# HGV Posters In London



## Jezston (1 Nov 2010)

I was in London visiting family this weekend, and saw this poster an awful lot:







I have to say, if HGVs really can't see that much around them, what the f*** are we doing letting them drive around our inner cities?

Why the hell are TFL deciding how dangerous these vehicles are, and instead of either demaning they do something about the amount of blind spots around their vehicles, or just keeping these things out of built up urban areas, they put a load of posters up telling cyclists to be careful around them, thus passing on the responsibility to the potential victims?

It's like putting posters up aimed at young women saying "don't wear that little skirt, there are loads of rapists about" or something.

FFS.


----------



## Simba (1 Nov 2010)

While I do agree with you about HGV's on urban roads, they are unfortunately a necessary evil to everyday life. My heart is always in my mouth when I see a cyclist undertaking anything on four wheels, let alone something as big as a bus or HGV.


----------



## fossyant (1 Nov 2010)

Don't see a problem with it (the poster).......... there are plenty of stupid cyclists that go up the inside of trucks/busses - some really simple messages need to be put over - this is fairly easy to understand. 

Driving/cycling - you need to be aware of both your vehicle's blind spot and those of other vehicles....


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Nov 2010)

Jezton
Don't be a knob!
Road safety is the responsibility of ALL road users.
Unfortunately many cyclists are simply unaware of the dangers of going-up the inside of vehicles at junctions particularly busses and trucks. In fact many so called 'cycle-lanes' even encourage this manoever to get to the head of the queue.

A truck is a difficult thing to drive and manoever in a city and a bike is a small swift moving object in comparison that can appear inside a truck and then under it or crushed against barrierswithin seconds without even the best truck driver noticing. If cyclists don't ride-up the inside of trucks particularly at left turns, they're not likely to get flattened.

At least TFL and this poster are trying to improve the situation and educate both cyclist and truck driver. 

Mosts cyclists fatalities in London are due to trucks. A little education all-round is a good thing.


----------



## Davidc (1 Nov 2010)

I agree that there should be action over having these monsters on urban roads, and that action should be taken over blindspots.

BUT

I don't find any problem at all with the advert. It is providing basic information. There's no question of "thus passing on the responsibility to the potential victims", we all have to take our part of the responsibility for our own well being, and this is helping to provide the information needed for cyclists to do just that. TfL is the advertiser, and as such is taking a small part of its responsibility for road safety.

Even if we did away with motor vehicles and all goods traffic on the roads were horse or human drawn there would still be a need for cyclists to understand how to avoid being killed or injured by carts and drays. (They were, and did need educating).

You and I may already know about the risks from LGVs, both being people who read about cycling related issues. Many of those seeing these adverts will be cyclists who don't understand the risks. If just one person sees that ad and as a result doesn't undertake a lorry then it's a good thing.

Edit: While I was writing this FF posted - I have to say I agree with hin, including his first line.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

Good poster.

There's a second valuable lesson to be learned.

Squint, and the riders in PURPLE disappear.  


Jimbo's Second rule of cycling.

2/ Wear bright clothing and display lamps at night.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (1 Nov 2010)

TfL say - "All of these bikes are in the driver's blind spot."

So let's encourage them to get in that position!







Nice work TfL.

(From here).


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

Thankfully all post 2000 reg HGVs will not have such a poor mirror array and the driver will be able to see more. I'm also not convinced the nearside mirrors are correctly adjusted/set-up in the TFL mock-up.

As I've said many times before, the problem of cyclists* in front *of the HGV is not being addressed and this is a major flaw in the campaign, IMO. 

There also needs to be more educational work done with HGV dirvers and we need to get more contractors to sign up to the FORS scheme (at the very least).


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Nov 2010)

Another call to ban HGVs from city roads - great, so we'll have hundreds of vans tearing around instead, more traffic, and more fumes.

The poster is good, and there are hundreds of muppets out there on bikes who should take heed of it...


----------



## DrSquirrel (1 Nov 2010)

Cost.

Get HGVs off the road (time, size, location), cost of anything they transport will go up.

They already complain about fuel prices going up (considering they pass on the cost to us).


And... I doubt anyone goes riding around in a HGV for shoots and giggles.

I would focus on the single seat occupancy issue with cars, and 1 mile trips to get a paper etc first.


----------



## Jezston (1 Nov 2010)

Ok, I do understand the issue of muppets undertaking lorries and buses, but the thing that really shocked me about that poster is how HUGE a lorry drivers blind spot is presented as being.

Is it really the case that three meters out from the entire length of a lorry is invisible to the driver?

If that really is the case, shouldn't something be done about _that_?


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Nov 2010)

They are doing stuff about it - more driver training, laws that force new trucks to have more mirrors.

But there will always be blind spots, and some of them can be quite big, even with all the extra mirrors, so cyclists need to be educated too

Better they think the whole of the inside is the danger zone than they think it's ever OK to sneak up the inside


----------



## clarion (1 Nov 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> If cyclists don't ride-up the inside of trucks particularly at left turns, they're not likely to get flattened.



I'm afraid tht's untrue, and I'd be very surprised if you haven't either come close to being left-hooked by a truck steaming past you and turning across, or had one pull into your lane without checking.

The cyclist deaths in London are mainly of people who had trucks pull up alongside them, who forgot about the cyclist who had formerly been in front.

It's about six weeks since I was in court giving evidence in the case of a young man who, almost two years ago, had a truck drive over his pelvis in a left hook. Although he is riding again, he can't yet get back to commuting. The driver got five points on his licence so he didn't quite lose it, what with the speeding conviction and the one for using a mobile phone since he ran over one of us!

On Friday, I gave a man my details for a case where an artic pulled into his lane and came close to knocking him and the baby in the child seat to the ground. I have, of course, complained to the company, and reported it to the Roadsafe website.

But I see so much cyclist education on this issue, and almost bugger all done with drivers. It's disproportionate.


----------



## snailracer (1 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Ok, I do understand the issue of muppets undertaking lorries and buses, but the thing that really shocked me about that poster is how HUGE a lorry drivers blind spot is presented as being.
> 
> *Is it really the case that three meters out from the entire length of a lorry is invisible to the driver*?
> 
> If that really is the case, shouldn't something be done about _that_?


Unfortunately, yes. As soon as the cab turns, all the mirrors are directed uselessly at the side of the trailer.

There are some experimental lorries with arrays of ultrasonic "reversing sensors" mounted along the side of them. They are cheap and IMO should be made mandatory-fit.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 Nov 2010)

Jezton, you're missing the fact that the cab has turned - at that stage, all the nearside mirrors will be showing is the side of the trailer.

It's a good poster, and I'm pleased to see that TfL is doing a lot of education on this topic. They were sticking cards on parked bikes the other day.


----------



## Black Sheep (1 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> I was in London visiting family this weekend, and saw this poster an awful lot:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Over time lorrys and vans have got bigger as more transported in one load keeps costs down. 

Many companies are sending more freight by rail (Eddie Stowbarts have a couple of trains now!) but the last part of the journey has to be on the road to get to the final destination.

the size increase has grown little by little, and on the whole, most HGV drivers seem to know what they are doing and are proficient and professional, unfortunately mistakes happen.




fossyant said:


> Don't see a problem with it (the poster).......... there are plenty of stupid cyclists that go up the inside of trucks/busses - some really simple messages need to be put over - this is fairly easy to understand.
> 
> Driving/cycling - you need to be aware of both your vehicle's blind spot and those of other vehicles....




Indeed, two separate issues - HGV blindspots for the driver and people not knowing better putting themselves in danger - poster being aimed at the latter. The poster is intended to educate cyclists that cycling up the left of an HGV is a stupid place to be - some of them have read the highway code about not going up the left side of a turning HGV, some haven't - if the poster saves a handful of lives by educating cyclists to be aware of this danger then it is good. 



The side issue of visibility from the cab is something that does need to be addressed, presumably though driver training and better mirror arangements / cameras or sensors


----------



## summerdays (1 Nov 2010)

snailracer said:


> Unfortunately, yes. *As soon as the cab turns, all the mirrors are directed uselessly at the side of the trailer*.
> 
> There are some experimental lorries with arrays of ultrasonic "reversing sensors" mounted along the side of them. They are cheap and IMO should be made mandatory-fit.



Interesting point that I had never considered before, although I have taken advantage of one of those things when you sit in the cab to see what the driver's view is like.


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Nov 2010)

People are assuming there is less driver education when this is most likely not the case - how many of you have been to truck stops or read trucking magazines? Am sure there is loads of stuff for them too.

Perhaps skip lorry drivers could do with a bit more though!!!!


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Ok, I do understand the issue of muppets undertaking lorries and buses, but the thing that really shocked me about that poster is how HUGE a lorry drivers blind spot is presented as being.
> 
> Is it really the case that three meters out from the entire length of a lorry is invisible to the driver?
> 
> If that really is the case, shouldn't something be done about _that_?



As I said earlier, that HGV is not representative of all HGVs as it does not need to compy with stricter post 2000 EU regulations. So "yes", that particular HGV might well not be able to see all of the cyclists in that exact moment, but HGVs with the full complement of mirrors (wide angle, close proximity etc) would see more. I am also questioning whether the nearside mirror was optimally adjusted. IMO, this is creative licence by the TFL team in order to highlight the problem - whether this exaggeration is a good thing or not, is another issue.

Finally, this is a snap-shot of a manoeuvre: before moving right if the HGV driver had checked his mirrors, he would have seen far more of those cyclists on his nearside.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> As I said earlier, that HGV is not representative of all HGVs as it does not need to compy with stricter post 2000 EU regulations. So "yes", that particular HGV might well not be able to see all of the cyclists in that exact moment, but HGVs with the full complement of mirrors (wide angle, close proximity etc) would see more. I am also questioning whether the nearside mirror was optimally adjusted. IMO, there is a bit of creative licence by the TFL team in order to highlight the problem - whether this exaggeration is a good thing or not, is another issue.
> 
> Finally, this is a snap-shot of a manoeuvre: before moving right if the HGV driver had checked his mirrors, he would have seen far more of those cyclists on his nearside.



Agreed. Later Model Year trucks should have a Convex Safety Mirror.

The trucker, is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has to take a wide line to negotiate the turn without putting the trailer wheels on the footpath, and in by getting into a suitable position, cyclist ride up the inside.

In the poster, the trucker has turned his cab in the direction he intends to move, ( and should be indicating with amber flashing lamps ). 

It is not only London where this happens. London has a greater cycle commuter population so TfL are doing something to educate cyclists.

The poster DOES NOT say enough. It contains clues, as I have described, to indicate to the cyclists the truckers intention. These clues are way too cryptic and prob not seen by the cyclists who would ride up the inside.

A big curved arrow above the truck wouldn't have gone amiss.

I hope TfL scan the web for comments on this kind of thing.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> People are assuming there is less driver education when this is most likely not the case - how many of you have been to truck stops or read trucking magazines? Am sure there is loads of stuff for them too.
> 
> Perhaps skip lorry drivers could do with a bit more though!!!!



Zim, have you got any info/links to poster campaings in Truck mags, as I'd like to see how the freight industry handles the issue.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (1 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Ok, I do understand the issue of muppets undertaking lorries and buses, but the thing that really shocked me about that poster is how HUGE a lorry drivers blind spot is presented as being



Better to present it as that big anyway.

Saying "all these can't be seen except the cyclist in red and the one in green right at the back who might possibly be seen so you're probably okay to go there but no further" wouldn't be sensible

Better just to say "all that space to the left of the lorry - KEEP OUT"


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Zim, have you got any info/links to poster campaings in Truck mags, as I'd like to see how the freight industry handles the issue.




No, I don't. All I'm saying is that I assume they would have something, it's just unlikely it would be posters like the ones aimed at cyclists on bus stops and stuff, it's more likely they'll have stuff in truck stops and magazines...


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Better to present it as that big anyway.
> 
> Saying "all these can't be seen except the cyclist in red and the one in green right at the back who might possibly be seen so you're probably okay to go there but no further" wouldn't be sensible
> 
> Better just to say "all that space to the left of the lorry - KEEP OUT"



It's important to remember that HGV drivers can put you in their nearside blidspots by poorly judged overtakes - these are potentially v dangerous on the approach to junctions. Either slam on the brakes or if that fails try to mount the kerb in order to avoid being left-hooked.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Nov 2010)

It's also worth remembering that a blind spot doesn't have to be somewhere the driver can't see at all. Those convex blind spot mirrors - which every truck I've ever driven has been fitted with - are good, but you don't get a great view in them and a cyclist can easily be missed in them. This is especially the case if the mirrors are speckled with rain and it's dark and all you can see in the mirrors are lights. If an ad like this stops cyclists riding up the inside of lorries, it's a good thing. 

And besides, if tfl had just made an ad featuring a single bike next to the cab, there'd be plenty of people out there who would think they were safe while next to the trailer ...


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> People are assuming there is less driver education when this is most likely not the case - how many of you have been to truck stops or read trucking magazines? Am sure there is loads of stuff for them too.
> 
> Perhaps skip lorry drivers could do with a bit more though!!!!


spot on. TfL and the police have been getting the message across to HGV drivers for about four years. And yet.........artics are the minority offenders. It's construction traffic, and particularly skip lorries that post the greatest threat.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> And besides, if tfl had just made an ad featuring a single bike next to the cab, there'd be plenty of people out there who would think they were safe while next to the trailer ...



Or directly in front of the cab (no Class VI mirror).


----------



## gaz (1 Nov 2010)

One thing to look at.. how many HGV's do you see in central london during commuting hours?
I bet it's single figures for the week.


----------



## galaxy1 (1 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> TfL say - "All of these bikes are in the driver's blind spot."
> 
> So let's encourage them to get in that position!
> 
> ...




That's a point,that's where the cycle lanes would be so, if it's dangerous to ride in the cycle lane why have it there?


----------



## DrSquirrel (1 Nov 2010)

galaxy1 said:


> That's a point,that's where the cycle lanes would be so, if it's dangerous to ride in the cycle lane why have it there?



Aye, would make sense to end it earlier but it would make a mess.

What would be better here is an ASL to get the bikes all the way to the front.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (1 Nov 2010)

DrSquirrel said:


> What would be better here is an ASL to get the bikes all the way to the front.



How would that be better? 

Either you're in front of him anyway (and I'm also wondering about Origamist's comments - could you clarify - is it that if you are too close to the front of the cab you are invisible as the line of sight is not straight down?) or you need to ride up the inside to get to the front; in which case you run the risk of the lights changing as you do so and you're in the same position.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

There is a question hanging over this poster. Was the truck at the junction first, or the cyclists?

Truck first, the cyclists should observe the trucks direction indicator lamps and hang back.

Cyclists first, the truck should stop at the rearmost of the cyclists and not move until all cyclists are clearly over the junction.



OK, so this doesn't happen at present. I hope TfL expand on the procedure.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Or directly in front of the cab (no Class VI mirror).




I could well be mistaken, but I think I read somewhere that the very largest artics have a whopping five metre blind-spot in front of the cab. Is this correct?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (1 Nov 2010)

DrSquirrel said:


> What would be better here is an ASL to get the bikes all the way to the front.



What would be better is to get rid of the blue paint completely - witness Gaz's videos for countless examples of the lanes encouraging cyclists into the danger zones up the insides of buses, HGVs, etc. Of course the cyclists are being stupid, but frankly the road markings are just an incentive. They give the illusion of safety. 

This is, of course, in addition to the evidence that shows drivers pass cyclists closer when they are in cycle lanes. 

If these kind of lanes are to be provided at all there must be segregation.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> How would that be better?
> 
> Either you're in front of him anyway (and I'm also wondering about Origamist's comments - could you clarify - is it that if you are too close to the front of the cab you are invisible as the line of sight is not straight down?) or you need to ride up the inside to get to the front; in which case you run the risk of the lights changing as you do so and you're in the same position.



Here's a pic of what I'm talking about - more cyclists need to know about this blindspot: 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16114972@N00/5135985084/

I'll hang back behind a HGV if it's at the front of a queue - ASZ or no ASZ.

@Slowmotion - I'm not sure of the precise measurements, but that figure would not surprise given the dimensions of certain HGVs and their cabs.


----------



## upsidedown (1 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Here's a pic of what I'm talking about - more cyclists need to know about this blindspot:
> 
> http://www.flickr.co...N00/5135985084/
> 
> ...



Too right. And i will only pass it in slow moving traffic if the other oncoming lane is clear and if i'm sure he hasn't got to pass me again ie i can finish my journey or turn off before it catches up.

That photo's unbelievable, i knew they had a decent sized blindspot out the front window but i had no idea it was that big. Cheers for posting.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (1 Nov 2010)

upsidedown said:


> That photo's unbelievable, i knew they had a decent sized blindspot out the front window but i had no idea it was that big. Cheers for posting.



Yeah, one of those 'oh, that makes sense' when you see it, because the cab is so high, but something you don't realise until it's brought to your attention!


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Here's a pic of what I'm talking about - more cyclists need to know about this blindspot:
> 
> http://www.flickr.co...N00/5135985084/
> 
> ...



Very much agree. Even if he's going forward.


----------



## Norm (1 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Here's a pic of what I'm talking about - more cyclists need to know about this blindspot:
> 
> http://www.flickr.co...N00/5135985084/
> 
> ...


Although, with reference to some of the earlier comments about legislative changes, that photo does show the mirror above the windscreen on the near side that, if the driver used it, would show eliminate the "blindspot".

I still don't ride up either side and I'm even wary of passing one on the motorbike, where the speed has me out of the danger zone in a fraction of the time that it would take cycling.


----------



## clarion (1 Nov 2010)

Mirrors only offer visibility to those drivers using them.

I deliberately try to make eye contact with truck drivers, and it is astonshing how many are not looking round, or are preoccupied by something in the cab, whether that is a phone, food, fag (less often these days), paperwork, or whatever.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Nov 2010)

There are some interesting blindspot diagrams here....

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/forum/discussion/598/hgv-blind-spots-from-nozzer/


but they don't show the one at the front too well.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

Norm said:


> *Although, with reference to some of the earlier comments about legislative changes, that photo does show the mirror above the windscreen on the near side that, if the driver used it, would show eliminate the "blindspot".*
> I still don't ride up either side and I'm even wary of passing one on the motorbike, where the speed has me out of the danger zone in a fraction of the time that it would take cycling.



Correct - it has a class VI mirror which is compulsory on all NEW large lorries put on the road since 1st January 2007. Older lorries do not have to have one fitted though. Once again, these images/awareness events are not 100% accurate (far from it) re: HGV blindspots - it's more about highlighting the general dangers posed by vehicles that have restricted fields of view and can kill you at crawling pace.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2010)

surely the blind spot is drawn at street level. In other words if your head is (say) 1.6 metres above the ground the driver can see at least part of you, even if you're just a couple of metres in front of the cab.

I realise that in all these things the onus on the truck driver is very great, and it all your hopes and assumptions only have to fail the once, but I do look back at truck drivers when I'm stationary, and I don't recall ever thinking 'I'm too near to be seen'. 

I'm going to check it out in the next traffic jam I'm in, though.

As a general rule (and I stand to be put straight on this)
a) if I arrive at the traffic lights or stop sign before the truck I'll be way out in the middle of the lane, so there's no chance of him or her going round me and turning left. If I'm riding with somebody else that person will probably be on my left hand side and I'll let her have a couple of seconds start on me
b) if I arrive after the truck then I stay behind it. If the truck is in the right hand lane of a two lane carriageway I'll still watch the front wheels for any inkling of a turn to the left.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Nov 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> As a general rule (and I stand to be put straight on this)
> a) if I arrive at the traffic lights or stop sign before the truck I'll be way out in the middle of the lane, so there's no chance of him or her going round me and turning left. If I'm riding with somebody else that person will probably be on my left hand side and I'll let her have a couple of seconds start on me
> b) if I arrive after the truck then I stay behind it. If the truck is in the right hand lane of a two lane carriageway I'll still watch the front wheels for any inkling of a turn to the left.



Sounds reasonable to me. It's about all you can do, really.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> surely the blind spot is drawn at street level. In other words if your head is (say) 1.6 metres above the ground the driver can see at least part of you, even if you're just a couple of metres in front of the cab.
> 
> I realise that in all these things the onus on the truck driver is very great, and it all your hopes and assumptions only have to fail the once, but I do look back at truck drivers when I'm stationary, and I don't recall ever thinking 'I'm too near to be seen'.
> 
> I'm going to check it out in the next traffic jam I'm in, though.



It really depends on the vehicle though and the height/design of the cab - with most rigid tippers IME you can be quite close to the front of the HGV and the driver can still see you (I'm 189cms though) - however, I've been in front of some cabs (usually huge artics) where the cab is high and the driver's seat is set back and I could not see them. For this reason, if one pulls up being me at traffic lights I get eye contact and/or wave - if I can't, I move forward until I do.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Nov 2010)

Remember that video of the tanker lorry pushing a car along a dual carriageway? That's how big the blindspot can be. If you're in front of something with "DAF 95" written on the front of it, the driver probably can't see you. Older DAF 95s have a massive blind spot.


----------



## summerdays (1 Nov 2010)

These are some photos I took last year when I had the chance to get up in the cab of a lorry:



















I can even see my bike leaning against the back of the lorry in photos 1,4 and 5 (by using the mirrors - its the one with the red pannier).


And as others have said ... if a lorry pulls up behind me at a junction then I'm likely to pull forward over the line if I think they are a bit close.


----------



## DrSquirrel (1 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> What would be better is to get rid of the blue paint completely - witness Gaz's videos for countless examples of the lanes encouraging cyclists into the danger zones up the insides of buses, HGVs, etc. Of course the cyclists are being stupid, but frankly the road markings are just an incentive. They give the illusion of safety.
> 
> This is, of course, in addition to the evidence that shows drivers pass cyclists closer when they are in cycle lanes.
> 
> If these kind of lanes are to be provided at all there must be segregation.



I was going to suggest getting rid of the lanes, but the point is they're supposed to be uninterupted (in terms of direction). But this could be done by putting the little square markers down instead.

If you stop the lane back, how far do you stop it? Do you then suggest cyclists should stop 3 cars from lights... considering a bunch don't even stop for a red light?

I do agree with you though.



SavageHoutkop said:


> How would that be better?
> 
> Either you're in front of him anyway (and I'm also wondering about Origamist's comments - could you clarify - is it that if you are too close to the front of the cab you are invisible as the line of sight is not straight down?) or you need to ride up the inside to get to the front; in which case you run the risk of the lights changing as you do so and you're in the same position.



That happens currently with all ASLs anyway... but surely if someone does decide to go up the inside, wouldn't it be better that they actually have somewhere safe to go (yes I realise there is a blind spot in front).

If a light does change... that is the time said driver should check the mirrors up the sides... and at this point the cab should be inline with the trailer thus the whole side is visible.

I do think it would be better if there was chainsaws down the sides of lorries anyway


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

summerdays said:


> These are some photos I took last year when I had the chance to get up in the cab of a lorry:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. If a truck pulls up beside me, I'll scoot forward and look back to check he's seen me. I'll look at him for quite a while and check the cleanliness of my right hand fingernails in his nearside headlamp beam. 

A nutty cyclist doing strange things seems to attract their attention.


----------



## summerdays (1 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Yes. If a truck pulls up beside me, I'll scoot forward and look back to check he's seen me. I'll look at him for quite a while and check the cleanliness of my right hand fingernails in his nearside headlamp beam.
> 
> A nutty cyclist doing strange things seems to attract their attention.



By the time I had done all of that, I would have ended up holding him up quite a while after the lights turned green probably neither considerate or safe.


----------



## Peter10 (1 Nov 2010)

If we remove HGV's from the inner city, we might as well just wait over night as the city crumbles. Without HGV's there would be at least 3x as many vehicles in the city (probably more). How many vans will it take to carry 1 HGV load? I think the poster is actually quite effective personally.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Nov 2010)

Peter10 said:


> If we remove HGV's from the inner city, we might as well just wait over night as the city crumbles. Without HGV's there would be at least 3x as many vehicles in the city (probably more). How many vans will it take to carry 1 HGV load? I think the poster is actually quite effective personally.



You are assuming that the HGV is actually operating efficiently, i.e carrying a large load to single or several locations in the same area. Neither may be true. Break-bulk type systems may not necessarily increase the overall numbers of vehicles that much if you look at the reality of how large lorries actually operate. 

On the poster, yes, it seems pretty effective. However, I would like to see as much effort being put into to educating others about cyclists.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Nov 2010)

clarion said:


> I'm afraid tht's untrue, and I'd be very surprised if you haven't either come close to being left-hooked by a truck steaming past you and turning across, or had one pull into your lane without checking.
> 
> The cyclist deaths in London are mainly of people who had trucks pull up alongside them, who forgot about the cyclist who had formerly been in front.
> 
> But I see so much cyclist education on this issue, and almost bugger all done with drivers. It's disproportionate.



Yes agreed, I should have said LESS likely as am aware of the London accident situations. Rushed post this morning in indignation.  However greater awareness of the issue will help more cyclists stay alive.

Education may be disproportionate, but this is a start at least. 
Cyclists have most to loose here. Awareness, road positioning and a lot of the cyclecraft stuff would help.etc etc. I'm will dellzeqq here on hanging-back, giving them a wide berth or taking the lane where necessary. Fear can be a healthy thing.
How to get the message through to HGV drivers is another matter... though it may be happening.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Ok, I do understand the issue of muppets undertaking lorries and buses, but the thing that really shocked me about that poster is how HUGE a lorry drivers blind spot is presented as being.
> 
> Is it really the case that three meters out from the entire length of a lorry is invisible to the driver?
> 
> If that really is the case, shouldn't something be done about _that_?


Jezston, the point I think they are trying for is...just because a lot of riders do it...doesnmt make it safe or right...so dont follow the sheep.

In that respect, I'd say its a good ad...it'd be better if one rider was on the right (just in view) and the add said "only one rider was riding safely...can you spot them"


----------



## ianrauk (1 Nov 2010)

The poster is ok but not brilliant. It needs to have a more direct message. ie Go up here and you may die! It is something rather then nothing.
I am constantly amazed at the amount of cyclists on a daily basis taking risks going up the inside of lorry's, buses and even left turning cars. It's a staggering amount. And I don't think its ignorance more likely arrogance. it's not just fair weather cyclists either, it's experienced commuters. I did say to one cyclist who tried to go up inside of a lorry not to do it as that is how cyclists are killed. He just shouted at me he can look after himself.



Myself and the cyclist behind couldn't believe what we heard.

And you only have to look at this video from Mikey to see the arrogance I am talking about.

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12fMTAQyXTI[/media]




But, as what other posters have said, Lorry drivers are not blamless. I think we have all seen or been on the receiving end of a Lorry overtaking either too close and/or not knowing what they are going to do after overtaking ie turning left ahead.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Nov 2010)

ianrauk

That video says it all really, guy nearly gets himself killed, mikey tells him how it is and then... he cycles up the inside of the truck  
No amount of posters are gonna help shoot-for-brains like that.


----------



## davefb (1 Nov 2010)

Peter10 said:


> If we remove HGV's from the inner city, we might as well just wait over night as the city crumbles. Without HGV's there would be at least 3x as many vehicles in the city (probably more). How many vans will it take to carry 1 HGV load? I think the poster is actually quite effective personally.




paris might be bad, but i'd hardly say it crumbles..


ban hgv from unsuitable roads lets face it most hgv are aiming for out of town anyway. even if it was just the french 'during these hours' surely thats a solution?

as for the viewing, i think this is a failure that for a long time it seemingly hasnt been recognised as a 'design need' by either makers or regulators. cars have ncap stars for safety for driver AND peds/cyclists, ie removal of 'hard bits that kill pedestrians' so are there ncap stars for cabs ( or relatively small wagons like that cab above) ?? do they include issues like visibility??

i guess the driver would be moved back for his safety, but that creates the space where you can't see... friend drives hgv ( main job driving instructor and he had a student who was cycling killed by a truck years ago) he says theres a number of designs like lower cab heights and 'more like american' style ones. also some of his cabs have tv cameras to cover those gaps as well as the mirrors. i mean, cctv down the side, that'd cost rock all...


----------



## clarion (1 Nov 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> Yes agreed, I should have said LESS likely as am aware of the London accident situations. Rushed post this morning in indignation.  However greater awareness of the issue will help more cyclists stay alive.
> 
> Education may be disproportionate, but this is a start at least.
> Cyclists have most to loose here. Awareness, road positioning and a lot of the cyclecraft stuff would help.etc etc. I'm will dellzeqq here on hanging-back, giving them a wide berth or taking the lane where necessary. Fear can be a healthy thing.
> How to get the message through to HGV drivers is another matter... though it may be happening.




Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

summerdays said:


> By the time I had done all of that, I would have ended up holding him up quite a while after the lights turned green probably neither considerate or safe.




The message here was, "Do something to catch the truck driver's attention, not stop for a manicure."  

You lot have very little imagination and a serious inability to think in a situation.
It's all that reading "How to" books.  They disconnect your initiative.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Nov 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> ianrauk
> 
> That video says it all really, guy nearly gets himself killed, mikey tells him how it is and then... he cycles up the inside of the truck
> No amount of posters are gonna help shoot-for-brains like that.




Maybe he was just an adrenaline junkie missing his wing suit and a cliff in Norway????


----------



## jimboalee (1 Nov 2010)

Love that vid. That guy looked like he lost both his brakes in the rain.

Of course he wouldn't say so much. It might make him look stupid not knowing how braking disappears in the wet.

Love that vid. The soundtrack makes the 'bent sound like it's got a 500 cu Hemi.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Nov 2010)

clarion said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree.


----------



## davefb (1 Nov 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Maybe he was just an adrenaline junkie missing his wing suit and a cliff in Norway????



isnt there a cycle lane to the left ? using the other bridge arch ? ?

could easily have got past the wagon


----------



## Black Sheep (1 Nov 2010)

DrSquirrel said:


> I was going to suggest getting rid of the lanes, but the point is they're supposed to be uninterupted (in terms of direction). But this could be done by putting the little square markers down instead.
> 
> If you stop the lane back, how far do you stop it? Do you then suggest cyclists should stop 3 cars from lights... considering a bunch don't even stop for a red light?
> 
> ...



this (not just this post) seems to assume that cyclists should filter through traffic. I never use ASL's I just can't be bothered to weave up the left hand side in the gutter to put myself infront of a car who wants to set off from the lights as quick as possible, I just take primary where I am in the traffic flow and go with it and have no problems

I really would not want to go up the side of a lorry and then sit myself in the box infront of a towering truck cab, I might not have been seen moving up its side, if I had, I might not have been seen sneaking infront of it and don't want to rely on me setting off quickly as my survival.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Nov 2010)

Black Sheep said:


> this (not just this post) seems to assume that cyclists should filter through traffic. I never use ASL's I just can't be bothered to weave up the left hand side in the gutter to put myself infront of a car who wants to set off from the lights as quick as possible, I just take primary where I am in the traffic flow and go with it and have no problems



Me too, but it's others we need to inform.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Maybe he was just an adrenaline junkie missing his wing suit and a cliff in Norway????



He was wearing a parachute pack though. Someone should tell him its not Bike, Antenna, Span, Earth.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Nov 2010)

Black Sheep said:


> this (not just this post) seems to assume that cyclists should filter through traffic. I never use ASL's I just can't be bothered to weave up the left hand side in the gutter to put myself infront of a car who wants to set off from the lights as quick as possible, I just take primary where I am in the traffic flow and go with it and have no problems




You NEED to filter in London - if you didn't you would take forever to get to work. There's no way I'm sitting in the traffic like a numpty

Answer is simple though, just filter on the outside...


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2010)

filter left or right with care, based on experience. The most avid filterers are those without any experience. If any of you want to give yourself nightmares watch the traffic coming down Farringdon Street toward Blackfriars Bridge, and check the cyclists weaving down the left as the road curves to the left. The lanes are barely the width of an HGV but still they wander through...


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2010)

Cycling between stationary or slow moving cars is a lot like having a free firearms law. There will always be someone who says "of course its not loaded".


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Nov 2010)

Perhaps we can hold a filtering contest? I suggest up the hill from Shepherd's Bush to Notting Hill during rush hour, it can be quite testing!


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> Perhaps we can hold a filtering contest? I suggest up the hill from Shepherd's Bush to Notting Hill during rush hour, it can be quite testing!


How bad is the Western Avenue these days, from the Target to Shepherd's Bush?


----------



## slowmotion (2 Nov 2010)

The Western Avenue is not a good place to be on a bike IMVVHO.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Nov 2010)

Western avenue is fine, traffic keeps moving until just before the big roundabout, so not good for a filtering contest

The A4 from Chiswick is good in rush hour, but careful on the hammersmith flyover, there's a big gap you have to bunnyhop over, but then the run past North End Road to the Earl's Court bit is great fun


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> Western avenue is fine, traffic keeps moving until just before the big roundabout, so not good for a filtering contest
> 
> The A4 from Chiswick is good in rush hour, but careful on the hammersmith flyover, there's a big gap you have to bunnyhop over, but then the run past North End Road to the Earl's Court bit is great fun




How far is that from Brentford? I cycled to the Travelodge at Kew once. £10 special. 

Before I had a SatNav !!


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Nov 2010)

From Brentford join the A4 at Kew Bridge Roundabout and head towards town. It's brutal at night but a pleasure in the rush hour...


----------



## slowmotion (2 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> Western avenue is fine, traffic keeps moving until just before the big roundabout, so not good for a filtering contest
> 
> The A4 from Chiswick is good in rush hour, but careful on the hammersmith flyover, there's a big gap you have to bunnyhop over, but then the run past North End Road to the Earl's Court bit is great fun



Respect. You are braver than me!


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Nov 2010)

Thanks!  

It's all about going as fast as possible, holding your line, and not flinching when WVM is right on your wheel!


----------



## Black Sheep (2 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> You NEED to filter in London - if you didn't you would take forever to get to work. There's no way I'm sitting in the traffic like a numpty
> 
> Answer is simple though, just filter on the outside...



Fair enough, 

I can filter, I just don't normally. 

if traffic is at a standstill in a long queue I may filter but not right to the front.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2010)

Back to the truck poster.

"The corridor of doom". Woooooo.


----------



## Dan B (2 Nov 2010)

Having sat in the cab of the one at the bike show: yes, absolutely. If you're anywhere in a green-coloured (or on a superhypeway, blue-coloured) part of the road, the driver probably can't see you. Not only is the cab quite a long way off the ground, but the driver's not exactly sitting at the front and leaning forwards either.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> You NEED to filter in London - if you didn't you would take forever to get to work. There's no way I'm sitting in the traffic like a numpty
> 
> *Answer is simple though, just filter on the outside...*




...and if it looks like the traffic is going to start crawling forward, stand up on the pedals with arms straight for the tallest effect


----------



## dondare (3 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> I was in London visiting family this weekend, and saw this poster an awful lot:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. HGVs make up abot 3% of traffic and are involved in 30% of serious accidents of every kind, not just those involving cyclists. They're as bad on motorways as they are in towns. As well as killing cyclists and motorists they smash down pedestrian barriers, demolish small traffic islands and dislodge kerb stones. The driver can neither see where his wheels are nor predict where they are going to go. He doesn't know when he's hit anything smaller than another lorry. 
Lorries are destructive and lethal and blaming cyclists for being in the wrong place does not change this.


----------



## slowmotion (3 Nov 2010)

I think that HGVs are on urban roads so that all us rabid consumers can buy our "stuff". Tesco, Primark, even Evans Cycles. Get the picture? No sensible fleet manager would dream of sending HGVs into cities as some kind of "rat-run".


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2010)

There was hideous traffic last night. There must have been an incident on the M40??

I was sorely temped to enter the 'Corridor of doom' down the inside of a box truck,,, NOOO!


----------



## 4F (4 Nov 2010)

dondare said:


> I agree. HGVs make up abot 3% of traffic and are involved in 30% of serious accidents of every kind, not just those involving cyclists. They're as bad on motorways as they are in towns. As well as killing cyclists and motorists they smash down pedestrian barriers, demolish small traffic islands and dislodge kerb stones. The driver can neither see where his wheels are nor predict where they are going to go. He doesn't know when he's hit anything smaller than another lorry.
> Lorries are destructive and lethal and blaming cyclists for being in the wrong place does not change this.



I am sorry but that is the biggest load of twaddle I have read on a here for a long time and not suprising it comes from the resident Cyclechat HGV hater.

Would you rather each HGV was replaced by 20 transit vans instead ? What would that do for the pollution and congestion levels ? 

The majority of HGV's are well driven by highly trained drivers but as with all modes of transport there will always be a few idiots who don't deserve to be on the road. Of course idiot lemming cyclists who undertake HGV's / Buses on the approach to a junctions can be included here as well.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Nov 2010)

Interesting analysis on this subject here.

I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but this




> My hypothesis would be that, by initially reducing the journey times through central London, the congestion charge had the counter-intuitive effect of making it cheaper and more attractive for businesses and organisations to drive ever more goods through town. Transport infrastructure projects have shown again and again that in highly and densely populated places like England, there is always far more latent demand for transport infrastructure than can ever be provided. Create vacant capacity and within a decade or so, people will have found a way to use that capacity.


 
seems intuitively plausible in explaining the rise in heavy goods traffic in central London.


----------



## Jezston (4 Nov 2010)

For the record I'm not decidedly pro or anti HGVs in city centers, I interact with HGVs a great deal on the section of my commute that takes me on the A52 (although that's not a city center!) but that poster annoyed me as what seemed like another example of making cyclists take responsibility for other peoples bad driving like when cyclists get criticised for not wearing helmets and hi-vis after being killed on the road by a driver that wasn't looking.

But I think this is a subject worthy of debate.

Dondare's argument were clearly passionate and while I'm not sure I agree with it I wouldn't dismiss it as a big load of twaddle. It's food for thought.

Do we really NEED to have HGVs in our inner cities? Did I not hear earlier that there are cities that DON'T have HGVs driving about them, or at least the times they are allowed to drive around them are restricted, like Paris?

If HGVs are _responsible_ (rather than just 'involved') in 30% of deaths on the road despite being only 3% of the vehicles, is not something worthy of debate?


----------



## Smiler100 (4 Nov 2010)

At the London Bike Show at Earl's Court they had the police doing the demo - they actually got you in to the cabin of the truck and until that point I really didn't know how little trucks drivers can actually see. They can barely see anyting, far less than I ever thought. I now stay well clear of HGVs!!


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2010)

I think the poster could have been a bit stronger.

There could have been a hearse parked on the main road with the undertaker ( pun intended ) rubbing his hands together.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Nov 2010)

HGV mirrors like this







don't help much. That's quite a "blind spot" he's got there.

From here.


----------



## 4F (4 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> For the record I'm not decidedly pro or anti HGVs in city centers, I interact with HGVs a great deal on the section of my commute that takes me on the A52 (although that's not a city center!) but that poster annoyed me as what seemed like another example of making cyclists take responsibility for other peoples bad driving like when cyclists get criticised for not wearing helmets and hi-vis after being killed on the road by a driver that wasn't looking.
> 
> But I think this is a subject worthy of debate.
> 
> ...



No sorry twaddle is exactly what Dondare's post was. People need to be more aware of other road users, I loose count the amount of times I see car drivers cut in front of an HGV as they have left it until the last minute before making their turn off. Do these idiots not think that it takes more than 5 feet to stop a vehicle with a combined weight of 44 tonne.

The alleged "30% of deaths by 3% of road users" is an attention seeking headline and I have not seen anything in the transport press to back this up. 

The transport industry has changed greatly over the years with over 7 pallet hub networks that I can think of ensuring that most HGV's you see on the road are full to capacity. If you then factor into this the double deck trailers that many companies have invested in to further utilse the full capacity the transport industry has been taking great leaps forward to minimise empty running and cut down on the vehicles on the road. It is of course ironic that the idiots in Brussels want to standardise the overall height throughout Europe to a maximum 4 metres which would make all the double deck trailers that soley run on the UK roads obselete. The Transport Minister and The Freight Transport association are quite rightly fighting this. 

The rail system that we have over here is so old it struggles to cope with the Freightliner traffic that currently moves. As an example most trains that leave Felixstowe port are only 80% full as they have to leave to a pre-arranged network rail slot deadline. There are no other slots available and the system is running to 100%. Unless 100 of billions is spent on upgrading / adding new track rail will never be a realistic viable option to road.


----------



## dondare (4 Nov 2010)

http://www.crystal-claims.co.uk/Motorway-accidents/HGV-alarming-accident-statistics.html

So it's 8% of traffic rather than 3%. Still 30% of accidents which would indicate that these vehicles are simply not safe enough to be used on public roads. And they do cause a lot of damage, some accidental, some merely a function of their size and weight. 
There is no immediate alternative. Lorries could be designed to be a great deal safer but that isn't going to happen because it'd cost too much. The railways aren't going to be expanded just to move freight. So let's go on pretending that it's the cyclist's fault for filtering (or using the cycle lane into the ASL box which puts them in exactly the same place) or the motorist's fault for not realizing that the lorry driver can't see something the size of a car if it's closer than ten feet ahead.


----------



## SO8 (5 Nov 2010)

I haven't read most of the comments I admit .... but as a cyclist it is always sad to go to a collision involving a heavy and a cyclist as there is only one winner .... the HGV .... sadly my job is to go to these ... to deal with the results .... and find out what happened .... 

Any advert that provokes discussion ... but hopefully stops cyclists getting hurt has got to be good ! 

In eight + years of dealing with collisions it is the ones involving cycles I always dread - often if the cyclist was more aware it would never have happened ...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (5 Nov 2010)

dondare said:


> http://www.crystal-c...statistics.html
> 
> So it's 8% of traffic rather than 3%. Still 30% of accidents which would indicate that these vehicles are simply not safe enough to be used on public roads. And they do cause a lot of damage, some accidental, some merely a function of their size and weight.
> There is no immediate alternative. Lorries could be designed to be a great deal safer but that isn't going to happen because it'd cost too much. The railways aren't going to be expanded just to move freight. So let's go on pretending that it's the cyclist's fault for filtering (or using the cycle lane into the ASL box which puts them in exactly the same place) or the motorist's fault for not realizing that the lorry driver can't see something the size of a car if it's closer than ten feet ahead.



It's not really about whose fault it is, that's pretty much irrelevant. The important thing is that we avoid flattening any more cyclists. If that can be achieved with an advert like this, aimed at cyclists like the one who undertook my lorry at traffic lights while I was indicating left (he was level with the trailer's landing legs when the lights changed, right in line to be squished by the back wheels), then that's a good thing.


----------



## jimboalee (5 Nov 2010)

Oh pooh.

I was going to sketch a little drawing of "The Corridor of Doom", but I went late night shopping.


( I'm determined to get this phrase to catch on  )


----------



## dondare (5 Nov 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It's not really about whose fault it is, that's pretty much irrelevant. The important thing is that we avoid flattening any more cyclists. If that can be achieved with an advert like this, aimed at cyclists like the one who undertook my lorry at traffic lights while I was indicating left (he was level with the trailer's landing legs when the lights changed, right in line to be squished by the back wheels), then that's a good thing.



Both times I've had really close calls it's been the lorry overtaking me then moving left. I probably was invisible to the driver but that's down to the design of the cab. Aside from what the driver can't see, they're just too large, heavy and unwieldy to be used safely in towns which still have streets laid out in the days of horse-drawn carts. 
Cyclists do filter up the inside without realizing the danger. Motorists do slot in front of lorries on motorway slip roads. Peds still walk out into the roads without looking both ways and they all, always will. Roads are not a mechanism for removing careless, inexperienced or stupid people from the gene pool they're how we get around and obvious dangers should be removed. Even if there's no alternative right now lorries are wrong.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (5 Nov 2010)

They're all fair points, but my point still stands. If cyclists aren't up the inside of a truck at traffic lights, they won't get squashed by that truck. Granted, some lorry drivers pull up alongside cyclists at traffic lights, and maybe some education is needed there too, but I'm happy to see anything that might help prevent cyclist deaths around lorries. Which includes the advert in the OP.


----------



## jimboalee (5 Nov 2010)

And while we're close to the subject, watch out for non-articulated flat bed trucks with long rear overhangs.

Don't go up the outside of a Bendy Bus that's turning left.


----------



## Peter10 (5 Nov 2010)

dondare said:


> Both times I've had really close calls it's been the lorry overtaking me then moving left. I probably was invisible to the driver but that's down to the design of the cab. Aside from what the driver can't see, they're just too large, heavy and unwieldy to be used safely in towns which still have streets laid out in the days of horse-drawn carts.
> Cyclists do filter up the inside without realizing the danger. Motorists do slot in front of lorries on motorway slip roads. Peds still walk out into the roads without looking both ways and they all, always will. Roads are not a mechanism for removing careless, inexperienced or stupid people from the gene pool they're how we get around and obvious dangers should be removed. Even if there's no alternative right now lorries are wrong.



If we took all HGV's off busy streets then there would be uproar as everything would costs a great deal more. Whether you like it or not, HGV's will stay on the road.


----------



## Amanda P (5 Nov 2010)

This is where that strange double standard comes in. When there's an airliner crash, or a train crash - or a terrorist attack - that kills a few dozen people, huge enquiries are held at vast expense and things changed so that that particular disaster can't happen again.

And yet around 300 people are killed on the UK's roads every year. No headlines, no enquiries, no uproar in the tabloids. It seems that when someone's killed by a motor vehicle, we just accept that as the price we pay for the convenience of motor transport.

Yes, goods might be more expensive or less easily available if only smaller lorries were allowed in city centres, or the hours during which they could enter city centres were limited. Maybe that'd be a price worth paying for not having people mown down by them? 

I think it might be worth paying. The authorities of many European cities have decided it is worth paying.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (5 Nov 2010)

I'm not sure. The artic I used to take into London fairly regularly carried about the same as ten 7.5 tonners, or 40 or so Transit vans. That's a lot more potential for traffic chaos and incidents than a single artic ...


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (5 Nov 2010)

An example of a driver putting himself in an HGV blind spot -


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvEOWcLnHsE


Consequences deserved, you'd have to say.


----------



## jimboalee (5 Nov 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'm not sure. The artic I used to take into London fairly regularly carried about the same as ten 7.5 tonners, or 40 or so Transit vans. That's a lot more potential for traffic chaos and incidents than a single artic ...



What overtime/unsociable hours bonus would a driver expect for delivering in central London at 03:00 ?  

Time + 1/2 ? or Double.


----------



## Dan B (5 Nov 2010)

My 2p: reverse the burden of proof in any accident involving a maneuvring HGV - require the driver to demonstrate he took all reasonable efforts to ensure nobody was in the space around him during his manoeuvre. He can do this with 360 degree camera coverage (better have that recorded too, for the courts) or by using a banksman outside the vehicle. Banksman will have the power to direct other road users (e.g. to prevent cyclists from undertaking during a left turn) or at least to advise them in the strongest possible terms of the risk they're taking if they persist in being reckless


----------



## dondare (5 Nov 2010)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...rry_Falls_Onto_Tracks_Injuring_Several_People


----------



## jimboalee (5 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Oh pooh.
> 
> I was going to sketch a little drawing of "The Corridor of Doom", but I went late night shopping.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> What overtime/unsociable hours bonus would a driver expect for delivering in central London at 03:00 ?
> 
> Time + 1/2 ? or Double.



None whatever ... there is no overtime any more. I used to get time and a half after 8 hours ... now I'm on a flat rate all the way through. My last job was salaried, so Central London or five minutes up the road was all the same.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Nov 2010)

dondare said:


> http://news.sky.com/..._Several_People



What's your point? This is hardly an everyday occurence.


----------



## asterix (6 Nov 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> Jezton
> Don't be a knob!



FF I don't think the OP deserved your abuse. His post has produced some good debate and highlighted the problem of HGVs very well I have learnt a lot from some of the subsequent posts. The situation is very far from perfect and as some posters illustrate more can be done about this problem in addition to warning cyclists.


----------



## dondare (6 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


>



Now add a pedestrian barrier and a cycle lane.


----------



## asterix (7 Nov 2010)

Peter10 said:


> If we remove HGV's from the inner city, we might as well just wait over night as the city crumbles. Without HGV's there would be at least 3x as many vehicles in the city (probably more). How many vans will it take to carry 1 HGV load? I think the poster is actually quite effective personally.



Boris, the cyling mayor, doesn't necessarily agree with you! He'd like to remove HGV's from central London.

Anyway, I have another idea. Obviously the biggest reason for HGV blind spots is the height of the cab above the engine. What we need is a design that brings the cab nearer cyclist height.

The current design is clearly motivated by cost-saving and profit but what we need is a lorry designed to avoid killing people. It all depends on priorities of course and insead maybe price stickers in shops should include the proportion of lives sacrificed in order to keep the price low. 

Anyway, these days I am quite likely to alight from my bicycle and walk on the pavement round the junction instead of sharing lights with buses and lorries.


----------



## mgarl10024 (8 Nov 2010)

asterix said:


> FF I don't think the OP deserved your abuse.



+1


----------



## Captain (8 Nov 2010)

I dont think the poster is correct. 
My Dad's lorry (very similar in size to the one pictured) has a much better field of vision than we are led to believe in this poster. 
The kerb side array of mirrors is simple:
1) Large rear facing - same as a car
2) Convex mirror underneath that one - gives visability to a greater angle (my dad's is actually barely overlapping the main mirror)
3) The Idiot Mirror. - this is set above the window and shows straight down (also concave) an can show any one stupid enough to be there. 

In the case of the poster the situation shouldn't arise if the cyclist is observant to the lorry's indicators which (to be MOT worthy) run along the sides of the trailer and cab at several spots aswell as on the rear of the trailer and tractor unit. 

I do however think this is a worthwhile effort by the TFL as the more careful around large vehicles the better. If only because getting too close to a car you might end up on the bonnet but too close to a lorry and your dragged under several sets of wheels. 

A poster earlier mentioned that the area in front of the cab is where I'd be worried and I am definately in agreement. The only way to show the driver you are there is to raise your hand and the area is really quite large, approx half a car length. I think that is an area that should be addressed by either TFL or the highway code.


----------



## Ticktockmy (8 Nov 2010)

Davidc said:


> I agree that there should be action over having these monsters on urban roads, and that action should be taken over blindspots.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...



If you recall, some years ago, the Greater london Council banned HGV entering parts of greater london at certian times, and also introduced a lincenc system

Having driven on of those Monsters, through London many times, I can tell you now, a high number of cyclist, undertake, and cut in fornt of the Truck or buses without thought if they went down, the truck might have problems stopping in time not to flatten them.

I think adverts like that a good as it drives home the problem, and of course it works cos we are discussing it on here..LOL


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Nov 2010)

asterix said:


> FF I don't think the OP deserved your abuse. His post has produced some good debate and highlighted the problem of HGVs very well I have learnt a lot from some of the subsequent posts. The situation is very far from perfect and as some posters illustrate more can be done about this problem in addition to warning cyclists.



To be honest I don't think 'Don't be a knob!' constitutes any great abuse. It was a robust riposte to a pretty ranty opening post.

Of course the situation is not perfect, but at least something IS being done by tfl... I don't see why Jezton thought that a bad thing that their posters were everywhere. That struck me as a dumb thing to rant about. Still does. 

Of course that doesn't mean more can't be done (and AFAIK IS being done), but we shouldn't criticise a good start, we should applaud it, we have most to loose.


----------



## buggi (8 Nov 2010)

2 things:

1. you shouldn't undertake, we all know that.
2. this cycle lane encourages undertaking

if TfL really want to do something, they should ban cycle lanes like this to start with. but i don't see anything else wrong with the poster, i think it's very educational. in fact, i'm gonna ask them if i can use it on our website at work. 


as said, we all have a responsibility to each other.


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Nov 2010)

buggi said:


> 2 things:
> 
> 1. you shouldn't undertake, we all know that.
> 2. this cycle lane encourages undertaking
> ...



Agreed, it needs to be nationwide and in every school.


----------



## darth vadar (9 Nov 2010)

I wonder if Sat Navs have made the situation worse?

Round here, I (very) often see HGV's travelling down roads where really shouldn't be, and can only think that their Sat Nav may have sent them that way.

Just a thought.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Nov 2010)

[quote name=[b]'darth vadar'[/b] timestamp='1289291862' post='1461113']
I wonder if Sat Navs have made the situation worse?

*Round here*, I (very) often see HGV's travelling down roads where really shouldn't be, and can only think that their Sat Nav may have sent them that way.

Just a thought.
[/quote]

Wait till I get to my Draughting tablet Darth Vader. A little sketch of HGV on the Death Star and C3P0 on a bike up the railings.


----------



## Origamist (12 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Thankfully all post 2000 reg HGVs will not have such a poor mirror array and the driver will be able to see more. I'm also not convinced the nearside mirrors are correctly adjusted/set-up in the TFL mock-up.
> 
> As I've said many times before, the problem of cyclists* in front *of the HGV is not being addressed and this is a major flaw in the campaign, IMO.
> 
> There also needs to be more educational work done with HGV dirvers and we need to get more contractors to sign up to the FORS scheme (at the very least).



Looks like I wasn't the only one who thought the image was inaccurate/unrepresentative:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=2130


----------



## summerdays (12 Nov 2010)

I don't totally agree with their picture either ... as I would be worried whether someone might read into it that it was OK to be next to the back wheel. However I like the simplicity of both images in comparison to some of the safety video's that have been produced in trying to get across to cyclists that they shouldn't be going along side a large vehicle at a junction.


----------



## subaqua (22 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Ok, I do understand the issue of muppets undertaking lorries and buses, but the thing that really shocked me about that poster is how HUGE a lorry drivers blind spot is presented as being.
> 
> *Is it really the case that three meters out from the entire length of a lorry is invisible to the driver?
> *
> If that really is the case, shouldn't something be done about _that_?



its mahoosive with that set up of mirrors. get a post 2000 set of mirrors and it diminishes somewhat. there is still a blind spot though.
one of the best things tfl did was the opportunity for cyclists to sit in a cab for a day and see the view a driver has. you got some good feedback from cyclists who just had no idea.

when i learnt to drive a HGV ( LGV its called now) the instructor made sure blind spot awarenesss was hammered in. many times i have cuaght a flash of something in a mirror and stopped. surprising how much abuse can be given by somebody who is clueless to what they did to endanger themselves and a sharp eye of a driver saved them form injury.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Nov 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> Western avenue is fine, traffic keeps moving until just before the big roundabout, so not good for a filtering contest
> 
> The A4 from Chiswick is good in rush hour, but careful on the hammersmith flyover, there's a big gap you have to bunnyhop over, but then the run past North End Road to the Earl's Court bit is great fun


Brian Gould, the man who taught me an engineering module in my first year in college designed that gap. I'm afraid that I was a little less than respectful. Actually, Zimmers, I might have been a lot less than respectful. But, forgive me, if it's a cold day and the bridge deck has shrunk then jumping that thing will persuade hardened atheists of the merits of prayer.


----------



## Paul_L (22 Nov 2010)

haven't read all the replies, but FWIW, i think the poster is a good thing.

The first rule about what to do in a dangerous position is don't put yourself in a dangerous position in the first place.


----------



## gaz (22 Nov 2010)

Paul_L said:


> haven't read all the replies, but FWIW, i think the poster is a good thing.
> 
> The first rule about what to do in a dangerous position is don't put yourself in a dangerous position in the first place.



Sometimes the position comes to you.


----------



## Norm (22 Nov 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Brian Gould, the man who taught me an engineering module in my first year in college designed that gap. I'm afraid that I was a little less than respectful. Actually, Zimmers, I might have been a lot less than respectful. But, forgive me, if it's a cold day and the bridge deck has shrunk then jumping that thing will persuade hardened atheists of the merits of prayer.


That gap had me praying daily when I worked in Earls Court, and that was on a motor bike with a 190 section rear tyre.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> Sometimes the position comes to you.




Well put. It does irk me when forumites don't realise that this happens. Especially Lee, it seemed.


----------



## zimzum42 (22 Nov 2010)

Norm said:


> That gap had me praying daily when I worked in Earls Court, and that was on a motor bike with a 190 section rear tyre.



23mm tyres. Fixed Wheel. Hop and hope!!!


----------



## subaqua (22 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Well put. It does irk me when forumites don't realise that this happens. Especially Lee, it seemed.




sadly i have to agree that sometimes a lorry does sneak up on you from behind, i mean they are so quiet compared to other vehicles. 

if the lane is narrow i am in the middle of the lane so i don't get caught by the forgetful driver behind me. 


and please not all drivers are donkeycircles, one put himself between a white van and me today as the van driver wasn't looking. i had by then left a good chunk of rubber on the road from the emergency braking


----------



## Paul_L (22 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Well put. It does irk me when forumites don't realise that this happens. Especially Lee, it seemed.



I wasn't saying it doesn't happen.

I was saying that the poster sends a good message to people who, without a care in the world *routinely *find themselves on the inside of a potential left hooker.

Bad things happen, and careful cyclists sometimes end up in risky situations through no fault of their own. But it's all about minimising the risks and the poster is helpful in that regards.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (22 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> Paul_L said:
> 
> 
> > haven't read all the replies, but FWIW, i think the poster is a good thing.
> ...



In which case an awareness of the dangerour position position is still a good thing...to acknowlege it and get yourself out of it


----------



## BentMikey (22 Nov 2010)

Which still ignores the possibility that said situation may occur faster than even an experienced cyclist can deal with. Many of the HGV killed cyclists were experienced. Who is to say that any of us enthusiasts could have avoided their deaths in their places?


----------



## ttcycle (22 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> Sometimes the position comes to you.



yes, completely!

I remember one of the most stressful parts of the commute to Clapham junction was the amount of HGVs that would just zoom past on a narrow road. Bloody did my head in! Glad I don't have to commute through there anymore


----------



## gaz (23 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Which still ignores the possibility that said situation may occur faster than even an experienced cyclist can deal with. Many of the HGV killed cyclists were experienced. Who is to say that any of us enthusiasts could have avoided their deaths in their places?


Defining experience can be hard though. Whilst I agree, a vast quantity of the cyclists deaths in London where a hgv is involved, the cyclist was experienced.
That unfortunatly doesn't always translate to a safe cyclist.

I'm not saying that I, or anyone else could do better. As I, and you have said. It can sometimes come to you and faster than you expect and can process!


----------



## gaz (23 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1233632"]
Are you talking about being stationary at a red light or just riding along the road normally and being left-hooked?
[/quote]
More so stopped at a red light or junction. But an overtake could be applied as well.


----------



## gaz (23 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1233634"]
In the case of a red light, I don't see how 'it' can suddenly creep up on you.

If it's a case of cyclist following truck then it's best hang back and not try and undertake and this as such is the general consensus among most cyclists out on the road.

It is course a different issue when truck follows bike at a red light. In this instance there are only two places you can be:

The first is a good few yards in front of the truck in the ASL (or not) there does not have to be an ASL of course just a clear bit of road where you are not causing an obstruction. Have a quick check behind you when the lights go green and you are away. 

If however you are by the side of the road (in the secondary position) then it is always best to give way and never pull away when the lights go green. You never know what the truck might do and it's n/s indicator maybe faulty.

I'm not victim blaming, merely reducing risk at a red light. 


[/quote]
I don't disagree with anything you said


----------



## summerdays (23 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1233634"]
In the case of a red light, I don't see how 'it' can suddenly creep up on you.

If it's a case of cyclist following truck then it's best hang back and not try and undertake and this as such is the general consensus among most cyclists out on the road.

It is course a different issue when truck follows bike at a red light. In this instance there are only two places you can be:

The first is a good few yards in front of the truck in the ASL (or not) there does not have to be an ASL of course just a clear bit of road where you are not causing an obstruction. Have a quick check behind you when the lights go green and you are away. 

*If however you are by the side of the road (in the secondary position) then it is always best to give way and never pull away when the lights go green. You never know what the truck might do and it's n/s indicator maybe faulty.*

I'm not victim blaming, merely reducing risk at a red light.
[/quote]

I disagree with that point ... if I'm infront of the HGV at the lights but nearer secondary ... I'm not going to sit there if he can potentially turn left.... I will be right in the way of him turning.


----------

