Truck dodging

jimmycrackcorm

Over the years I've read about cyclist deaths at left turn junctions. This morning on my commute I came up to an arctic stopping at a roundabout. There was a big gap to filter in the left, he had no indicator on so I assumed he was going straight on. He was stopped, I judged I had more than enough time to filter up to go straight aswell, I'd be quicker too getting on to the roundabout.

But I thought I wouldn't take any chances and went up on the pavement and as I pulled up in front, sure enough, he went left. No doubt many would recognise this with cars but I just thought I'd escaped a likely fatal scenario where I would be invisible despite it looking completely safe. I had the space and the arctic didn't indicate he was going left.

I'm only posting this because we don't get enough reminders for people who aren't aware that filtering up the side of a truck, especially an arctic is possibly the most dangerous thing you can do as a cyclist. I'm only aware of it because I read previous posts here taking about it and I got a very visible reminder today.

Lumen

Why did you go on the pavement?

Puggy

Timely reminder alright Jimmy, especially on those wet and dark mornings or evenings. I'd suggest you never go up the inside of a truck at a roundabout or junction, regardless of what they are indicating. If there are two lanes, take the other lane if it's safe. If you have to, there's no harm waiting behind the truck, because the driver often cannot see you.

cjt156

A very real danger there; exacerbated by the lack of indication from the driver. That standard of driving from a 'professional' driver is disgraceful, but all too common.

If he was approaching a roundabout without signalling he was, in fact, signalling that he was going straight ahead.

tomasrojo

Very good strategy just to wait behind buses and HGVs at junctions.

Even with a car at the head of the queue, I position myself just in front and barely to the left of the second vehicle where the driver of the second vehicle can see me (if I'm going left or straight on). If it isn't a long queue I wait at the back.

Probably over the top, but I find I do a lot of things by unthinking habit, so I try to get into habits that make for a quiet life.

sentient_6

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Over the years I've read about cyclist deaths at left turn junctions. This morning on my commute I came up to an arctic stopping at a roundabout. There was a big gap to filter in the left, he had no indicator on so I assumed he was going straight on.

Im just posting to say I stopped reading here.

eeeee

Puggy wrote: »

Timely reminder alright Jimmy, especially on those wet and dark mornings or evenings. I'd suggest you never go up the inside of a truck at a roundabout or junction, regardless of what they are indicating. If there are two lanes, take the other lane if it's safe. If you have to, there's no harm waiting behind the truck, because the driver often cannot see you.

This, this, a thousand times this. Never, ever go up the inside of a HGV at a junction or roundabout, indication or no indication. The driver 100% should have indicated, but there is no excuse, none at all for going up the inside of HGV's or coaches etc. at junctions, none at all. I just cannot fathom the reasoning, the risk to benefit does not add up in any way, shape or form. The delay to OP in waiting behind the HGV at the junction would have been negligible. And that's before footpad mounting! I think the only safe and reasonable advice is don't do it at junctions or roundabouts. Ever.

custom_build

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

arctic

I think it's artic as in articulated, unless he was hauling frozen goods

UDP

Unless traffic is at a standstill through the roundabout i.e. they cannot enter as they cannot exit, never filter at the entrance to roundabout (at least the first car if not 2-3 back depending on how they are moving) - always take the same lane as you would when driving to avoid being cut off. Doesn't matter if the vehicle in front of you is a bus, truck or a car.

longshanks

gadetra wrote: »

This, this, a thousand times this. Never, ever go up the inside of a HGV at a junction or roundabout, indication or no indication. The driver 100% should have indicated, but there is no excuse, none at all for going up the inside of HGV's or coaches etc. at junctions, none at all. I just cannot fathom the reasoning, the risk to benefit does not add up in any way, shape or form. The delay to OP in waiting behind the HGV at the junction would have been negligible. And that's before footpad mounting! I think the only safe and reasonable advice is don't do it at junctions or roundabouts. Ever.

No.

tomasrojo

longshanks wrote: »

No.

Round here they're footpads. And always will be.

longshanks

tomasrojo wrote: »

Round here they're footpads. And always will be.

No.

Wishbone Ash

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

... he had no indicator on so I assumed he was going straight on....

It's possible that the driver picked up the trailer and it may have had a faulty indicator. He may have pressed the indicator stalk in the tractor unit as normal without realising the trailer's wasn't working. (Trucks don't have the same double flashing that you get in a car when there is a fault). Some do have warning lights to show that the trailer's isn't working. Not excusing it but just saying it's not as simple when you're dealing with different trailers.

roverrules

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

he had no indicator on so I assumed he was going straight on.

As the baddy said in "Under Siege 2"

"Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups"

Hi Ho

There's a big change of thinking and culture needed on this (and perhaps legislation also).

The current 'official advice' from RSA etc is for cyclists and pedestrians 'avoid the blind spots' of trucks. Put another way, it's OK for truck drivers to carry on even if they can't see the bit of road they are driving over, and it's tough luck on any other road users who happen to be in that space. The very use of 'blind spots' acknowledges this - it acceptable for drivers to be 'blind' regarding other road users.

When you think about it, it's actually mind-boggling - that it's official advice/policy that it's up to other road users to speculate and anticipate what truck drivers can't see, and it seems to give a 'right' to these drivers to carry on regardless.

Court cases seem to support this - the "I didn't see him/her" had been accepted and drivers who have killed other road users (mainly cyclists) have been acquitted on this basis.

We all have to vigilant and practice self-preservation, but we shouldn't accept the principle that it's mainly our responsibility to be seen. No road user should have the right to travel over any part of a road without being sure that no other vulnerable road users are in that space.

Hi Ho

There's a big change of thinking and culture needed on this (and perhaps legislation also).

The current 'official advice' from RSA etc is for cyclists and pedestrians 'avoid the blind spots' of trucks. Put another way, it's OK for truck drivers to carry on even if they can't see the bit of road they are driving over, and it's tough luck on any other road users who happen to be in that space. The very use of 'blind spots' acknowledges this - it acceptable for drivers to be 'blind' regarding other road users.

When you think about it, it's actually mind-boggling - that it's official advice/policy that it's up to other road users to speculate and anticipate what truck drivers can't see, and it seems to give a 'right' to these drivers to carry on regardless.

Court cases seem to support this - the "I didn't see him/her" had been accepted and drivers who have killed other road users (mainly cyclists) have been acquitted on this basis.

We all have to vigilant and practice self-preservation, but we shouldn't accept the principle that it's mainly our responsibility to be seen. No road user should have the right to travel over any part of a road without being sure that no other vulnerable road users are in that space.

Hi Ho

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's possible that the driver picked up the trailer and it may have had a faulty indicator. He may have pressed the indicator stalk in the tractor unit as normal without realising the trailer's wasn't working. (Trucks don't have the same double flashing that you get in a car when there is a fault). Some do have warning lights to show that the trailer's isn't working. Not excusing it but just saying it's not as simple when you're dealing with different trailers.

Putting on an indicator doesn't confer a right of way. Too may think it does.

UDP

Hi Ho wrote: »

There's a big change of thinking and culture needed on this (and perhaps legislation also).

The current 'official advice' from RSA etc is for cyclists and pedestrians 'avoid the blind spots' of trucks. Put another way, it's OK for truck drivers to carry on even if they can't see the bit of road they are driving over, and it's tough luck on any other road users who happen to be in that space. The very use of 'blind spots' acknowledges this - it acceptable for drivers to be 'blind' regarding other road users.

When you think about it, it's actually mind-boggling - that it's official advice/policy that it's up to other road users to speculate and anticipate what truck drivers can't see, and it seems to give a 'right' to these drivers to carry on regardless.

Court cases seem to support this - the "I didn't see him/her" had been accepted and drivers who have killed other road users (mainly cyclists) have been acquitted on this basis.

We all have to vigilant and practice self-preservation, but we shouldn't accept the principle that it's mainly our responsibility to be seen. No road user should have the right to travel over any part of a road without being sure that no other vulnerable road users are in that space.

I don't agree with this. It is impossible for large vehicles to see every single part around their vehicle. Even if the vehicle has mirrors and cameras etc to see every part it would be next to impossible for the driver to watch all at the same time while checking ahead of them - by the time they have checked them all it is very possible someone has entered one of those spaces again. That is the reality of it. It is every road users' responsibility to be predictable on the road and not stupidly put themselves into dangerous positions - it is a shared space after all. Passing a vehicle (especially a large one) at a junction where the vehicle is likely to turn (especially roundabouts) or when there is tight space is a really bad idea. Yet every day cycling into Dublin I see people doing these stupid things because they think they have a right to progress on the road and do not want to be delayed by 30 seconds. Of course bad road design and forcing a lot of cyclists down roads such as those along the quays in Dublin really exacerbate this problem (not to mention the existence of cycle lanes).

crosstownk

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

so I assumed

Never assume anything.

Assumptions can kill.

ted1

Hi Ho wrote: »

There's a big change of thinking and culture needed on this (and perhaps legislation also).

The current 'official advice' from RSA etc is for cyclists and pedestrians 'avoid the blind spots' of trucks. Put another way, it's OK for truck drivers to carry on even if they can't see the bit of road they are driving over, and it's tough luck on any other road users who happen to be in that space. The very use of 'blind spots' acknowledges this - it acceptable for drivers to be 'blind' regarding other road users.

When you think about it, it's actually mind-boggling - that it's official advice/policy that it's up to other road users to speculate and anticipate what truck drivers can't see, and it seems to give a 'right' to these drivers to carry on regardless.

Court cases seem to support this - the "I didn't see him/her" had been accepted and drivers who have killed other road users (mainly cyclists) have been acquitted on this basis.

We all have to vigilant and practice self-preservation, but we shouldn't accept the principle that it's mainly our responsibility to be seen. No road user should have the right to travel over any part of a road without being sure that no other vulnerable road users are in that space.

I'm not going to play chicken with a 50 tonne vehicle. If it means losing 10 seconds then that's fair enough

OP why did you go up on the pavement ? That's for pedestrians and gives cyclists a bad name and makes non cyclists intolerant of cyclists

tom_tarbucket

Lumen wrote: »

Why did you go on the pavement?

Why are you asking this ?

tomasrojo

UDP wrote: »

It is every road users' responsibility to be predictable on the road and not stupidly put themselves into dangerous positions - it is a shared space after all. Passing a vehicle (especially a large one) at a junction where the vehicle is likely to turn (especially roundabouts) or when there is tight space is a really bad idea. Yet every day cycling into Dublin I see people doing these stupid things because they think they have a right to progress on the road and do not want to be delayed by 30 seconds.

I do agree that passing large vehicles on the inside at junctions is a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure that people do it mostly out of thoughtlessness or just ignorance. It's not obvious that truck bodies can swing right and then sharp left as they turn left, for example, if someone is new to cycling. Someone following on a bike could think that the truck is changing to the right lane and then end up trapped, especially where there are pedestrian barriers flanking the road. Quite a few people follow cycle lanes slavishly too, which often puts you on the inside of left-turning traffic; and I don't blame them for doing that either, because that's what our "experts" on road safety tell them to do.

We had a digression on the hi-viz thread discussing this all quite recently, actually, and it was pretty detailed (post 637 onwards, for a fair few pages).

ted1

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

Why are you asking this ?

Because bikes don't belong on pavements and it's one of the number one things that make people intolerant to cyclists

tom_tarbucket

ted1 wrote: »

Because bikes don't belong on pavements and it's one of the number one things that make people intolerant to cyclists

I bl00dy knew it. So some lad cycles on a pavement and it potentially saved his life from being crushed by a truck.....and all your worried about is him being on this pavement for a few seconds.....,.seriously.

ted1

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

I bl00dy knew it. So some lad cycles on a pavement and it potentially saved his life from being crushed by a truck.....and all your worried about is him being on this pavement for a few seconds.....,.seriously.

Jumping on the pavements leads to intolerance and puts other cyclists life's at risk.

tom_tarbucket

ted1 wrote: »

Jumping on the pavements leads to intolerance and puts other cyclists life's at risk.

Ah look we can't all be perfect and follow every rule all the time, does common sense come in to equation at all with you. i.e. I may get crushed by a truck, I think I'll go on the pavement for a few seconds just in case.

LollipopJimmy

crosstownk wrote: »

Never assume anything.

Assumptions can kill.

Makes an ass of you and me...

cython

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

Ah look we can't all be perfect and follow every rule all the time, does common sense come in to equation at all with you. i.e. I may get crushed by a truck, I think I'll go on the pavement for a few seconds just in case.

Common sense says just give the truck a wide berth and wait though. I mean even if you get ahead of the truck, plenty of people don't realise there is a blind spot straight in front of the truck, and you would often need to be actually out on the roundabout to be seen by the driver. If it so happens that the next gap (unless you plan on just going in spite of traffic, in which case common sense is out the window also) when you get in front is large enough for the truck to also progress, then you're still potentially under it due the driver not knowing you are in front of them.

tom_tarbucket

cython wrote: »

Common sense says just give the truck a wide berth and wait though. I mean even if you get ahead of the truck, plenty of people don't realise there is a blind spot straight in front of the truck, and you would often need to be actually out on the roundabout to be seen by the driver. If it so happens that the next gap (unless you plan on just going in spite of traffic, in which case common sense is out the window also) when you get in front is large enough for the truck to also progress, then you're still potentially under it due the driver not knowing you are in front of them.

If the pavement was an option and was only used for a few seconds, I don't see the issue. You do what you think is best at the time. Easy to think in hindsight.

roverrules

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

If the pavement was an option and was only used for a few seconds, I don't see the issue. You do what you think is best at the time. Easy to think in hindsight.

So if a car used a mandatory cycle lane for a few seconds to pass inside a car turning right you'd not have any objections then?

Mucco

UDP wrote: »

I don't agree with this. It is impossible for large vehicles to see every single part around their vehicle. Even if the vehicle has mirrors and cameras etc to see every part it would be next to impossible for the driver to watch all at the same time while checking ahead of them. <snip>

I'm not so sure about this, modern cars have enough proximity sensors to park themselves. Why can't HGVs be fitted with similar sensors to pick up cyclists when turning?

tom_tarbucket

roverrules wrote: »

So if a car used a mandatory cycle lane for a few seconds to pass inside a car turning right you'd not have any objections then?

If it was safe to do so and if it took the car driver out of a dangerous situation, then no, zero objections.

dreamerb

As a newbie commuter, a rather long time ago, I filtered up the inside of the occasional bus or lorry in stationary traffic. I got rid of that habit sharpish, when a lorry started moving before I expected, pulling over to the left. I had one of those "holy crap" moments, and I still don't remember whether I got out of it by braking like hell or a burst of speed - I suspect the former. it's a long time ago now, but I think there may have been a particularly unhelpful pedestrian guardrail on my left too.

tomasrojo's strategy (post 5) is a very sensible one, though depending on the junction I'm often happy to go right up to the front - if it's a junction and a light sequence I know well and am confident its not going to change while I'm getting there. In a very few cases, I'll specifically indicate that I'm going straight on - where I'm ahead of traffic in lane which is both left-turn and straight-on, for example. If there's a bike lane, I move out to take primary position, and indicate by pointing straight ahead (I tend to do this at Richmond street, northbound - lovely wide cycle lane but it keeps you on the left of traffic which may be turning left).

Wishbone Ash

Mucco wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this, modern cars have enough proximity sensors to park themselves. Why can't HGVs be fitted with similar sensors to pick up cyclists when turning?

You're assuming the cyclist is stationary. Most of these horrible accidents occur when a moving cyclist becomes entangled with a left turning truck. Parking type sensors would not be of any benefit as the accident would have occurred by the time the sensor activates- otherwise it could be argued that they should prevent most urban collisions.

(It would also be difficult to utilise them in articulated trucks as it would require all tractor units and trailers to be compatible. It's pointless having a state of the art tractor unit if you're sent to the docks to pick up a 15 year old trailer).

jimmycrackcorm

Lumen wrote:

Why did you go on the pavement?

It was roundabout, I was going straight, but there was a pedestrian crossing so I choose to use that instead of staying in the road.

petethedrummer

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

I bl00dy knew it. So some lad cycles on a pavement and it potentially saved his life from being crushed by a truck.....and all your worried about is him being on this pavement for a few seconds.....,.seriously.

You can not go up the inside of a truck AND not cycle on a footpath at the same time.

Cabaal

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

I bl00dy knew it. So some lad cycles on a pavement and it potentially saved his life from being crushed by a truck.....and all your worried about is him being on this pavement for a few seconds.....,.seriously.

He has a point, why not just wait behind the truck?

If we had a motorist claiming their decision to drive on the footpath rather then wait a few seconds we'd also be asking why a motorist was driving on the footpath.

Them simply claiming it saved their life is certainly not a valid excuse when they could have just as legally saved their life if they just bothered to wait, instead them doing what they want creates a free for all situations and the rules go out the window...all the time being justified by "well I could have ended up being dead".

Its hard to bitch about motorists breaking laws when you are perfectly fine with justifying cyclists breaking laws
:rolleyes:

As a cyclist I know I belong on the road and I'm happy to wait behind a truck at a junction if I know it reduces my chances of being crushed, waiting a few seconds is not the end of the world.

cython

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

If the pavement was an option and was only used for a few seconds, I don't see the issue. You do what you think is best at the time. Easy to think in hindsight.

This is the crux of the issue though, unless you are wither willing to dismount fully and walk (which there is no indication of the OP doing), or there is a cycle lane on it, then the pavement should simply never be routinely considered to be "an option". If a car (for example) passes you leaving you nowhere to go, then maybe you've no other option, but under normal circumstances, it's as simple as stay off it.


It's this a la carte attitude towards the law that some cyclists have that raises other road users' (and indeed my own as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver, to be fair) ire. And it's not a case of hindsight - there are any number of time on my commute where I could be met with a similar choice, and I would never have done what the OP did, out of both safety and adhering to the law.

Boskowski

Seriously lads. Have you just arrived in Ireland for the first time ever from Switzerland or so? How is it news that indicator or no indicator means absolutely nothing here? I dare say that even in this forum you would find people 'forgetting' about them when behind a steering wheel.

In fact even in countries where they are being used somewhat regularly and reliably, legally it means nothing. So you may as well treat them as if they didn't exist from your safety point of view. Especially being a cyclist or a biker.

Del2005

Hi Ho wrote: »

There's a big change of thinking and culture needed on this (and perhaps legislation also).

The current 'official advice' from RSA etc is for cyclists and pedestrians 'avoid the blind spots' of trucks. Put another way, it's OK for truck drivers to carry on even if they can't see the bit of road they are driving over, and it's tough luck on any other road users who happen to be in that space. The very use of 'blind spots' acknowledges this - it acceptable for drivers to be 'blind' regarding other road users.

When you think about it, it's actually mind-boggling - that it's official advice/policy that it's up to other road users to speculate and anticipate what truck drivers can't see, and it seems to give a 'right' to these drivers to carry on regardless.

Court cases seem to support this - the "I didn't see him/her" had been accepted and drivers who have killed other road users (mainly cyclists) have been acquitted on this basis.

We all have to vigilant and practice self-preservation, but we shouldn't accept the principle that it's mainly our responsibility to be seen. No road user should have the right to travel over any part of a road without being sure that no other vulnerable road users are in that space.

Add your reply here.

I can count on one hand the amount of cyclists I've seen with mirrors and I've never seen a cyclist doing a Life Saver before changing lanes.

While vehicle driver's have a responsibility to avoid other road users it's also everyone's responsibility to look after their own safety first and the unless you can see the other road users eyes they can't see you. If large vehicle drivers where as bad as you think they'd be way more carnage on our roads because people take the stupidest of risks when they see a large vehicle and it's only the skill of the majority of large vehicle drivers which keeps people safe.

RainyDay

Del2005 wrote: »

I've never seen a cyclist doing a Life Saver before changing lanes.

This says more about your own observation than anything else.

wench

Boskowski wrote: »

How is it news that indicator or no indicator means absolutely nothing here?

Well not absolutely nothing. It means the bulb works.

CramCycle

Del2005 wrote: »

I can count on one hand the amount of cyclists I've seen with mirrors and I've never seen a cyclist doing a Life Saver before changing lanes.

I have noticed a few not doing it but you also have to accept that with the far greater range of view that a cyclist has over a motorcyclist, a lifesaver may not be as noticeable.

UDP

CramCycle wrote: »

I have noticed a few not doing it but you also have to accept that with the far greater range of view that a cyclist has over a motorcyclist, a lifesaver may not be as noticeable.

I always look over my shoulder but you may not notice as I only turn my head slightly to see behind me.

Fian

tomasrojo wrote: »

Round here they're footpads. And always will be.

That thread actually deserves a Necro, but I will obey the dictates of the Mods who rule this fiefdom with aluminium fists and iron cleats - and resist.

CramCycle

Fian wrote: »

That thread actually deserves a Necro, but I will obey the dictates of the Mods who rule this fiefdom with aluminium fists and iron cleats - and resist.

MOD VOICE: We are the Borg

blamester

A little tip is if you look at the vehicles mirror and you can see the driver it means he can see you.
If you can't see him in the mirror he can't see you.
That obviously doesn't mean he has seen you because he may not look but you will know if you are in his blind spot.
Works if you are driving a car on say the motorway in his blindspot you can speed up or back off to get out of this dangerous area.