardless, the lower mirror on that is set really badly. There has to be some allowance for truckers not setting mirrors correctly to maximise viewing angle, even if it is only a minor part of the equation.

buffalo

I'm loving the Sam Browne belt in the front row - effective and not at all likely to fall off and get caught on something.

SpaceTime

Basically if you can't make eye contact with the driver there's a fair chance they can't see you. That's my rule of thumb!

Cantona's Collars

SpaceTime wrote: »

Basically if you can't make eye contact with the driver there's a fair chance they can't see you. That's my rule of thumb!

Tell that to the woman who cycled out in front of me on a roundabout Saturday evening,the old stare straight ahead trick and pretend the car isn't there does not make you immune to getting killed.The others in her group that did stop didn't seem too impressed with what she did.

learn

Another sad case, http://www.northjersey.com/news/cresskill-boy-13-killed-after-bike-is-struck-by-tractor-trailer-school-community-stunned-1.1357307

galwaycyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

New RSA / Garda campaign to warn cyclists about truck blind spots

http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-rsa-and-garda%C3%AD-target-new-campaign-cyclists-and-hgv-drivers

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/610402238658424832

Hmm are we now to understand that there is more to cycling safety than wearing a plastic hat and retro-reflective clothing?

And are we also meant to understand that wearing such clothing is manifestly pointless if your road position is such that you cannot be seen by other drivers using the recommended observation methods?

Interesting.

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

New RSA / Garda campaign to warn cyclists about truck blind spots

http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2015/minister-donohoe-rsa-and-garda%C3%AD-target-new-campaign-cyclists-and-hgv-drivers

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/610402238658424832

Faked?

(As in, the wide shot and the shot from the cab are not the same scenario. Important message a bit undermined by exaggerating, unintentionally, the difficulties truck drivers have in seeing cyclists.)
http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/29/rsa-accused-of-faking-video-of-bicycles-hidden-in-truck-blindspot/

CramCycle

jinkypolly wrote: »

FFS, :pac:
Well there you have it...

...case closed.

Interestingly, Prime Times report a few weeks back took two weeks of counting, and found a minority of cyclists, i.e. less than 50%, but they never went as far as to give a definitive number.

Not sure if that's better than an openly biased, I wish I was Jeremy Clarkson, journalist columnist taking a 20 minute snapshot