# HGVs in towns and cities



## Origamist (24 Sep 2008)

This short doc is not perfect, but it highlights some of the issues:

http://showcase.commedia.org.uk/article/articleview/390/1/13/

Evening Standard article: 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...rs+'need+educating+about+cyclists'/article.do


----------



## Origamist (25 Sep 2008)

What to do about Lorries:http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/what-to-do-about-lorries

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/what-to-do-about-lorries#comment 

Good campaigning letter to send to the Mayor, TFL, DFT, your MP etc


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

bring in the Talliban and roll the clock back to 4,000BC.


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

Just 100 years will do.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Sep 2008)

Origamist said:


> What to do about Lorries ...



... the best thing to do is keep well clear of them (ie, us) and acknowledge that we're not there for fun, we're actually delivering stuff demanded by the public (ie, you). far better to campaign for a ban on cars in towns and cities: their drivers at least stand a chance of getting to their destinations using other methods of transport.


----------



## gavintc (25 Sep 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> ... the best thing to do is keep well clear of them (ie, us) and acknowledge that we're not there for fun, we're actually delivering stuff demanded by the public (ie, you). far better to campaign for a ban on cars in towns and cities: their drivers at least stand a chance of getting to their destinations using other methods of transport.



Complete agree. Lorries, like buses are part of societal needs. In the main the drivers of both are better than average. The problem is keeping cars out of towns and cities.


----------



## wafflycat (26 Sep 2008)

Have to say, in my neck of the woods, the HGV drivers are almost all exceedingly courteous drivers. There's a quarry just up the road from me, so there's a lot of HGVs coming & going and the vast majority of the roads are narrow and narrowish lanes. The HGV drivers are so good, I dropped a note into the quarry manager asking if he'd pass my thanks along to the drivers for being so careful around this vulnerable road user (me when cycling). Seems it was appreicated, as I got some feedback.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

I've always found that HGV drivers respect a cyclist who claims his road space, and give plenty of room. The difficulty they have is blind spots a mile wide; with the best will (and mirrors!) in the world, thats hard to get around, and that means that we have to take care around them. Can't blame them for that though.

Occasionally they'll make mistakes, like we all do; the results can be catastrophic, thats just a function of size and mass.


----------



## Origamist (26 Sep 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> ... the best thing to do is keep well clear of them (ie, us) and acknowledge that we're not there for fun, we're actually delivering stuff demanded by the public (ie, you). far better to campaign for a ban on cars in towns and cities: their drivers at least stand a chance of getting to their destinations using other methods of transport.



I do steer clear of large vehicles (which is the best advice), but it's not always that simple. 

I'm not campaigining for an absolute ban of HGVs in cities (or cars for that matter) and neither was the Moving Target article/letter. I am trying to raise awareness of what is a serious problem for both cyclists and HGV drivers (I have seen first-hand the the horrific consequences of a fatal RTA and, after the initial shock, I was sick). 

We need better education for cyclists and drivers - a media campaign would be a good start.


----------



## domtyler (26 Sep 2008)

I think that restricting HGV's from many inner city roads during peak hours would have a positive effect on fatality rates. It is irrelevant that many (not all) HGV drivers are highly skilled, professional and courteous to others, including cyclists, the problem lies with the vehicles they are driving and their inherent unsuitability for negotiating narrow and congested urban roads.

That said, I recognise that they have an essential role to play but of the variables the only one we have to play with at present is the degree of congestion. We cannot change the nature or size of the vehicles and we cannot change the size of the roads. We can ensure, though, that they are not present while congestion is at peak levels.


----------



## Origamist (26 Sep 2008)

Dom, in Dublin they have a partially restricted HGVs with 5+ axles between 7am and 7pm. 

http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/HGV/Pages/HGV Management Strategy.aspx


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (27 Sep 2008)

Hello All,


Speaking as a HGV driver who has done some extremely big loads in my time I think this is down to education of all road users ,road safety especially cycles should be taught at a young age and should be a part of a child's school education as it used to be, car drivers and anyone driving on a car licence (vans/7.5t trucks) Should have to take a much harder test than it is, as proved day in day out on our roads any idiot is allowed to use one ! It's no good HGV drivers having to take advanced tests if no one else needs to be educated to such a standard. That's my view anyway.


The video though very good threw up a few points which seemed a bit stupid to me ,As most Artics I have driven will carry 29 tonnes and most 7.5 tonne trucks only carry 2.9 tonnes (ish) would you rather have 10 x 7.5t trucks or one artic on our roads. From an environmental point of view a 7.5 tonne truck will do 16ish mpg an artic 10 ish mpg as you can see an awful extra amount of pollution noise and traffic if smaller trucks were used plus of coarse the fact that most 7.5t trucks are still driven by people with only a car licence ( free off the back of a cornflakes box).
The side underun bar issue again is a bit stupid as any lower and the thing would keep getting ripped off, they are bad enough as they are, The trucks show in the video are all exempt from underun bars because the nature of work they do means this would be a constant problem so it was a bit cheeky to use them as an example. 


And last How many idiots do you see on bikes who have no regard for there own safety never mind anyone else, what chance has anyone got against these people (no lights/brakes wearing black at night /cycling the wrong way down one way streets/running red lights/jumping off pavements in front of you the list is endless! Maybe cyclists should be forced to take a test of the same advance standard as a HGV driver £2000 ? have number plates ,tax discs ? 


I would never wish to see this of coarse but why ban the lorries because of stupid cyclists, I'm not for a second saying HGV drivers cannot make a bad manoeuvre /judgements but I would think It was more likely in general the bad cyclists fault !


----------



## BentMikey (27 Sep 2008)

Whilst I'd be one of the first to say that most HGV drivers are far better than the average, many are still not good enough, particularly the sort of tipper and cement mixer drivers, perhaps paid by trip. There are certainly many muppet cyclists out there, but given that blame and liability is due to the motor vehicle driver in something of the order of 80% of motor vehicle/cyclist collisions, I'd guess that more than half the deaths of cyclists in HGV interactions can be blamed on the HGV driver.

Much much more responsibility and care needs to be taken by drivers of big vehicles. The danger comes from them, after all.


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Sep 2008)

*And last How many idiots do you see on bikes who have no regard for there own safety never mind anyone else, what chance has anyone got against these people (no lights/brakes wearing black at night /cycling the wrong way down one way streets/running red lights/jumping off pavements in front of you the list is endless!*

Too true.I had a dose of that recently.


----------



## Graham1 (27 Sep 2008)

I think as a lorry driver and a keen cyclist it is not just drivers who need educating about cyclists but also vice versa, one day I very nearly hit a postman on a bike who was down my nearside in a blind spot,I spotted him just in the nick of time as I was about to move away, I got out and invited him to sit in my seat and then positioned my self in the position he was in before I spotted him, he was amazed that he could not see me and i am a good foot taller than him, so don't go knocking lorry drivers we have a hard enough job as it is, remember there is good and bad amongst all of us and the bad are usually in the minority but they are the ones that get us all a bad name be it cyclists or HGV drivers.


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Sep 2008)

Im not amazed myself.

I even managed to find the blind spot of a car when I was going around an Ilford rounderbout and managed to get the motorists attention.


----------



## dondare (28 Sep 2008)

Graham1 said:


> I think as a lorry driver and a keen cyclist it is not just drivers who need educating about cyclists but also vice versa, one day I very nearly hit a postman on a bike who was down my nearside in a blind spot,I spotted him just in the nick of time as I was about to move away, I got out and invited him to sit in my seat and then positioned my self in the position he was in before I spotted him, he was amazed that he could not see me and i am a good foot taller than him, so don't go knocking lorry drivers we have a hard enough job as it is, remember there is good and bad amongst all of us and the bad are usually in the minority but they are the ones that get us all a bad name be it cyclists or HGV drivers.




No wonder the post get's held up. Isn't interfering with the Royal Mail treason? 

The point is that pedestrians and cyclists do not have to pass a test and so there are always going to be pedestrians and cyclists who are not breaking the law but are nevertheless placing themselves in danger because of ignorance and lack of experience. Drivers have training and then pass a test not just so that they can be safe if everyone else is, but so that they can be safe when other people _*aren't*_. If everyone drove just as they did on the day that they passed the test road-deaths would drop to double figures. 
If you in your cab can't see whether you're about to crush someone under your wheels then the design of the cab needs changing, or your vehicle should only be used on roads where nothing small can get near: motorways and that's about it. My contention will always be that HGV's should not be used in towns where the street layout dates back to the days before motor-vehicles of any kind and the roads are teeming with squashy things like pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## Origamist (1 Oct 2008)

More from the Evening Standard: 

"Protect us cyclists from the devil's transport"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...yclists+from+the+devil's+transport/article.do


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2008)

Lee, are you suggesting that it's mostly cyclists to blame for their own demise in HGV/cyclist collisions and rarely the lorry driver?

I thought that article was very well written.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2008)

Whilst cyclists certainly don't help themselves, are you aware of the RAC study that found that cyclists are to blame only 17% of collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles? That doesn't make your point of view very likely, even after taking into account that HGV drivers are much better than the average driver. Your bias is showing rather badly.


----------



## Origamist (1 Oct 2008)

The London Paper:

"As cycle deaths on London roads mount up, a cyclist and a lorry driver swap places to see who's in the wrong"

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Sa...155471475?packedargs=suffix=ArticleController


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Not lorries though, most of the time as pointed out in my other post this occurs when the truck is turning left (note highway code 221)



I seem to recall that it was for collisions with all motor vehicles including lorries, not just with cars.

Your viewpoint seems to ignore those lorry drivers who feel the need to drive aggressively and overtake, sometimes with a left hook. I've had this happen to me in the past, and it seems quite evident from the accident reports out there that often the lorry driver is to blame.


----------



## Origamist (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Good article, highlights the dangers of waiting at junctions and undertaking. The bit about the cemex lorry though is an absolute classic example. What the hell is a cyclist doing trying to undertake a lorry as it's going along the road?!?!
> 
> This is the type of thing that I'm against and should be made aware. *Most deaths occur when a lorry is turning left, so this begs the question why is the cyclist on the nearside.*



In two lanes of traffic you can be in the nearside lane and a lorry can overtake in the outside lane and then swing left.


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

Cyclists are on the left most of the time. Also, large vehicles do not turn left directly from the left-turning lane, they move out to the right before turning which would make passing on the outside just as hazardous. 
Cyclists are not always killed as they filter up the inside, they have been killed by lorries that overtake and then turn, by lorries that pull up along side them at the lights and then turn, by lorries that fail to give enough room when both are going straight on and by lorries pulling out of side roads. 
If the design of the cab means that the drivers cannot see cyclists then they should not be used on any roads where there are cyclists. If they must be used on such roads then the cab should be redesigned, one like that on the old-style routemaster bus would give the driver a much better field of view all round.


----------



## Origamist (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Surely though, you would anticipate this if the driver is overtaking and then turning left. It's happened to me a couple of times, not with lorries but with cars and vans and has never caused me a problem apart from having to brake of course. However I never once felt threatened and that my life was in danger.




HGVs are a lot longer than cars and vans and I think you're underestimating how quickly events can unfold in a dynamic traffic environment. Remember, when you're braking, he is probably braking too (in order to negotiate the the left turn).


----------



## Origamist (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes but as pointed out before, I would be behind the lorry not up the nearside. If both of us was to brake at the same time I would probably be level with the back of the vehicle. More than enough room for him to turn left.



Lee, there's two lanes of traffic - he's overtaken you, he's braking, whatchya gonna do....


----------



## col (1 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Cyclists are on the left most of the time. Also, large vehicles do not turn left directly from the left-turning lane, they move out to the right before turning which would make passing on the outside just as hazardous.
> Cyclists are not always killed as they filter up the inside, they have been killed by lorries that overtake and then turn, by lorries that pull up along side them at the lights and then turn, by lorries that fail to give enough room when both are going straight on and by lorries pulling out of side roads.
> If the design of the cab means that the drivers cannot see cyclists then they should not be used on any roads where there are cyclists. If they must be used on such roads then the cab should be redesigned, one like that on the old-style routemaster bus would give the driver a much better field of view all round.




It seems that large vehicles are getting most of the blame ,but we have to remember they are there through neccesity,cycles are generally not,instead of trying to plant blame in the design of the vehicle and driver,why not just educate cyclists.we all know the dangers because we are talking about them,but ignorance or impatience is the cause in most incidents i would guess.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> As for lorries overtaking and then turning left, this is just anticipation and riding defensively.
> 
> Lorries that overtake, you should look at your road positioning when you are riding in realtion to the width of the road, and trucks emerging from junctions, surely you would see them??



Lee, why do you apparently blame the cyclist for the lorry driver's mistake in these examples?


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

The streets are full of cyclists who are neither trained nor experienced and the number is growing all the time as petrol becomes more expensive and congestion charges make driving into town prohibitively expensive. Drivers are trained, and then have to pass a test to show that they are suficiently well trained, in order not to be a danger to other road-users. It is legally and morally the responsibility of the driver not to kill, not that of the cyclist not to be killed.


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Surely you would hear/see him when he overtakes? and then act in relation to what he is going to do?




So how are those cyclists dying? If lorries are so easy to avoid then it must be suicide.


----------



## Origamist (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Surely you would hear/see him when he overtakes? and then act in relation to what he is going to do?



I think you're having problems visualising this scenario, particularly the speed of events, but if you've never experienced it, that's understandable. If you're going to be side-swiped like that, there's very little, if anything, you can do (particulalry if railings are present).


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Not blaming the rider at all, just saying what I would be doing in this situation.



Do you not see how you avoid saying that HGV drivers might be to blame?


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> LOL well yeah of course is it, when I drive I don't look to kill someone?!? as I'm sure other lorry drivers don't either.



When you bring a lorry onto the road you are making the road a much more dangerous place than it was without the lorry. You don't have to be trying to kill anyone for it to happen, but the responsibility is still yours. 
When you pass a cyclist then give them room, and don't move in again too soon. If in doubt then you wait, don't overtake. When you're turning left then make absolutely sure that you're not crushing someone, and if you can't be sure then don't make the turn. 
If you guess that it's clear, on the grounds that any cyclist will know exactly what you're doing and exactly what they need to do to avoid getting crushed, and you guess wrong then you'll end up killing someone. Not deliberately but because you made a false assumption. Why should someone die because you made a wrong guess?


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Read the two articles posted by Origamist, in particular the one where the driver and cyclist swap places.



I know that the design of cabs mean that the driver can't see what's right next to him, which is why I'm saying either change the design or keep lorries off roads used by cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> In a way yes, but like I said this is how/what I would do in relation to HGV's



OK, it looks like you accept then that HGV drivers, even though far better than the average driver, are very much to blame in many cyclist fatalities. Even if you don't want to admit to it.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> So how are those cyclists dying? If lorries are so easy to avoid then it must be suicide.



I'm afraid that's a pretty plausible explanation, given some of the breathtakingly poor awareness I see exhibited by some cyclists around my artic. Most of my lorry driving is done in an urban environment, just like most of my cycling was (when I commuted by bike) and I can safely say that I see more dodgy manoevres by cyclists around my truck than I ever saw by trucks around my bike. If you see what I mean.


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

The roads are populated by the young and the old, the ignorant and the inexperienced, the infirm and the incompetent. You cannot expect them all to be trained to know what to do if a lorry comes abreast of them at the lights, or starts to turn in front of them. That is why their safety is your responsibility when you drive and not theirs. 
No-one should be placed in mortal peril on their way in to work or school by someone else's actions. The roads are supposed to be safe, that is why drivers are trained how to keep them safe rather than cyclists being trained how to survive.


----------



## dondare (1 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> This would cost way to much money to redesign. Far better to spend the money on awareness for cyclists. As for banning them off the roads that cyclists use them O.k. You just find another way to transport 95% of goods that the british public use or consume around the country. We are not out driving for the sheer hell of it(although I do like driving)



Did you know that lorries were invented before bicycles? But at the time it was appreciated that they were too large, powerful and dangerous to be permitted to use the public roads and so were provided with an entirely seperate network of their own. Hence we have the roads, for non-mechanical vehicles, and the other system - the railways, for locomotive vehicles. But the railway system was decimated in the 60's by Beeching, who had shares in Tarmac, and so heavy and bulky freight was transfered to the roads with all the problems that that caused. But I'm sure his shares went up in value, which was what he cared about. It's about time the freight went back on the rails.


----------



## gavintc (1 Oct 2008)

And your local Tesco has a railway line at the back door? If I am not mistaken this discussion is about LGV in towns and cities. Your comment has not much relationship to the reality of avoiding cycling up the inside of trucks in an urban area.


----------



## col (1 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> The streets are full of cyclists who are neither trained nor experienced and the number is growing all the time as petrol becomes more expensive and congestion charges make driving into town prohibitively expensive. Drivers are trained, and then have to pass a test to show that they are suficiently well trained, in order not to be a danger to other road-users. It is legally and morally the responsibility of the driver not to kill, not that of the cyclist not to be killed.




I dissagree,its ALSO the responsibility of the cyclist to cycle in a safe and sensible manner.To put all the blame when a cyclist has done a dangerous maneouver on the driver is unfair.


----------



## col (1 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> So how are those cyclists dying? If lorries are so easy to avoid then it must be suicide.




I find hanging back from large vehicles very easy.


----------



## cycling fisherman (1 Oct 2008)

*I am a hgv driver and keen cyclist...*

i am a hgv driver and a keen cyclist, so what can we do to prevent accidents and improve our all round safety...

well, like it or lump it you are allways going to get HGV's in towns and cities that is not going to change.

Like it or lump it you are allways going to get poor, inexperienced road users.

My message is simple keep away from the danger areas and your chance of an accident is greatly reduced.

I see everyday cyclists who in my opinion are in too much of a rush they don't want to stop no matter what, and the stupidity is un believeable.

Just earlier today I was at a busy junction/crossroads turning left (with indicator flashing) stationary on a red with cycle lane on my left and then a barrier, there was 4 cyclists one had edged forward wanting to jump the red light and the other 3 were queued up my left hand side, 

now look...

the first one of the 3 on my left hand side was leaning/balancing with his right hand on my front nearside wheel arch, the other 2 were chatting side by side, so looking out of my nearside kerb mirror i see the top of a cyclists helmet and his arm/hand resting on my front wheel arch, balancing if you like...

looking out of the nearside wing mirror i see some of the path, barrier, 2 cyclists side by side in the cycle lane (just behind the cab) and then the side of my wagon.

All of this and there are 2 high viz stickers with black capitals stating CYCLISTS >
PASS VEHICLE ON RIGHT
DO NOT PASS ON LEFT

a no entry sign underneath that sits on the nearside rear bumper bar indicating do not go up here, and a green arrow on the offside rear bumper indicating safe to pass up here...

WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY were they even there in the first place ?

i'm sorry but they were clearly in the wrong place they were in the danger area, even if i was going straight on they were in the wrong place.

These cyclists we speak of and i am not saying anybody here, but less experienced cyclists are a danger to themselves and need training it is as simple as that.

They need to Keep out of our way and well away to the front or the rear NOT the sides it is just too dangerous, I would say that in these recent fatalities i would bet that the cyclist was in the wrong 85-90% of the time and HGV's are very unforgivving in terms of HGV vs BIKE

There are some top notch cyclists out there including myself (ahem) which i am sure some if not most of the members on this forum are, lets share the road safely and lets use a bit of forward thinking and common sense.

HGV class 1 or 2 and bus...CYCLISTS KEEP OUT OF THE WAY. IT IS DANGEROUS.

Where do i see the level of blame ? 85% cyclist 15% driver.

another thing as well, the driver does not want the death of a cyclist/pedestrian/anyone for that matter on his conscience, we all have families and loved ones too and we dont want to see no harm to any of you or our own.

so lets drop the "lets jump on the wagon driver" shall we ?

You have just driven 56 mph for 4 hours its rainy and windy visability is not so good, the road surface is slippy and theres a bit of mist on your mirrors, you pull up at a junction to find 4 cyclists 1 is at the front trying to jump the red........

get the picture ?

KEEP AWAY AND USE COMMON SENSE.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Oct 2008)

^ I agree.


----------



## Keith Oates (2 Oct 2008)

CF, that is a sensible and well written post, the problem is how do we get that type of message over to the cyclists AND make it stick!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2008)

It's telling that so many on here think that cyclists are never to blame and that drivers should assumed to be at fault/negligent etc....


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah of course I did, and don't you think if there was a cheaper way of transporting goods around the country we would of found it.
> 
> As for freight going back on the rails...how are you going to transport it to the point of delivery eh?
> 
> Bet you didn't know this though, the M25 was meant and built for trucks so they would not have to go through London but everyone uses it, such is life.




Roads are more heavily subsidised than railways which is why road transport appears cheaper. The rail network used to be more extensive than it now is, it was reduced on on the advice of a man who had shares in Tarmac. If political corruption was kept out of the picture the railways would be a cheaper way to transport freight, and a much, much safer one.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

cycling fisherman said:


> i am a hgv driver and a keen cyclist, so what can we do to prevent accidents and improve our all round safety...
> 
> well, like it or lump it you are allways going to get HGV's in towns and cities that is not going to change.



It could well change. London air quality is so poor that the EU can fine us for it. There is currently a congestion charging zone and a low emission zone and these are likely to be both extended and more rigourously enforced, so that lorries are either priced-out or banned altogether. Why should Londoners be fined for being forced to breathe poisonous air?


cycling fisherman said:


> Like it or lump it you are allways going to get poor, inexperienced road users.
> 
> My message is simple keep away from the danger areas and your chance of an accident is greatly reduced.



But poor and inexperienced road users do not recognise the danger areas and so are inevitably going to keep being in them.


cycling fisherman said:


> I see everyday cyclists who in my opinion are in too much of a rush they don't want to stop no matter what, and the stupidity is un believeable.
> 
> Just earlier today I was at a busy junction/crossroads turning left (with indicator flashing) stationary on a red with cycle lane on my left and then a barrier, there was 4 cyclists one had edged forward wanting to jump the red light and the other 3 were queued up my left hand side,



The design of cycle-lanes is absolutely criminal; they so often direct cyclists to where they are in the most danger.


cycling fisherman said:


> now look...
> 
> the first one of the 3 on my left hand side was leaning/balancing with his right hand on my front nearside wheel arch, the other 2 were chatting side by side, so looking out of my nearside kerb mirror i see the top of a cyclists helmet and his arm/hand resting on my front wheel arch, balancing if you like...
> 
> ...


Are you asking why they were on the road, or waiting at a red traffic light, or why they were in the cycle-lane? Which of these is wrong?


cycling fisherman said:


> i'm sorry but they were clearly in the wrong place they were in the danger area, even if i was going straight on they were in the wrong place.
> 
> These cyclists we speak of and i am not saying anybody here, but less experienced cyclists are a danger to themselves and need training it is as simple as that.



The law does not require cyclists to be trained to stay alive. It requires drivers to be trained to use their vehicles without endangering others.




cycling fisherman said:


> They need to Keep out of our way and well away to the front or the rear NOT the sides it is just too dangerous, I would say that in these recent fatalities i would bet that the cyclist was in the wrong 85-90% of the time and HGV's are very unforgivving in terms of HGV vs BIKE



What do you know about these recent fatalities that you can apportion blame?


cycling fisherman said:


> There are some top notch cyclists out there including myself (ahem) which i am sure some if not most of the members on this forum are, lets share the road safely and lets use a bit of forward thinking and common sense.
> 
> HGV class 1 or 2 and bus...CYCLISTS KEEP OUT OF THE WAY. IT IS DANGEROUS.
> 
> Where do i see the level of blame ? 85% cyclist 15% driver.


 Again, what do you know that allows you to make this assumption? 
Also, buses aren't a problem, because the cabs are designed so that the driver can see to the left. 


cycling fisherman said:


> another thing as well, the driver does not want the death of a cyclist/pedestrian/anyone for that matter on his conscience, we all have families and loved ones too and we dont want to see no harm to any of you or our own.
> 
> so lets drop the "lets jump on the wagon driver" shall we ?
> 
> You have just driven 56 mph for 4 hours its rainy and windy visability is not so good, the road surface is slippy and theres a bit of mist on your mirrors,


 so send the freight by rail which is safer


cycling fisherman said:


> you pull up at a junction to find 4 cyclists 1 is at the front trying to jump the red........
> 
> 
> get the picture ?


 as you describe it, waiting in a cycle-lane for the light to change


cycling fisherman said:


> KEEP AWAY AND USE COMMON SENSE.



And keep intrinsically unsafe vehicles off the road altogether.


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I have not but a good few times I've been behind a truck when it's turned left. Not wanting do go up the nearside.
> 
> I do remember when I was in London a few years ago being a bit of a clever dick I rode about halfway down the side of the trailer and stopped. Lights went green he turned left the trailer missed me though but it was close. That it why I say, always behind or in front at a junction or red light, never down the nearside.




Lee, you would be far better to be behind a HGV at lights, not in front. If I am at the front of the queue and a HGV pulls along side, I do my best to make sure the driver has seen me. 

It is sound advice to stay behind HGVs, tippers, cement mixers etc and most of the time, this is not a problem. Whilst vigilance and spatial awareness will not grant you immunity from left hooks, they will go a long way to make you safer.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2008)

It's all very well saying send freight by rail, but you'll still need trucks to get it into cities, and there will always be tippers and cement mixers in cities with the building work going on....

The stuff that could be done with rail is motorway stuff anyway, would make fukk all difference to cycle casualties putting freight on rail


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> It's telling that so many on here think that cyclists are never to blame and that drivers should assumed to be at fault/negligent etc....



There's people on both sides unhelpfully apportioning blame or conjuring up statistics with only the flimsiest of circumstantial or anecdotal evidence.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> It's telling that so many on here think that cyclists are never to blame and that drivers should assumed to be at fault/negligent etc....



Who is saying that? Certainly not me.

The evidence is fairly clear that it's mostly drivers to blame in cyclist/motor vehicle collisions. But not always. Even dondare isn't saying that cyclists are never to blame, he only wants to put more responsibility on the HGV driver, which seems quite fair given the danger they bring to others.

Oh, and I think something we're all forgetting is that HGV-caused cyclist deaths are hugely over-represented by construction HGVs such as tippers and cement mixers, and much less so artics, for example.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2008)

It's a general feeling you get reading this forum, cyclists=good, drivers=bad...

DonDare may want them to take more responsibility, but as ever we're getting the stupid 'ban HGVs from city centre roads' argument...

So how exactly are we going to build things? At night? complaints over noise...
Bring cement in in wheelbarrows?


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes I know, I was just highlighting furthur still the problem of being on a drivers nearside.



And it's advice worth reiterating, but on Cyclechat, you're preaching to the converted (by and large) - what we need is much better ansd wider dissemination of HGV cycling strategies for the 100000s who cycle each day. 

Here's something constructive:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/art...authority-takes-action-to-reduce-lorry-deaths


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

You're confused - that is referring to cyclists in general. The cyclists on here will almost all know how to ride around HGVs, a much smaller sub-section.


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Are you sure? because the feeling I'm getting especially from people like dondare is most cyclists HAVE NOT got a clue on how to ride a bike within the vicinity of a truck. You only have to look at the post of the other driver who had 3 cyclists down his nearside when waiting at a red light. Yeah these are all converted? you reckon, the people that died, they knew what they was doing right?



I was talking about Cylechat members and I put in brackets (by and large) - conveniently you seemed to have ignored this when talking about 3 unidentified cyclists... 

I do not know how Dondare rides in relation to HGVs, and on the basis of his posts in this thread I am not in a position to know - neither are you for that matter. If Don reappears on this thread, he can reply to your speculation.

The conjecture about the dead cyclists is inappropriate, Lee. We do not know the full details of the incidents. 



User3143 said:


> The thing is as well, it's not about awareness or even ability surely it is just common sense. But apparently not.



If you are not aware of a HGV how can you use common sense?! Awareness of a HGV's potential paths/movements are critical - and as such it is important to monitor the whereabouts of a large vehicle when they approach from behind and are about to pass, for example


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

LOL, yes, you've still missed the point. Do you not realise that most of the cyclists on here are amongst the more educated and experienced ones? Those few members that aren't will quickly learn from the posts and discussions on here.

I doubt very much that more than a tiny fraction of a percent of UK cyclists are on this forum, and almost definitely not the ones you're complaining most about with your HGV driving experience.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

Having seen dondare's posts over the years, I think it would be safe to bet that he's amongst the better and more switched on cyclists, as well as one of the more experienced. Your abuse of him is just because you have a bias for HGV drivers, and don't like the element of truth in his posts.


----------



## dodgy (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I actually drive a truck for a living and always look out for cyclists and other road users.
> 
> It is just unfortunate that when something that can weigh up to 44 tonnes hit you, you are gonna know about it this is why the accident to death ratio for cyclists is so high.
> 
> ...



In that second link there is a guy who claims to be a cyclist (I can just imagine it) who reckons cyclists shouldn't be on the road, especially the lycra clad ones apparently.
But yes on the whole they seem like a sensible bunch on there.
Dave.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

The roads are intended to be safe. Almost all of the laws, regulations and restrictions on vehicles and their drivers are intended to maintain that safety, the only one that is intended to force people to protect themselves is the one concerning seat belts. 
(This does not include motorways or railways.)
Saying that cyclists ought to be trained to avoid the dangerous behaviour of other road-users is an opinion but it is not what the law says. 
Artics (like the one involved in the most recent accident in which a cyclist was killed) use the entire road to turn in, with the cab and the trailer taking different paths and the driver not being in a position to see whether the road is clear or not. These should not be used in towns. 
Smaller HGVs could be as safe as ordinary buses with a re-design of the cab and better driver training. Recent accidents have been caused by drivers not seeing what they should have been able to see had they been bothering to look. These vehicles are more often than not driven very aggressively with much unneccessary and unsafe overtaking, unsignalled lane-changes and turns, speeding and hard braking and a lack of consideration for anyone else at all.


----------



## rootes (2 Oct 2008)

after having to drive around london delivery things in a 7.5tonner box van whilst a student - driving in london is a serious challenge in anything bigger than a car....

trucks have nice big mirrors BUT lots of blind spots and you have to take corner differently to cars to account for length and width... moving over right before turning left to clear a corner seems to confuse road users behind..

perhaps they shoudl offer out drives in wagons so people can see what they are like to drive (see there was something in the metro on a similar vein)


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

LOL, that's quite funny!! Who remembers AndyfromOtley calling me a car apologist? Now Lee is calling me a cyclist apologist. Ahahahaha!

You can't say you know most HGV/cyclist fatalities in London are due to the cocky cyclist. Or rather you can, but you won't be very credible unless you also post some proof, which you've failed to do. Just because you're probably a very good driver and often manage to correct for other road users' mistakes, including cyclists, doesn't preclude other HGV drivers from making mistakes and killing cyclists.

In reality, the evidence shows that it's more likely to be the HGV driver to blame, but also that cyclists are to blame some of the time.


----------



## rootes (2 Oct 2008)

also trucks are very comfortable and you are quite isolated from the road (suspended cabs, air seats, radio etc etc..) my friend backed into a land rover whilst in a 7.5tonne bread van in Cardiff and didn't even feel the bump and that is only a little truck... his fault for being a div, but he only found out about it when landy driver ran after him down the road..


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2008)

rootes said:


> trucks have nice big mirrors BUT lots of blind spots and you have to take corner differently to cars to account for length and width... moving over right before turning left to clear a corner seems to confuse road users behind..
> 
> perhaps they shoudl offer out drives in wagons so people can see what they are like to drive (see there was something in the metro on a similar vein)



There have been campaings with stationary HGVs - highlighting the lack of visibility from the cab. The Met have also been stopping and advising cyclists about HGVs. 

As I have previously posted, I think the nomenclature used, i.e. "blind spot(s)" is misleading as we're actually talking about large, multiple and shifting swathes of space that a HGV driver cannot see when driving.


----------



## rootes (2 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> As I have previously posted, I think the nomenclature used, i.e. "blind spot(s)" is misleading as we're actually talking about large, multiple and shifting swathes of space that a HGV driver cannot see when driving.



too true and even infront down below is quiet hard to see (unless you have a DAF with the low down windows lol)


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> ?? Have you ever drove a truck dondare?? You should go over to trucknet and post your thoughts over there, they have a few intresting threads regarding trucks and cyclists. The link is in my first post on this thread I do believe.



I've looked at those sites and I've seen the posts. I know that non-cyclists think that cyclists ought to pass a test, be licenced, pay road tax, have insurance, not use the roads at all except if there's a cycle-lane and so on; and I know that motorists (including truckers) will forgive themselves and eachother for what they consider to be minor breaches of the law and occasional lapses in concentration, and obviously they're not going to accept that they should be prevented from using roads that are usuitable for such vehicles.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

The evidence? Quite apart from so many cases in London where the HGV driver was shown not to be paying attention/left hooking/etc, there is that damning RAC study where cyclists are to blame for only 17% of collisions involving a motor vehicle. I think we all accept that on average HGV drivers are much better than car drivers, so how much better will they have to be than the rest to take that ratio to more than half for the collisions just involving HGVs and cyclists?


----------



## rootes (2 Oct 2008)

suppose cars and hgv are like _Chihuahua and Pitbulls..

if the dogs were badly behaved and went mad and attacked you, you would take your chances with the chihuahua!

suppose it comes down to the damage they can do..
_


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> But they are out doing a job, delivering stuff that you and the ~60 million or so people need in this country to survive.
> 
> Just out of intrest going back to your post about using rail freight to deliver goods, how would you do this?



There used to be more railway lines going to more places before Beeching. There could be again. (All it would take is for the right govt. adviser to have shares in Railtrack.) Long-distance haulage is then carried out by the railways and short-distance distribution by smaller vehicles, about the size of a Routemaster bus and with the same design of cab that actually allows the driver to see where he's going. 
Biggest thing I ever drove was a Luton. I've sat in the cab of a bigger truck and seen for myself what I already knew, that the driver can't see what's directly in front, at the sides or behind. That's why I'm saying that they can't be used safely in crowded, narrow streets with frequent right-angle turns as you find in towns.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> As for the law what about Highway code no 144 this is the RTA and therefore is the law and applies to cyclists as well.




"
144
You MUST NOT

drive dangerously 
drive without due care and attention 
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users"

Right. It's a law that is supposed to protect other road users from you, not one that requires other road users to protect themselves. How much danger is a cyclist to a lorry driver? How much danger is a lorry driver to a cyclist? So who has to be careful?


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Isn't the size of a routemaster bus the same as a standard class II vehicle though.
> 
> Mirrors allow a driver to see everything apart from the nearside blind spot, obviously they cannot see directly behind them.



Look at the cab, the driver has windows on three sides and so a much wider field of view. 
Buses do not kill as many cyclists as HGVs, is it driver training or something else? Whatever it is, that is what needs to be changed. It obviously isn't the cyclist.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

Forget it. You know what a routemaster looks like.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Are you sure? *because the feeling I'm getting especially from people like dondare is most cyclists HAVE NOT got a clue on how to ride a bike within the vicinity of a truck.* You only have to look at the post of the other driver who had 3 cyclists down his nearside when waiting at a red light. Yeah these are all converted? you reckon, the people that died, they knew what they was doing right? The thing is as well, it's not about awareness or even ability surely it is just common sense. But apparently not.



That is one of the points that I'm making. How can they know? Anyone is entitled by law to ride a bike on the road without having to pass a test to demonstrate competence. Why should someone understand the dynamics of a truck, appreciate that it needs to swing right to turn left, realise that the driver can't see them when they're along side? It's precisely because cyclists do not have truck-awareness training that truckers have to take care. Legally and morally the responsibility lies with you.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

I do know how to behave on the road, having been cycling for 40 years and also driving for about 16 years, it's the others worried about.
Sometimes I worry for myself as well, even experienced cyclists can't avoid some mistakes. It would help a lot if speed limits were obeyed, even on roads without cameras.


----------



## gavintc (2 Oct 2008)

Legally and morally the responsility lies with both parties. If some people lack the grey cells to keep out from under the wheels of trucks, this does not automatically make it the responsibility of the truck driver. In my experience, truck drivers are reasonable drivers, certainly better in traffic than the average 'bloke on a bike'. To propose that the problem is simply a truck one, is missing the point.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2008)

Lee, why would you make such negative assumptions about dondare's riding? Do you have any idea how he rides and have you observed him? You certainly haven't been around here and previous places long enough to make a useful judgement on his posting.


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> For the last time, if cyclists were to read the highway code and then apply this with a bit(not a lot) of common sense then we would not see half of the problems that occur between cyclists and trucks.
> 
> Am I responsible for a cyclist who wants to undertake me and generally ride like an idiot...? I doubt it



The Highway Code is not the Law. Some of the instructions for cyclists are worse than useless; for instance they continue to insist that using cycle-lanes "can make your journey safer". Cycle-lanes lead those cyclists inexperienced enough to believe this right into the danger zone; on the inside of lorries. I suspect that cyclists in the ASL boxes are invisible to lorry-drivers too.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind at all if all lorry drivers obeyed the Highway Code. 

162-169: Overtaking162
Before overtaking you should make sure

- *the road is sufficiently clear ahead *
- road users are not beginning to overtake you 
- *there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake*

163
*Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.* You should

- *not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake* 
- use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out 
- not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle 
- move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. *Allow plenty of room*. Move back to the left as soon as you can but *do not cut in*

- take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance 
- give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road 
- only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so 
- stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left 
- *give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car* (see Rules 211-215)

Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> Legally and morally the responsility lies with both parties. If some people lack the grey cells to keep out from under the wheels of trucks, this does not automatically make it the responsibility of the truck driver. In my experience, truck drivers are reasonable drivers, certainly better in traffic than the average 'bloke on a bike'. To propose that the problem is simply a truck one, is missing the point.




Cyclists do not have to prove competence, therefore there will be incompetent cyclists. They do not deserve to die. Expect them and make allowances.
Motorists do have to prove competence, therefore there should be no incompetent motorists. They should all have suficient skill to avoid killing other road users. They should be prepared to make allowances and take extra care when sharing the road.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> That's why I'm saying that they can't be used safely in crowded, narrow streets with frequent right-angle turns as you find in towns.



Don't forget that thousands of these things are used every day on tight urban roads with no carnage whatever. I've driven all around Enfield today with 20 tons of nuts and bolts on and I killed hardly anyone. Although I did have to enter the low emission zone.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> That is one of the points that I'm making. How can they know? *Anyone is entitled by law to ride a bike on the road without having to pass a test to demonstrate competence.* Why should someone understand the dynamics of a truck, appreciate that it needs to swing right to turn left, realise that the driver can't see them when they're along side? It's precisely because cyclists do not have truck-awareness training that truckers have to take care. Legally and morally the responsibility lies with you.



Perhaps the bit I've put in bold is part of the problem. I appreciate (and agree with, to an extent) the points you're making, but ultimately, it has to come down to any road user taking some responsibility for their own well being. Just as Health and Safety at Work legislation does not entirely release the employee from his obligation to take reasonable care of his or her own health and safety, so any increased HGV driver training would ideally be run in tandem with increased training for cyclists. After all, no matter how much training drivers have had, I still wouldn't blithely pedal down the inside of an artic, thinking "it's ok, the driver's been trained to look for me".


----------



## cycling fisherman (2 Oct 2008)

*national cycling profiency test*

ok then how about this ?

ALL children should be made to do the national cycling profiency test, make it part of the cirriculum...

http://www.cycle-n-sleep.co.uk/safety cycle test.htm

which members agree with me when i say...

"if this idea were to go ahead above then we would see a fall in accidents and fatalities with hgv's within 5 years"

education is the way forward...

as far as i'm concerned the inclusion of the national cycling profiency test within school childrens cirriculum is a win win situation, encouraging our sport/hobby to youngsters and also teaching the basics of road safety can only be a good thing...

AGREE ?


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Don't forget that thousands of these things are used every day on tight urban roads with no carnage whatever. I've driven all around Enfield today with 20 tons of nuts and bolts on and I killed hardly anyone. Although I did have to enter the low emission zone.



Lorries do not kill cyclists very often, perhaps 30 or 40 per year. (That's all of you, not each.) But they are unacceptably lethal, nonetheless; HGVs make up 2.5% of the traffic and cause 25% of cyclist fatalities, hence the cause for concern. A recent clusterfuk in London has highlighted this.
If one class of vehicle proves to be 10 times as lethal as any other then why not consider how this class of vehicle could be either changed in design to make it safer or in the way it is used to reduce conflict?


----------



## dondare (2 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah it is, some parts, more so the bit that I pointed out to No 144
> *144*
> 
> You *MUST NOT*
> ...



If a lorry driver turns left across a cycle lane, and kills a cyclist using that lane, which one has broken the law?


----------



## dondare (3 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> *If a cyclist is undertaking a lorry(illegal) *and the lorry turns left who is breaking the law? see dondare very grey, like a carousel we can just round and round discussing this. Round and round and round...lol



It's not illegal for a cyclist to pass motor traffic on the left. It's what most cyclists do in stationary or very slow-moving traffic.


----------



## dondare (3 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> This is very grey, you would not get a cycle lane with a bold line that goes across a junction, it would be broken. Thinking about it as well, I may be wrong but i don't think there is a designated cycle lane that goes completly across major junctions where a truck might be turning left.
> 
> I think if this was the case then the cycle lane would direct you onto the path and you would continue along the path across the road as if you was crossing it as a ped and then back on the road. hmmm anyone out know different? I have gone through some major junctions and have never seen a designated cycle lane on the road it would just be to dangerous I think.
> 
> ...


What would you regard as a major junction? There are a great many junctions in London that I know about that are on roads used by all forms of traffic, including bikes and lorries, where the cycle lane is on the road, on the left hand side. As I've said, I consider the design of many cycle-lanes to be criminal and the advice given in the HC to cyclists that "they can make your journey safer" also criminal. Personally I ignore green paint and ride to be safe.


----------



## dondare (3 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I did not say that that the traffic was slow moving or stationary



But in fast moving traffic the cyclist would not be undertaking the lorry, the lorry would be overtaking the cyclist.


----------



## dondare (3 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> This is the opinion of many cyclists including myself, what? we finally agree dondare!




I'm sure we agree about a great many things, but we can argue for ever about the one that we don't.


----------



## Origamist (3 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> But in fast moving traffic the cyclist would not be undertaking the lorry, the lorry would be overtaking the cyclist.



This was explained to Lee earlier in the thread but he had difficulty grasping a scenario where a cyclist was not undertaking but being overtaken by a HGV which then turned left across his path. If you experience this manoeuvre, you will never forget it.


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> This was explained to Lee earlier in the thread but he had difficulty grasping a scenario where a cyclist was not undertaking but being overtaken by a HGV which then turned left across his path. If you experience this manoeuvre, you will never forget it.


Anyone experiencing this clearly isn't going fast enough.....


----------



## dondare (3 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> ... a scenario where a cyclist was not undertaking but being overtaken by a HGV which then turned left across his path. If you experience this manoeuvre, you will not survive it.



Fixed.


----------



## dondare (3 Oct 2008)

It's a forum thing. I quoted him, but changed the quote to what he should have said and added "fixed".


----------



## Origamist (4 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> Anyone experiencing this clearly isn't going fast enough.....



25mph when it happened to me.


----------



## Origamist (4 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> hmm, how fast was you going and where did this happen.



I'll give you more detail than that...

It's wet and windy in November 2006. I'm doing 25mph in the centre of the inside lane (a bus lane), with a bus behind me. Tipper truck doing 40mph + (in a 30mph zone) in the offside lane overtakes us both on Kennington Park Lane (A3) as we approach lights that are still green. I was going straight ahead in the bus lane towards Newington Butts, he then cuts straight across me whilst braking as he wanted to go to left into Kennington Lane. I slammed on the brakes but was still forced onto the pavement. FYI, bunny-hopping on a fixed wheel bike at speed is not easy. The bus driver opens his doors and checks I'm OK. 


Image of the location:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.491144,-0.103265&spn=0.001191,0.002403&t=h&z=19


----------



## dondare (4 Oct 2008)

Last time an artic tried it on me was in Camden; I was in a bus lane and so invisible. I probably wasn't going all that fast and had time to pull up and room to avoid the back wheels cutting across. (The lorry was turning into the entrance of a building site, so this wasn't even a road junction.) Another time before that was also in Camden going up Archway when a lorry driver started to pass me then changed lanes. There were some parked cars on the left and I was physically squeezed between them and the side of the lorry. No excuse for the driver on either occasion.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (4 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes, it would be appear that the driver was to blame. I'm not surprised at what happened to you Origamist. Tipper drivers are the worst of the worst in terms of driving, I'm even cautious of what they will do when I'm out driving.



Seconded. See, even other truck drivers have no time for tipper drivers! I'm sure there are tipper drivers out there who are a credit to their profession, kind to animals and who love their mothers, but I've yet to meet one. :?:


----------



## zimzum42 (4 Oct 2008)

you're right, London Waste drivers pull some funky moves...

Add Economic Skips of Deptford (and their big dumper artics) to that list, their drivers are psychos


----------



## Origamist (7 Oct 2008)

LCC urges action over lorry deaths:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1196


----------



## Origamist (7 Oct 2008)

Post from uk.rec.cycling:

"We make serious documentaries for British TV - BBC and Channel 4 
mostly, and are now working on programme about cycling accidents 
involving heavy goods vehicles around the UK. 

There have been several accidents, and deaths, in London so far this 
year which have been comvered, to some extent, by the press. 

But what about accidents outside London around the rest of the 
country? We have found these very hard to find. If you know of such 
accidents involving heavy good vehicles, outside of London, please get 
in touch. 
Many thanks. We would like your help."

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/28eebf9b258c96d0#


----------



## gavintc (11 Oct 2008)

A new European Directive on truck mirrors is coming into force in Mar 09. It demands retro-fitting to current vehicles and will resolve some of the more dangerous blind spots in the near side area beneath the cab. The Directive is 

2007/38/EC

Do a google and you will come across some interesting links on the subject.


----------



## Origamist (11 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southwarkcyclists/message/6438
> 
> Makes for a very intresting read on this debate, verdict was accidental death and look where the cyclist was. All you people saying the drivers to blame in the majority of collisions, think again.....
> 
> Note the position of the cyclist and reference to the green cyclist box.



I posted this as a separate thread in the campaigning section.


----------



## dondare (12 Oct 2008)

Independent analaysis of all serious accidents involving involving cyclists and motor vehicles concludes that the driver was at fault about 75% of the time. This does not mean that the cyclist is never at fault and does not mean that in any individual case the driver was responsible.
Legislation is designed to minimise the dangers posed by motor vehicles in order to keep the roads as safe as possible, rather than allowing them to become dangerous and then requiring the most vulnerable to take extra care. Hence driving is strictly regulated, cycling much less so and walking hardly at all. 
The problem with bikes and lorries is clearly indicated here; the driver has a very restricted view of the road nearest to his vehicle. 
The law is being changed to improve the driver's view of the road, but without any urgency. Also, additional mirrors and Fresnel lenses don't entirely solve the problem. Compare a lorry with a bus, the bus has a cab like a fish tank by comparison and can see what's directly in front and to the side of his vehicle. 
Near where I live there is a junction which has a barrier on the corner and a pedestrian refuge further down. Both are continually being damaged by lorries because the driver can't see exactly where they are when he's turning. A cyclist caught by a turning lorry would be crushed against the barrier exactly as this woman was. It is simply insane that such dangerous vehicles are being used in town when it is clear that such accidents do occur.


----------



## gavintc (12 Oct 2008)

You are using a generalising statistic when the risk of undertaking an LGV is a specific risk. Apples and pears I propose and the blame in many situations lies with a cyclist.

Mar 09 is pretty urgent when ALL LGV vehicles have to be retro fitted. You can't bring in a new law if the logistics of getting the mirrors have not been ironed out. I really think you are simply anti-LGV.


----------



## Origamist (12 Oct 2008)

This thread would be more constructive if people desisted from point scoring, mindless extrapolation and apportioning blame.


----------



## cycling fisherman (12 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> This thread would be more constructive if people desisted from point scoring, mindless extrapolation and apportioning blame.



well you say that, but theres one or two members in this thread who are obviously anti lgv, i ask them members to watch this...



View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g



there are that many traffic offences in that one video your arguement is closed


----------



## Origamist (12 Oct 2008)

cycling fisherman said:


> well you say that, but theres one or two members in this thread who are obviously anti lgv, i ask them members to watch *this...*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What argument? I was asking *all *sides to show a bit of restraint and respect (that's why I didn't quote anyone). I'm therefore confused as to why you think my "argument" is closed.


----------



## cycling fisherman (12 Oct 2008)

are you or are you not anti lgv? if you are not then i apologise but there are some members in this thread who are anti lgv


----------



## Origamist (12 Oct 2008)

cycling fisherman said:


> are you or are you not anti lgv? if you are not then i apologise but there are some members in this thread who are anti lgv



No, I'm not anti LGV - read my posts in this thread.


----------



## zimzum42 (12 Oct 2008)

He is indeed a bit mental/ I'm still waiting to hear a suggestion from him as to how all these goods are to be transported once his HGV ban is imposed, and how buildings are going to get built in town centres when we have to bring the bricks in with wheelbarrows, etc etc


----------



## Beanie (12 Oct 2008)

FWIW, i'll add my bit to this debate. One thing that concerns me greatly about HGV's in towns and cities is whenever police forces and the government vehicle inspectorate agency (think they are called something like Vosa) do roadside checks on the roadworthiness of HGVs they seem to find high numbers of drivers commiting tachograph and licensing offences and vehicles that have defects which undermine their roadworthiness - no wonder so many people question the wisdom of allowing them into congested urban areas where the cons


----------



## Beanie (12 Oct 2008)

One thing that concens me about HGVs in congested urban areas is that whenever police forces and the government's vehicle inspectorate agency (think they are called somehting like VOSA) do roadside checks on HGVs they seem to find high numbers of HGVS with defects and drivers commiting tachograph and licensing offences. No wonder so many people feel uneasy about HGVs being in town centres.


----------



## gavintc (12 Oct 2008)

I a not defending the industry. But, the rewards from not following the law outweigh the risks. I suggest we have largely removed traffic police from our roads rely upon cameras to catch speeding and then leaving the police to operate as 'crime recording agents'. We bring in large demands for taxation and do not follow this through with an effective regime of inspection and monitoring.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah it is, some parts, more so the bit that I pointed out to No 144
> *144*
> 
> You *MUST NOT*
> ...



Forgive me if I appear dim. The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 2 (as substituted Road traffic Act 1991) makes it an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place. And the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 makes it an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place without due care and attention. In what way does that apply to *cycling*?


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> [/b]
> Originally Posted by *User3143*
> 
> 
> ...



Is the wrong answer I feel. Rule 144 clearly applies to driving, not cycling and the Acts referred to apply to motoring offences, not cycling offences.


----------



## HF2300 (12 Oct 2008)

Trouble is the online version of the HC is misleadingly laid out. If you follow the links for cycling, it takes you not only to cycle specific but to general chapters about driver / rider behaviour. Unfortunately 144 then refers back to a motor vehicle specific bit of legislation - an example of what someone referred to as the HC having a motor vehicle bias.

That doesn't mean there aren't similar offences for cyclists:

RTA 1988 (1988 c52):

 *28 Reckless cycling *

A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence.
In this section “road” includes a bridleway.

*29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling *

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

In this section “road” includes a bridleway.

*30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs *

(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence. 
(2) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. 
(3) In this section “road” includes a bridleway.




RTA 1991 (1991 c40):

 *7. Cycling offences *

For section 28 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be substituted—

*“28 Dangerous cycling *

(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence. 
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)— 
(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and 
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous. 
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Wow, the more I read the funnier it gets! This rule was under the rules for cyclists cat.
> 
> *This is the type of ignorance displayed that if it was not so stupid would almost be funny.*
> 
> ...



Indeed. Considering the *specific* HC rules for cyclists are here...

59-82: Rules for cyclists

There are other rules of the HC which impinge upon cycling elsewhere in the HC, but s144 is not specifically for cycling - indeed it relates to *driving* Rule 144 comes under *general rules* - not the rules for cyclists, as you have stated. That's not to say a cyclist should behave like a dick or break the law, which, incidently, is how you give the impression of cycling from the posts you've put - riding without lights, RLJ... 

When interpreting the HC - here's a clue - where the term MUSt is used - it relates to the legislation referred to. Example - go check why speed limits don't apply to pedal cycles.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

HF2300 said:


> Trouble is the online version of the HC is misleadingly laid out. If you follow the links for cycling, it takes you not only to cycle specific but to general chapters about driver / rider behaviour. *Unfortunately 144 then refers back to a motor vehicle specific bit of legislation *- an example of what someone referred to as the HC having a motor vehicle bias.



Exactly. The rule refers to motoring *not* cycling. Indeed, as you went on to say, there are specific cycling offences, but HC rule 144 is quite specific in referring to *motoring* and not cycling.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> What exactly is your point Waffle?



The point is that *you* stated HC rule 144 applies to cyclists. It doesn't. It clearly refers to *driving* with a motor - not a pedal cycle. There are parts of the HC which apply to cycling, but rule 144 does not. You even said it came under the section for cyclists - it doesn't it comes under the general advice section If you follow the actual legislation referred to, they refer to *motoring offences* not cycling ones.

_Edit: for further clarification. s1 & 2 of the RTA 1988 refer to _


_ Causing death by reckless driving. _
_Reckless driving._
_It is these specific offences as amended by the 1991 RTA the HC rule refers to. _


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

Road users have a responsibility to use the road sensibly and legally with regard to others, no matter what form of transport they are using, be it motor, pedal cycle, horse, pedestrian.. But the point remains that those of us who hold a driving licence are effectively in charge of a lethal weapon moving at speed, so IMO we need to be *particularly* mindful of more vulnerable road users. That doesn't mean it's always the fault of the motorist when something untoward happens, but I'm of the opinion that in the UK the bias is too far in favour of the motorist - and I am a motorist as well as a cyclist & pedestrian.


----------



## dondare (12 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> He is indeed a bit mental/ I'm still waiting to hear a suggestion from him as to how all these goods are to be transported once his HGV ban is imposed, and how buildings are going to get built in town centres when we have to bring the bricks in with wheelbarrows, etc etc




Our towns were built before any kind of engine was invented, sometimes by people with wheelbarrows. 
Mass transportation existed in England and throughout the British Empire without it relying on HGVs or LGVs. 
Technology allows transport to happen one way or another, I'm not suggesting replacing all HGVs with wheelbarrows but that's hardly the only option. As I keep on pointing out, buses do not pose the same dangers to cyclists (or road fixtures) as lorries because the cabs are designed so that the drivers can actually see where they're going. Lorries could be designed the same way but they're not.
This country is not at war. The roads are not subject to dangerous uncontrollable natural forces. They are designed by people to allow safe movement of people and goods with laws to mitigate any risks that might arise; why should we accept that they are places of death?


----------



## dondare (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> dondare said:
> 
> 
> > The roads are populated by the young and the old, the ignorant and the inexperienced, the infirm and the incompetent. You cannot expect them all to be trained to know what to do if a lorry comes abreast of them at the lights, or starts to turn in front of them. *That is why their safety is your responsibility when you drive and not theirs. *
> ...



But that is the law. I didn't even write it, but I do agree with it.


----------



## dondare (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes HF very good, I'm just amazed by the ignorance of some people on here, go back over this entire thread. Some people even suggest that the cyclist has no obligation at all when out on the road, and it is up to other road users.


Cyclists have to obey the law, and therefore have to know the law. 
But the law works this way: it protects others. Cyclists have an obligation not to pose a danger, and so do drivers. Since motor vehicles are intrinsically more hazardous than bikes they are subject to much more legislation, not the same. 
If all cyclists obeyed all laws it would not save many lives and it would not even save the lives of cyclists who can't anticipate the movement of HGVs. 
If all motorists obeyed all laws it would save thousands of lives (mostly motorists but also many pedestrians and some cyclists) but if law-abiding motorists can still kill law-abiding cyclists because they are driving vehicles that give a restricted view of the road then it's not the behaviour of either that needs to be adressed but the use of such vehicles.


----------



## zimzum42 (13 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> why should we accept that they are places of death?


it does make my ride slightly more exciting


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> He is indeed a bit mental/ I'm still waiting to hear a suggestion from him as to how all these goods are to be transported once his HGV ban is imposed, and how buildings are going to get built in town centres when we have to bring the bricks in with wheelbarrows, etc etc



You and Lee are jumping to wild and extreme conclusions about Dondare's posts not warranted by what he actually wrote, IMO.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> hmm, point taken. But in posting that I was actually responding to dondares statment that cyclists have no responsibility to other road users. It is actually the law but some people are to ignorant/stupid to understand and think that the onus is on the driver.



That's not what Dondare said. He said the most responsibility and care on the roads must be taken by those who bring the most danger to others. That would be motor vehicle drivers, and even more so HGV drivers.

One example might be using a phone whilst driving. You very rarely see HGV drivers on the phone, perhaps mostly because that offence isn't taken nearly as lightly as when a car driver does it.


----------



## Origamist (13 Oct 2008)

ROSPA: Cyclists and Lorries:

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/info/cyclists_and_lorries_factsheet_0206.pdf


----------



## zimzum42 (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Our towns were built before any kind of engine was invented, sometimes by people with wheelbarrows.
> Mass transportation existed in England and throughout the British Empire without it relying on HGVs or LGVs.
> Technology allows transport to happen one way or another, I'm not suggesting replacing all HGVs with wheelbarrows but that's hardly the only option. As I keep on pointing out, buses do not pose the same dangers to cyclists (or road fixtures) as lorries because the cabs are designed so that the drivers can actually see where they're going. Lorries could be designed the same way but they're not.
> This country is not at war. The roads are not subject to dangerous uncontrollable natural forces. They are designed by people to allow safe movement of people and goods with laws to mitigate any risks that might arise; why should we accept that they are places of death?


I'd agree with you that future designs ought to take this stuff into consideration, but I also have a feeling that you would expect all non-compliant trucks to be taken off the roads too, which would consign a load of perfectly good trucks to the third world or scrap.
And don;t go down the route of suggesting that 40foot trailers should unload at the edge of cities and load into lots of small vans, the cost would be prohibitive


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> And don;t go down the route of suggesting that 40foot trailers should unload at the edge of cities and load into lots of small vans, the cost would be prohibitive



And we've already covered how many vans it would take to load the contents of one 40 footer. Besides, if many small vehicles are better than one large one, how come the government is trying so hard to get us out of our cars and onto buses?


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> BentMikey said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what Dondare said. He said the most responsibility and care on the roads must be taken by those who bring the most danger to others. That would be motor vehicle drivers, and even more so HGV drivers.
> ...



That certainly is one of the points I keep making. I think that you need to read my posts again if you're missing it.
Some other points are that: 
The roads are not intended or designed to be dangerous and the laws regulating traffic are intended to reduce danger, not to allow for it; 
cyclists do not have to pass a test to show competence; 
most HGVs have such a restricted view from the cab that they cannot be used safely in town whereas similar-sized buses have a better designed cab and can be.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> I'd agree with you that future designs ought to take this stuff into consideration, but I also have a feeling that you would expect all non-compliant trucks to be taken off the roads too, which would consign a load of perfectly good trucks to the third world or scrap.
> And don;t go down the route of suggesting that 40foot trailers should unload at the edge of cities and load into lots of small vans, the cost would be prohibitive



Current designs of lorry could be retrofitted with glass doors.

I'd rather see freight moved by rail. Keep it off the motorways and main roads altogether.


----------



## zimzum42 (14 Oct 2008)

yeah, cos it's such a danger to cyclists there!

So now you are OK with trucks in the city, but you don't want them on motorways and A-roads?

You're not making much sense now....

Moving freight by rail is a good idea, but it would doubtless mean we would either need to build more lines, or regular services would be disrupted


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

Another point that I make from time to time is that cyclists are not the only victims of road accidents. Making roads safer benefits everyone.
HGVs on motorways are a bloody nuisance. Why do they always have to try to overtake eachother on inclines? One going at 45mph, one going at 45.05mph and two lanes blocked! And all that spray they throw up in the wet, and the way they veer about when the driver is fiddling about in his cab with God knows what, and why do they just change lanes without indicating forcing the cars behind to slam the brakes on?! Freight should be moved long distances by rail and in some cases canal, not the roads.
As far as building more railways is concerned, they should never have been ripped up in the first place. Bloody Beeching with his bloody shares in bloody Tarmac. 
Freight could be moved at off-peak times, but it would mean real investment in track and rolling stock &c.


----------



## zimzum42 (14 Oct 2008)

The problem isn't HGVs, it's the restrictions on their top speed that's the problem. They are all limited to 56mph or something like that. get rid of that and they won;t take so long to overtake each other

As for veering around, well, you try to control a 40ton truck while trying to wrap up your latest rape victim in a roll of carpet.....


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Another point that I make from time to time is that cyclists are not the only victims of road accidents. Making roads safer benefits everyone.
> HGVs on motorways are a bloody nuisance. Why do they always have to try to overtake eachother on inclines? One going at 45mph, one going at 45.05mph and two lanes blocked! And all that spray they throw up in the wet, and the way they veer about when the driver is fiddling about in his cab with God knows what, and why do they just change lanes without indicating forcing the cars behind to slam the brakes on?! Freight should be moved long distances by rail and in some cases canal, not the roads.
> As far as building more railways is concerned, they should never have been ripped up in the first place. Bloody Beeching with his bloody shares in bloody Tarmac.
> Freight could be moved at off-peak times, but it would mean real investment in track and rolling stock &c.



Now you're degenerating into a rant (and possibly showing your true agenda!). I grant you that not all lorry drivers are angels, but it's perfectly possible to drive an artic courteously and carefully, and many (me included) do just that. The spray lorries throw up from the road is hardly the driver's fault ... And I have to say, as someone who drives mostly in the small hours of the morning when the only things on the road are other lorries, it's cars that create more traffic chaos and nuisance, in my experience.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2008)

There's some people here who have some trouble with basic morality (which is rather more fundamental than law). Here's how it works: the more power and potential to harm you have, the more responsibility you have to those more vulnerable than yourself. This applies at all levels (cyclists have those responsibilities to pedestrians or the disabled, for example; HGV drivers have rather larger responsibilities). This doesn't exclude other responsibilities we all have (in law and in common sense), however the 'duty of care', to preserve life, protect the weak etc., is fundamental. And, I am afraid, it doesn't matter how essential anyone or any activity is to the economy - that is secondary to this fundamental moral duty.

(This has a number of interesting implications, BTW, which are by no means 'anti-HGV' not least of which is that it makes sense for lorry drivers to be paid to reflect this responsibility...) 

In terms of policy - and this has no necessary connection to the above - I favour restricting HGVs in city centres, and the restoration of train lines and 'break bulk' centres where HGVs can transfer goods to smaller vehicles for local delivery. However, more fundamental is the ridiculous centralised 'just-in-time' distribution systems we now have, where goods can be moved twice the distance of the entire country from ports to distributions centres to local selling points. For food especially, a lot of this is entirely unecessary - it merely serves the increasingly monopolistic positions of particular firms, and works against local producers. But there's a long history and very complicated politics here too...


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Now you're degenerating into a rant (and possibly showing your true agenda!). I grant you that not all lorry drivers are angels, but it's perfectly possible to drive an artic courteously and carefully, and many (me included) do just that. The spray lorries throw up from the road is hardly the driver's fault ... And I have to say, as someone who drives mostly in the small hours of the morning when the only things on the road are other lorries, it's cars that create more traffic chaos and nuisance, in my experience.



Not blaming the driver for the properties of the vehicle or for the policies of Governments.


----------



## dodgy (14 Oct 2008)

Reading some of the anti-HGV rhetoric on here reminds of the inconsistent and disjointed anti-cyclist bollocks you read on car forums.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2008)

Lee - it should be pointed out that what happens to be the case at the moment is not the only realistic way things could be - otherwise nothing would ever change. (Not that I think British canals will be regularly used for freight transport again any time soon!)


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> That is brillant dondare, class. you have not got a clue really.
> 
> That's why there is a third lane for cars to overtake, and why you have windscreen wipers on your car. In this post you have shown how anti-hgv you are. This is nothing to do with cycling at all, has no relevance and is the mumblings of a pig ignorant t**t with no knowledge of the transport industry at all. Use a canal to transport goods???LMFAO



Goods are transported by canal, it is what they were built to do. More use could be made of them now. The railways too served that purpose (there used to be things called "goods trains") and could also take a lot of bulk transport off the roads.

Not all motorways do have a third lane and the same problem exists on roads that aren't motorways. But I suppose it's only a problem if you're in a hurry and want to go faster than 45mph uphill. Probably better to exercise a little patience and just accept that lorries on roads do slow everyone else down.

Windscreen wipers were invented before road-spray, so that's not what they're for.


----------



## dodgy (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Windscreen wipers were invented before road-spray, so that's not what they're for.



Now *that* is bollocks.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I can see your point but the use of trucks to transport things now has been going on for about 36 years (if you go from when the lgv test was introduced, I think 1972, I might be wrong). I'm sure that if there was a better way of transporting goods around the country we would have found it by now. *Petrol strike anyone???? September 2002 was it?? I might be wrong on the years. The whole country went dry within two days. Just highlights the importance that trucks play in keeping the infrastructure of this country going. *You got the likes of dondare saying we should use trains and canals?!?! more, forget it.



It highlights the stupidity of relying too much on road transport. 
As does the huge hike in inflation that comes about from having absolutely everything transported by road when oil prices go up.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> How do you propose that petrol stations across the country get thier fuel then?




You've got me there. I can't see any alternative to petrol tankers.

Odd thing is, I never actually see any tankers either on the motorways or in town. How _do_ petrol stations get their fuel?


----------



## gavintc (14 Oct 2008)

The rail network in UK is optimised for passenger traffic. There is little priority given for freight movement. I read recently that rail only makes economic sense or journeys over 300 miles as the transhipment costs eat away at the reduced transport costs. 

Sadly, we got into rail and canal too early and as a nation of pioneers built them a little bit too small. The rest of the world learnt from our mistakes and made the canals wider and deeper and the rail tunnels a more effective size. Changing now would be just too expensive. Fitting smaller wheels to our rolling stock has helped a bit, but we cannot compete with guages found in Europe.


----------



## 4F (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Goods are transported by canal, it is what they were built to do. More use could be made of them now. The railways too served that purpose (there used to be things called "goods trains") and could also take a lot of bulk transport off the roads.
> 
> Not all motorways do have a third lane and the same problem exists on roads that aren't motorways. But I suppose it's only a problem if you're in a hurry and want to go faster than 45mph uphill. Probably better to exercise a little patience and just accept that lorries on roads do slow everyone else down.
> 
> Windscreen wipers were invented before road-spray, so that's not what they're for.



Rail can hardly cope with what it has to do now without adding further freight to it. They have recently added new freight rail services ex Felixstowe however rather than increasing the amount of freight being moved what is actually happening is that the same quantity of freight is being moved however just on more trains. This is due to time constraints to get through certain bottlenecks (the viaduct south of Colchester a classic example) on the main line Felixstowe to London and it is virtually impossible to move any more trains through in the time frame. 

Without someone spending billions and billions to improve infrustructure things will not change and road is the only viable option.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I don't know if your are being funny or not, and I'm almost certain you have seen a petrol tanker at one point.
> 
> Give you an idea of the figures involved because I was a tankee a few years ago. At the terminal at Buncefield where I worked we had roughly 120 loads go out in a 24hr period that's over 3.5m litres of product.



Do they travel mostly at night? I really can't remember the last time that I saw one. Have petrol tankers been involved in any of the spate of accidents that triggered this thread? If they have a better safety record than other equivalent sized vehicles then that would be worth finding out why.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Hmm, if only Brunel would have stuck with his 7ft guage....



We'd have won the war a bit faster, too. British tanks were designed to fit on railway trucks which is why they were so puny. Getting rid of broad gauge was disasterous but was carried out in the name of progress.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> day and night



Well, I'll make a point of looking out for them, both on the roads and in the news. As far as the safety thing is concerned, it certainly would be understandable that the drivers of petrol tankers were more safety-conscious than the drivers of cement lorries, for example.


----------



## wafflycat (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Do they travel mostly at night? I really can't remember the last time that I saw one. Have petrol tankers been involved in any of the spate of accidents that triggered this thread? If they have a better safety record than other equivalent sized vehicles then that would be worth finding out why.



I see many a fuel tanker on the roads day or night no matter what time I happen to be driving or cycling.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Getting rid of broad gauge was disasterous but was carried out in the name of progress.



The broad gauge was (unfortunately) introduced just that bit too late to become standard in this country. It was a particular pet project of Brunel's and he stuck to it with increasing pig headedness even after it became apparent that Stephenson's "coal wagon" gauge was winning the day. The main reason the broad gauge was abandoned (by Act of Parliament, if I remember rightly) was because of the inconvenience and expense of transhipping freight from wagons of one gauge to wagons of the other ... ring any bells?
Our canals were (mostly) built with narrow locks and bridge holes for reasons of economy, which has prevented them being used for mass transportation of freight - certainly on the scale on which canal freight is used on the continent - pretty much since the day they were built, apart from in the West Yorkshire coalfield. And one of our main north - south railways (the Great Central, from London Marylebone to Sheffield) was built to the continental loading gauge and not completed until 1899: unfortunately (and entirely typically) this is the one that Beeching chose to shut.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

Whilst the small locks of our canals and the narrow gauge of our railways place constraints on their carrying capacity, at the height of Britain's industrial age they were at the heart of a transport network that moved raw materials and manufactured goods around the country and around the world. Now that we don't produce anything any more and with the collapse of our one remaining industry - banking - won't be able to afford to buy imported stuff either they ought to at least be adequate.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to make a point there, actually, I just find railway and canal history interesting!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

Although now you mention it ... we may not produce much any more, but we do import a lot of stuff, all of which needs transporting when it gets here. I work for an overnight pallet distribution network which shifts around 5 000 pallets every night and is one of six similar networks. Now, all these pallets go from being with their originator one afternoon to being with the final recipient within one or two days. The canal and railway networks are sadly just not capable of this level of service.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Whilst the small locks of our canals and the narrow gauge of our railways place constraints on their carrying capacity, at the height of Britain's industrial age they were at the heart of a transport network that moved raw materials and manufactured goods around the country and around the world.



This is true, although you need to remember that virtually every town in Britain had a railway station and goods yard which employed anywhere between five and thirty people. For a start, we no longer have the railway infrastructure in place to deal with any freight other than the block loads such as coal and containers that we currently see on the railways, and I really can't see the likes of Connex Central or Virgin Trains being willing to take on more employees to deal with old style goods trains (which would not be lucrative - they never really were and were only really seen on the railways because until 1962 the railway companies were legally obliged to carry any load offered to them), even assuming the lines and handling facilities were available or could be built. I agree with you, it would be nice to see more freight on the railways (I speak as a lifelong rail enthusiast ... no, not a trainspotter, quiet at the back there) but I don't think the will is yet there to change things.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Although now you mention it ... we may not produce much any more, but we do import a lot of stuff, all of which needs transporting when it gets here. I work for an overnight pallet distribution network which shifts around 5 000 pallets every night and is one of six similar networks. Now, all these pallets go from being with their originator one afternoon to being with the final recipient within one or two days. The canal and railway networks are sadly just not capable of this level of service.




Canals for stuff that does not need to be moved quickly, and railways for that which does. But soon we won't be able to afford all those foreign made goods so it won't matter anyway.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Canals for stuff that does not need to be moved quickly, and railways for that which does. But soon we won't be able to afford all those foreign made goods so it won't matter anyway.



But you still come up against the transhipping problem, the same one which did for Brunel's broad gauge all those years ago. Sooner or later, your pallet of safety footwear, your washing machine, your 26 pallets of nuts and bolts, your load of vodka, your stationery, your timber, your steel, your loft insulation ... oh, _everything_ has to be transhipped onto ten 7.5 tonners for final delivery. Every time any load is transhipped there's an increased risk of pilferage or damage, quite apart from the increased handling costs. And If you think the roads are bad now with artics here and there, wait until every urban artic is replaced by ten (yes, ten) 7.5 tonners. Then there'll be something to complain about.


----------



## gavintc (14 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Canals for stuff that does not need to be moved quickly, and railways for that which does. But soon we won't be able to afford all those foreign made goods so it won't matter anyway.



I do not know how much in weight a canal barge could carry, but I can propose that it is about the same if not less than a 40ft trailer. I can guarantee that the canal network would dry up pretty quickly if we put any sizeable commercial load onto it. Remember for every lock movement, a lock;s amount of water is lost from the upper network. 

Transhipment and double handling of freight kills transport businesses. You need less not more to maintain effectiveness. That is why we have such large warehousing and cross handlng areas developing in middle England (Coventry / Northampton / Derby).


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> I can guarantee that the canal network would dry up pretty quickly if we put any sizeable commercial load onto it. Remember for every lock movement, a lock;s amount of water is lost from the upper network.



This is true. And, even though the canals were indeed built for freight transport, they now have a new lease of life as a well - used leisure resource. If you've ever queued up to six hours to get up Grindley Brook staircase locks or The Bratch, as I have, then a return of waterbourne commercial traffic begins to look less and less realistic.


----------



## Origamist (21 Oct 2008)

Another tragedy:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...+cyclist+at+'deathtrap'+crossroads/article.do


----------



## J4CKO (22 Oct 2008)

Tragic,

I think there needs to be a tv campaign, to many people are being killed, one is too many, just something to highlight the danger of going anywhere near a HGV on a bike, just keep the f*ck away from them, if it involves stopping, then stop and get around it some other way.

I hate the frigging things, on the A roads and they come past with inches to spare, I learnt early on that if one is coming round a right hand bend the trailer moves over towards you so on my commute I check my mirror and if there is one hoving into view I make my decision whether to get my foot down or nip onto the pavement and stop, having been stuck pedaling with a trailer swinging towards me I do not want to do it again.

I appreciate the average HGV driver is more regulated and proffesional than the average car driver but I think some are under such pressure to make a schedule they take risks, then again they may just be stupid, drugged or have driven from Latvia in one go.


----------



## Origamist (22 Oct 2008)

***Question No: 2198 / 2008*

Valerie Shawcross

What steps are you taking to stem the recent increase in the number of
pedestrians and cyclists being killed or seriously injured on London’s
roads?

***Answer from the Mayor:*

TfL is continuing to upgrade the network to provide more facilities for
cyclists and safer crossings for pedestrians. There are programmes for
cycle training, along with major London-wide campaigns that encourage
drivers to look out for cyclists.

There are, however, specific concerns with cyclists and HGVs. TfL is
encouraging lorry operators to fit warning posters on the back of
lorries, along with making ‘Fresnel lenses’ freely available. TfL is
also working closely with the City and Metropolitan Police Services,
including the Commercial Vehicle Education Unit, who together with the
Traffic Operation Command Unit are looking at ways of using enforcement
to reduce the risk to cyclists. Also, a high-level meeting set for 17
November convened by the Police, and including TfL, freight Operators
and road user representative groups will discuss and agree a plan of action.

TfL will continue to explore ways which to improve road safety,
especially as the increases in cyclists and pedestrians are expected to
continue into the future.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2008)

You could just as well say that Fresnel lenses are a bit of a joke - after all, drivers ignore cyclists clearly in view in their mirrors, such as with the death of Emma Foa if I recall correctly.


----------



## Origamist (22 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Warning posters are a bit of a joke, as most cyclists ignore them.



Therefore, if some cyclists heed the warnings, they're having a positve effect on road safety and are not merely "a bit of a joke".


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (22 Oct 2008)

*You cannot protect Idiots from themselves !*

The link from this forum at the bottom of this post helps to prove that this problem will not go away,This is the sort of thing HGV drivers (in fact all road users !) have to deal with ! Although I accept that there are idiots that use our roads in all sorts of ways, A higher percentage of cyclists don't look after there own safety than do ! What chance has any body got against such people. We could off course spend the entire day watching for idiots trying to kill them selves in our mirrors but surely this would only lead to even more accidents. If some body wishes to commit suicide then you will never stop them. The message is very simple DON'T GO UP THE INSIDE OF LARGE VEHICLES ! if you are not there you won't get crushed ! Some body needs to tell this to Cyclists. Most people understand that if you are not on a train track you won't get hit by a train so generally keep away from train tracks.

May be local cycling clubs/shops could help with this, leaflets ( the highway code regarding bikes & safety issues) with each new bike, posters in schools ,talks in schools this would at least help. Then there are the idiots mentioned earlier, fines may help confiscation of unroad worthy bikes after all this is how other dodgy road users are dealt with. Even a few signs telling drivers to watch out on there left for cyclists in areas of danger and of course more/better mirrors for HGV drivers ( one more would make an average of seven mirrors for most trucks this in itself could cause danger)

Until we get rid of the idiots riding bikes then the rest of us will never be taken seriously.​ That's my two penny's worth anyway keep safe every one.

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21173


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2008)

What about the occasional knuckle dragging impatient paid-by-the-trip tipper driver?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> What about the occasional knuckle dragging impatient paid-by-the-trip tipper driver?



Do you think an extra mirror on his cab will eliminate the danger he poses?


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> The link from this forum at the bottom of this post helps to prove that this problem will not go away,This is the sort of thing HGV drivers (in fact all road users !) have to deal with ! Although I accept that there are idiots that use our roads in all sorts of ways, A higher percentage of cyclists don't look after there own safety than do ! What chance has any body got against such people. We could off course spend the entire day watching for idiots trying to kill them selves in our mirrors but surely this would only lead to even more accidents. If some body wishes to commit suicide then you will never stop them. The message is very simple DON'T GO UP THE INSIDE OF LARGE VEHICLES ! if you are not there you won't get crushed ! Some body needs to tell this to Cyclists. Most people understand that if you are not on a train track you won't get hit by a train so generally keep away from train tracks.
> 
> May be local cycling clubs/shops could help with this, leaflets ( the highway code regarding bikes & safety issues) with each new bike, posters in schools ,talks in schools this would at least help. Then there are the idiots mentioned earlier, fines may help confiscation of unroad worthy bikes after all this is how other dodgy road users are dealt with. Even a few signs telling drivers to watch out on there left for cyclists in areas of danger and of course more/better mirrors for HGV drivers ( one more would make an average of seven mirrors for most trucks this in itself could cause danger)
> 
> ...



Some positive advice, but it would be very easy to stereotype HGV drivers in an unflattering light too. 

BB do you have any suggestions as to what HGV drivers/hauliers could do to help the situation?


----------



## dondare (23 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> The link from this forum at the bottom of this post helps to prove that this problem will not go away,This is the sort of thing HGV drivers (in fact all road users !) have to deal with ! Although I accept that there are idiots that use our roads in all sorts of ways, A higher percentage of cyclists don't look after there own safety than do ! What chance has any body got against such people. We could off course spend the entire day watching for idiots trying to kill them selves in our mirrors but surely this would only lead to even more accidents. If some body wishes to commit suicide then you will never stop them. The message is very simple DON'T GO UP THE INSIDE OF LARGE VEHICLES ! if you are not there you won't get crushed ! Some body needs to tell this to Cyclists. Most people understand that if you are not on a train track you won't get hit by a train so generally keep away from train tracks.
> 
> May be local cycling clubs/shops could help with this, leaflets ( the highway code regarding bikes & safety issues) with each new bike, posters in schools ,talks in schools this would at least help. Then there are the idiots mentioned earlier, fines may help confiscation of unroad worthy bikes after all this is how other dodgy road users are dealt with. Even a few signs telling drivers to watch out on there left for cyclists in areas of danger and of course more/better mirrors for HGV drivers ( one more would make an average of seven mirrors for most trucks this in itself could cause danger)
> 
> ...




Cycling is very unregulated so there will be idiots cycling. The problem is that increasing regulation will discourage cycling which in the long term will cost lives because the health benefits outweigh the risks, and in the shorter term will result in more pollution and traffic congestion as people drive instead. The danger to idiot cyclists and also to not-so-idiot cyclists comes from motor vehicles which is why driving is regulated. It may seem unfair to you that if you bring danger onto the road then the responsibility for controlling that danger rests with you rather than those you are endangering, but it seems right to me and it is how the Law regards it too, in theory at least. 
You mention trains and train tracks. Cyclists don't ride on railway lines and don't get killed by trains, but an HGV is the equivalent of a train on a public road. The account I read of the most recent incident indicated that not only had a cyclist been killed, but that the pedestrian barrier had been badly damaged. Did the barrier sneak up the inside of the turning lorry? Or is it that these vehicles are too large, cumbersome and dangerous to be used on public roads? 
One other point, on the same day an HGV on a motorway wiped out an entire family, it's not just idiot cyclists who are killed by these things. Here's a link for you to look at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4983370.ece


----------



## dondare (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Nothing, the onus is on the cyclist not to ride like a twat, apply a bit of common sense and not undertake/creep up the nearside of a HGV at a junction.
> 
> I thought this would have been obvious now.



If I ride sensibly, reach the junction first and wait at the lights, what can I do about the driver who pulls up alongside me intending to turn left?

How are inexperienced cyclists supposed to know that cycle-lanes are death traps? The Highway Code says that they can "make your journey safer". A law-abiding cyclist could be killed obeying the HC.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Nothing, the onus is on the cyclist not to ride like a twat, apply a bit of common sense and not undertake/creep up the nearside of a HGV at a junction.
> 
> I thought this would have been obvious now.



Why don't HGV drivers have a similar onus?


----------



## dondare (23 Oct 2008)

Then repeat yourself.


----------



## dondare (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> post 63, last paragraph



You'd jump the light?


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> We do, and I always do when I'm out driving but if you want to undertake me, or be a clever dick at a red light....I certainly wouldn't shed any tears.




Therefore, it is an onus that both drivers and cyclists share, but you seem to be saying that it is only cylists that need to modify their behaviour and learn from campaigns, not HGV drivers.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes I am, look at the deaths that occured in London, nearly all come from the cyclist going up the inside.



Please supply the data corroborates this claim.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

Lee, in the Emma Foa case you have cited the driver was fined £300 after admitting careless driving! 

"The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured."

You're doing a good job of undermining yourself.

Anyway, I take it that apart from cherry picking a few cases, you do not have figures over a defined period that support your earlier statement?


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Inquest ruled accidental death and he was allowed to keep his license. Anyway you did ask for evidence showing cyclists turning left, Emma Foa was one such person, along with others.
> 
> Have you got evidence to disprove that most have died by going up the inside of a truck? I doubt it cause most have.



But earlier you said the onus was only on cyclists - do you think the driver should have been more aware in this case? The Court seemed to think so. 

Lee, it is you who is making claims you cannot substantiate. I do not know the statistical breakdown of HGV and cyclist fatalites. I assumed you did as you made a sweeping statement about accident causation. 

In addition, there is not enough detail to know how the cyclist died at Southampton Row. Your selective gathering of articles has weakened your case, not strengthened it.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> We do, and I always do when I'm out driving but if you want to undertake me, or be a clever dick at a red light....I certainly wouldn't shed any tears.



Crikey, I hope you and your family never need to experience this sort of heartless lack of consideration from the other party in a collision.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2008)

I have been hit by a HGV. It was one of Cadbury's transport trucks between Bournville and their chilled warehouse in Minworth. In retrospect, I should have been more sensible instead of attempting the shoulder shrugging squeeze up the kerbside.
The trucker didn't see me. He wasn't expecting a looney cyclist. He was watching the traffic ahead.
HGV drivers don't go out of their way to knock down cyclists. AND, more poignantly, new and novice cyclists don't go out of their way to read the Highway Code. * 73


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Not if the cyclist was in his blind spot.
> 
> It just makes perfect sense to me, that most (which I have always said)cyclists are to blame when you take into consideration their positioning, and the fact they want to undertake a truck.



The police investigators checked this (position of vehicle, mirrors, cyclist position etc) and concluded that the cyclists was visible for 37 seconds. CCTV footage confirmed the timing.

I'll leave other people to decide if your argument makes "perfect sense".


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

OTOH I have seen quite a few near left hooks or stupid overtake attempts by impatient HGV drivers in London. That doesn't reflect well on HGV drivers.


----------



## jasper (23 Oct 2008)

I find it incredible that a lot of cyclists are not using common sense in these situations...!

Yes, I agree HGV's have poor visibility. Therefore I do not go alongside large vehicles. If the cyclist wasn't there in the first place then he/she wouldn't be in harm's way.

Before anyone asks, no, I don't have any stats....but I see it day in, day out; cyclists taking undue risks. Is it really worth getting to the front, how much time are you saving by doing so? You still have to wait at the lights (or not, in some people's case). But hanging back, could save you your life...!


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

What I find interesting is how Lee adn teh other HGV drivers on here refuse to accept that HGV drivers screw up. All the cyclists here accept that some cyclists make mistakes and do stupid things, but according to them HGV drivers never do that.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I've just seen a photo of the junction. Do you think in those 37 seconds she could have rolled forward two or three metres to make eye contact with the driver?
> 
> Don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but this goes back to what I was saying about cyclists applying a bit (only a bit) of common sense. If she would have done that she would have been alive today.
> 
> ...



Lee, could the cyclist have done things differently, yes. Could the driver have checked his mirrors, yes. However, this is not what you have been saying - you said the onus was on cyclists only, not HGV drivers. This case highlights my point that there is a need for shared resposibility on the roads and both sides need educating with regard to hazard perception.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Not in this instance, if Emma was already there then the driver would have seen her and stopped short.
> 
> However she tried going up the nearside...in most cases of this type of incident it is the cyclist undertaking the truck while it is waiting at a red light, yes? therefore the onus is on the cyclist. Highway code no 73.



If he had been checking his nearside (hazard perception) he would have seen the cyclist - she was visible for more than 30 secs. How can you keep saying the onus is only on the cyclist?


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> What I find interesting is that I have never said that, if so where?



Exactly. You've never once admitted that HGV drivers screw up, to my knowledge. Why don't you come out and admit that also happens? No qualifications, no excuses needed.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Exactly. You've never once admitted that HGV drivers screw up, to my knowledge. Why don't you come out and admit that also happens? No qualifications, no excuses needed.




He did, in post 146. 

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=421804&postcount=146

However, it took a long time for such an obvious thing to sink into his brain...


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

*floored in amazement*


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Because the truck was already there and the cyclist should have never gone up the nearside, thats's why.
> 
> In reference to my post 146, you are talking about something completely different. I'm talking about waiting at red lights, not poor overtaking. In addition I only have your word for what happened.



And the driver should have checked his mirrors. Do you not think this is best practice? 

BM asked: 

"You've never once admitted that HGV drivers screw up, to my knowledge"

This question was general and not context specific.

Finally:

"Kevin Clinton, Head of Road Safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: “Safety on our roads is everyone’s responsibility. Whenever we use a road, whether as a driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, or pedestrian, we need to be mindful that we have a role to play in ensuring the safety of all the other road users around us."


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (23 Oct 2008)

Hello Again all,


Just a reply to comments made by Gentleman of the road.


“*The danger to idiot cyclists and also to not-so-idiot cyclists comes from motor vehicles which is why driving is regulated. It may seem unfair to you that if you bring danger onto the road then the responsibility for The danger to idiot cyclists and also to not-so-idiot cyclists comes from motor vehicles which is why driving is regulated. It may seem unfair to you that if you bring danger onto the road then the responsibility for controlling that danger rests with you rather than those you are endangering, but it seems right to me and it is how the Law regards it too, in theory at least.”*


I take my responsibilities out there on the road ( whilst cycling ,walking,driving) very seriously and totally agree with you that those causing the danger should pay the price for any accidents/danger they cause so lets see the 50 to 75 percent of idiots on bicycles punished for their dangerous attitude to the roads as the rest of the road users are. Just because you don't have an engine fitted doesn't mean you cannot cause people to get seriously hurt or killed by your actions. This is as you have most likely heard in the passed why a lot of road users hate cyclists ,they pay no road tax, have no insurance ride like idiots ,run red lights, cycle on the footpaths the list is end less. Maybe if we were all on a level playing field people may respect cyclists more. I for one don't really wish to see cycling go that way but the arguments do make some sense ! 


“*You mention trains and train tracks. Cyclists don't ride on railway lines and don't get killed by trains.”*


This is exactly what I meant when I made the comment in the first place, cyclists don't go on train tracks because it is too bloody dangerous so why they try to get up the inside of my truck when I'm sat in traffic or at lights some times clearly indicating I wish to turn left, some times there is such a small gap that they have to lean away from me and push themselves through on one foot . I've had them sit behind me at lights ( great I think at first someone with sense) only to realise the second I pulled away they have grabbed onto me to get a free ride !


I have been doing somewhere between 75,000 and 120,000 miles a year for the past 14 years and as yet have never been involved in an accident whilst in control of any type of vehicle powered or otherwise, I'm not trying to tell you I've never made any mistakes or that there are not any idiots driving HGV's around but On my way to work on my bicycle (only 2.5 miles) I pass the same idiots everyday, I see one as I join the main road no lights ,on and off the pavement when he sees fit ,no observations, another one a little further on always on the pavement with his lights on. Then a chap who works on the same site as me, he jumps every set of lights, rides the pavement , takes which ever route avoids him stopping and I have seen him doing this on his phone ! All of these wear no helmets or hi viz and then last but not least just before the entrance to my site a cyclist who does every thing right not really a very good record for only 2.5 miles ! 75% idiots


The only solution I can think of to stop the need of HGV's entering cities is to build all retail outlets,industrial sites outside of cities, close all that are already there, never build any new houses or modify/maintain any old Buildings ,roads ,railways that should stop the need! As you would see from this you would all need to drive outside of the cities ( while the roads lasted) causing more congestion, pollution and most likely more accidents. A little impractical you may see ! And before anyone mentions using smaller trucks this would mean more truck journeys (more pollution,noise, congestion , more trucks being driven by unqualified drivers) and of course the fact that some thing 40/45 foot long will not fit on a car roof rack or your bicycle rack ( no trust me it won't)


Some of the newer towns have this well sorted as retail parks industrial site are kept away from domestic premises and roads in and out of them are all up to modern standards. The only way this could be helped and I only say helped in our older towns is through better road planning by people who really have to use the roads and have real experience of all modes of transport from Specialist HGV to walking, not someone in an office. Every junction needs to be looked at in the flesh not on a street map. As I originally stated better education for cyclists and finding a better way for HGV drivers to see up their inside ( more mirrors may not be the answer) Whilst accidents can never be stopped when people are in control of something be it HGV or bicycle they can be reduced.


I have never had a truck in 20 years(ish) of serious cycling turn left across me as I sit up the inside of it , *This is because I make a point of giving them plenty of room as stated in the highway code and do not go up or sit on their inside.*


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

Badger Brad, you sound like the typical stereotype daily wail reader, IMO, there are a lot of myths in your post above, also to be found in the myths and rebuttals topic in this very forum.

You say cyclists are dangerous, and cause lots of serious injury and deaths. Answer me this - how many people are killed by cyclists per year on average, and how many by motor vehicles?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Oct 2008)

I'd be the first to admit that HGV drivers can make mistakes, and can sometimes drive like idiots. That's obvious. The point I keep trying to make is, even if the cab of every HGV was covered in blind spot mirrors and all the idiot HGV drivers were taken off the roads tomorrow, I still wouldn't ride up the inside of an artic at a junction. Because I know how hard it sometimes isto see a cyclist on a wet evening in a mirror covered in raindrops reflecting streetlights and car headlamps and effectively hiding the cyclist. Or how all the mirrors in the world won't allow you to see through the corner of your trailer if your vehicle is positioned with the tractor unit at an angle to the trailer. It isn't a matter of needing more training or more mirrors every time, sometimes the cyclist can effectively be invisible. If they're behind your truck, they're safe whether you can see them or not.
I'm not trying to abnegate my responsibility here, by the way, just pointing out that no matter how much training HGV drivers get, cyclists will continue to die or be injured if they continue to ride up the inside of lorries. I don't like it either, but there it is.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

And now I can kick myself for not mentioning your enlightened attitude, Rhythm Thief, sorry! Well posted. I was actually thinking about you and excluding you from the "group", but I forgot to add that detail in.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> And now I can kick myself for not mentioning your enlightened attitude, Rhythm Thief, sorry! Well posted. I was actually thinking about you and excluding you from the "group", but I forgot to add that detail in.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'd be the first to admit that HGV drivers can make mistakes, and can sometimes drive like idiots. That's obvious. The point I keep trying to make is, even if the cab of every HGV was covered in blind spot mirrors and all the idiot HGV drivers were taken off the roads tomorrow, I still wouldn't ride up the inside of an artic at a junction. Because I know how hard it sometimes isto see a cyclist on a wet evening in a mirror covered in raindrops reflecting streetlights and car headlamps and effectively hiding the cyclist. Or how all the mirrors in the world won't allow you to see through the corner of your trailer if your vehicle is positioned with the tractor unit at an angle to the trailer. It isn't a matter of needing more training or more mirrors every time, sometimes the cyclist can effectively be invisible. If they're behind your truck, they're safe whether you can see them or not.
> I'm not trying to abnegate my responsibility here, by the way, just pointing out that no matter how much training HGV drivers get, cyclists will continue to die or be injured if they continue to ride up the inside of lorries. I don't like it either, but there it is.



I don't think anyone is saying we can eliminate this kind of incident, but we can and should do more to try and ameliorate the current situation. This certainly includes trying to impress upon cyclists that undertaking HGVs, buses etc at junctions is dangerous and should be avoided. We should also be considering removing railings at certain light controlled junctions.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

As for me, every time I see a cyclist diving up the left of a big vehicle, I make an effort to tell them that might not be a good idea and why. Some take it well, some get offended.

If all of us did that, the power of one would have an effect, I think.


----------



## Origamist (23 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> As for me, every time I see a cyclist diving up the left of a big vehicle, I make an effort to tell them that might not be a good idea and why. Some take it well, some get offended.
> 
> If all of us did that, the power of one would have an effect, I think.



Well, it looks like you and me have something in common after all.


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (23 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Badger Brad, you sound like the typical stereotype daily wail reader, IMO, there are a lot of myths in your post above, also to be found in the myths and rebuttals topic in this very forum.
> 
> You say cyclists are dangerous, and cause lots of serious injury and deaths. Answer me this - how many people are killed by cyclists per year on average, and how many by motor vehicles?



I never said all cyclists are dangerous and cause injury and death, just the fact that a lot of them ( mainly those who cycle as they have no other choice and no real interest in cycling) are a danger to themselves and others, I have no idea how many people are killed by cyclists every year I'm not that sad but look at it from the other point of view, How many cyclists get them selves killed or injured every year ? If you are in danger of getting hurt doing what ever it is you do ( hobby or work) it's your duty to yourself that you make it as risk free as possible if you don't chances are you will get hurt.

As far as being a Daily wail reader where did you get that idea from !!!! You seem to be casting judgement on who or what I am rather than sticking to the subject of this thread ! Don't take it so much to heart !!! If you must know I have no real interest in news papers they all seem to report the same incident differently which means you never know which one is right.

I'm a keen cyclist by choice and just the same as the rest of the people on this forum don't wish to see cyclists (or anyone else for that matter) get hurt it makes no sense to blame HGV drivers for every accident just as it makes no sense to blame cyclists for every accident but in my experience I see more dangerous cycling/cyclists than I do dangerous HGV driving and I see a lot more trucks on my travels. If I were to single out the dangerous driving culprits I would go for the very lightly trained car driver in rush hour as being the highest risk of hitting me.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2008)

I'm not casting judgement on you, but on your thoughts and views regarding driving and responsibility. To answer the question, around 1 person gets killed by a cyclist per year in the whole of the UK, versus about 8 a day by motor vehicle drivers.

Have you read the myths and rebuttals topic in this forum yet?


----------



## dondare (23 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> Hello Again all,
> 
> 
> Just a reply to comments made by Gentleman of the road.
> ...




I said the person bringing the danger onto the road should be responsible for the danger, but you may have misunderstood the concept. 
Drivers of HGVs are killing cyclists, and this is not happening because cyclists are bringing danger to the road but because lorry drivers are. I'm not asking you to pay for it, I'm reminding you that you have a responsibility, legally and morally, to control that danger. If the design of the lorry means that in the narrow confines of a crowded public street that is not possible then don't use them there. The railway system was originally developed specifically to keep powered vehicles off the public roads and this separation is maintained in several ways, it is not simply a case of cyclists recognising that it'd be stupidly dangerous to ride on the tracks that stops them from doing so. Unfortunately vehicles even larger and more powerful than those early steam engines have been permitted to use our roads and so the public are unable to avoid them and the public are getting killed. 
I'd be quite happy to se the law evenly applied across the board and cyclists who endanger pedestrians being punished for it but that's really not the big problem. Cyclists do not, for example, kill 35 or so lorry drivers every year.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> ... but in my experience I see more dangerous cycling/cyclists than I do dangerous HGV driving ... If I were to single out the dangerous driving culprits I would go for the very lightly trained car driver in rush hour as being the highest risk of hitting me.



I'd agree with both of these points.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Oct 2008)

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9976.msg174679#msg174679

I'm not the only one who worrys about left hooking lorry drivers...


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Yet another cycling forum? I think I'll sign up.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'd agree with both of these points.



And yet it's HGVs that prove to be particularly lethal to cyclists. They make up 2.5% of the motor traffic and are involved in 25% of the fatalities.


----------



## col (24 Oct 2008)

Its interesting to see how large vehicles are being blamed for bringing danger to the roads,when in the cyclist going up the inside at junctions or lights its the cyclist that has put themselves in danger by doing just that.Just as when a cyclist filters between slow moving traffic its ok to do that,but get a driver making a mistake like not looking before they change lanes because they dont expect anything in a two foot gap in tailbacks,and its the dangerous drivers fault for not being more carefull,Yet a car passing a cyclist within falling off distance of the cyclist and its another dangerous vehicle being driven by a dangerous driver,personally if i thought im likely to fall off in a straight line on busy roads i wouldnt be out there,but a cyclist can do that by filtering and its ok?Of course a cyclist putting themselves in this position and getting knocked off isnt to blame are they?Of course they are,but we all too readily say its the larger vehicles fault because they should have seen us.Well im afraid i dont blame others for my mistakes,so ill not do those things,but those that choose to only have themselves to blame.And the so called statistics that point out,as some say that the hgv killed a cyclist,should be worded to say that a hgv was involved in it while the cyclist put themselves in a dangerous situation.I think a driver of any vehicle who was involved with a death would lose sleep for a long time,but then some would say they deserve too,im afraid i wouldnt agree,i would say the cyclists who put themselves in that position should be the ones losing sleep.


----------



## zimzum42 (24 Oct 2008)

spot on col, but i fear daondare is a lost cause, he just has a chip on his shoulder about HGVs, maybe he failed his test and has to drive a van


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

It is the lorry that is the danger, not the road or the bike. Hence I say that the lorry driver brings the danger onto the road. Hence I say that it is the responsibility of the driver to control the danger, not of the cyclist to avoid it. 
You can say that cyclists should be trained to avoid lorries but the fact is that they're not required by law to have such training, never have been and never will be. You can say that cyclists shouldn't be stupid but stupid people exist and some do ride bikes. The roads are not a war zone or subject to dangerous natural hazards and there is no real reason why only intelligent people who have taken a survival course should be safe using them.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> spot on col, but i fear daondare is a lost cause, he just has a chip on his shoulder about HGVs, maybe he failed his test and has to drive a van




I've never wanted to be a lorry driver. I don't like the things because they keep killing cyclists for one thing; they also demolish pedestrian barriers and pedestrian refuges, bollards and traffic islands and dislodge kerb stones and destroy pavements as they manoevre their vast, massive, unwieldy bulk down roads designed for much smaller vehicles.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> I've never wanted to be a lorry driver. I don't like the things because they keep killing cyclists for one thing; they also demolish pedestrian barriers and pedestrian refuges, bollards and traffic islands and dislodge kerb stones and destroy pavements as they manoevre their vast, massive, unwieldy bulk down roads designed for much smaller vehicles.



Not necessarily. Anyone can have an off day and damage some street furniture, but the vast majority of HGV deliveries are carried out competently and safely.


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (24 Oct 2008)

*How about banning cycling in cities instead*

“*I'd be quite happy to see the law evenly applied across the board and cyclists who endanger pedestrians being punished for it but that's really not the big problem. Cyclists do not, for example, kill 35 or so lorry drivers every year.”*


This proves that you think cyclists unable to cause accidents ,Bad Cyclists don't just hit pedestrians they cause them selves injury/death and other road users .People have to emergency stop ,swerve or just hit them as they run red lights ,jump off pavements, ride the wrong way up one way streets in the Midlands here we have even had them on our motorways ! All these add up to extreme danger for everyone else on our roads. Anyone using our roads is capable of causing accidents if they choose ,even our poor pedestrians.


I would totally agree with you that some roads are just not suited to large vehicles but unfortunately the businesses are already there and unless you move them all out to the countryside and are prepared to travel to the countryside for everything you cannot stop them needing large shipments in cities.


As this this would be to costly I think we could solve this problem very easily/cheaply by turning the original idea of banning HGV's from cities to protect cyclists on it's head ! (Dondare will now be crying) *HOW ABOUT **BANNING CYCLING IN CITYS. 

*
Yes that's sounds ridiculous but no worse than the original idea. Cycling is not going to go away neither are HGV's we just have to work to improving safety for all in any way possible. I am not stupid enough to think that all accidents involving HGV's and cyclists are always the fault of the cyclist or driver but some people on here seem to be applying all blame to one side the HGV driver. Responsibility for safety lies with every user of our roads.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Not necessarily. Anyone can have an off day and damage some street furniture, but the vast majority of HGV deliveries are carried out competently and safely.



It only requires a very, very small percentage of the total number of deliveries made to involve a mistake to cause an unnacceptable number of fatalities or extensive damage.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Businesses and bikes existed in cities before lorries, they existed when (in my lifetime) lorries were half the size that they are now and if lorries _must_ be used on the public road it makes sense to design them so that the driver has a much less restricted view from the cab rather than simply proclaiming that it's too late to do anything about it.


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> “
> 
> As this this would be to costly I think we could solve this problem very easily by turning the original idea of banning HGV's from cities to protect cyclists on it's head ! *HOW ABOUT**BANNING CYCLING IN CITYS. *




This thread was not predicated on the proposed banishment of HGVs from towns and cities - it was about trying to raise awareness of a serious issue. 

I naively thought we might have a constructive dialogue - instead, we have people playing the blame game, making crude generalisations, decrying the notion of shared responsibility and simply squabbling.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

The danger cyclists pose to pedestrians is real but small. About 6 pedestrians are killed every five years in collisions with cyclists; more than that number of cyclists get killed by lorries in London in half a year and just the other day six people were killed on a motorway when the car they were in collided with a lorry. Banning cyclists from cities or banning cycling altogther won't reduce the danger that is inherent in the design and use of HGVs. 
The bit about cyclists causing extreme danger by forcing drivers to swerve or stop is nonsense; certainly my presence on the road "forces" drivers to do these things but only because they're driving too fast and impatiently to begin with. If they were to obey the speed limit, watch the road ahead and give all other road users the time and space they need then the danger that cyclists pose to motorists would disappear.


----------



## zimzum42 (24 Oct 2008)

When some numpty cyclist swerves into the middle of the road for no reason, they can cause a perfectly law-abiding motorist to swerve into oncoming traffic

you really are showing yourself up to be a retard dondare, did you even read badger.brad's post properly?


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> This thread was not predicated on the proposed banishment of HGVs from towns and cities - it was about trying to raise awareness of a serious issue.
> 
> I naively thought we might have a constructive dialogue - instead, we have people playing the blame game, making crude generalisations, decrying the notion of shared responsibility and simply squabbling.




The clip you posted came to the conclusion that lorries should be banned from cities. They even showed a clip of a sort of three-wheel cab pulling a little trailer as the sort of thing to replace them, even I thought that a bit silly.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> When some numpty cyclist swerves into the middle of the road for no reason, they can cause a perfectly law-abiding motorist to swerve into oncoming traffic
> 
> you really are showing yourself up to be a retard dondare, did you even read badger.brad's post properly?



I may not have read the post with very small writing properly. In any case I pick up on the points that I disagree with and respond to them rather than the whole post. 
Two points from your post: How many deaths are caused by numpties forcing law-abiding motorists to swerve? 
Motorists do need to drive more carefully when there are cyclists about, it's when they ignore them and keep on driving too fast that they get caught out. Piloting a ton of metal at 30 mph (pah! as if) carries with it a much greater level of responsibility than piloting 30 lbs of pipework at half that speed.


----------



## hulver (24 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> This thread was not predicated on the proposed banishment of HGVs from towns and cities - it was about trying to raise awareness of a serious issue.
> 
> I naively thought we might have a constructive dialogue - instead, we have people playing the blame game, making crude generalisations, decrying the notion of shared responsibility and simply squabbling.



Origamist, this is the internet. It's serious business you know.

To use a completely non-PC analogy.



> Arguing on the internet is like competing at the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> The clip you posted came to the conclusion that lorries should be banned from cities. They even showed a clip of a sort of three-wheel cab pulling a little trailer as the sort of thing to replace them, even I thought that a bit silly.



That was their conclusion, not mine. I made that clear in post 10. 

I didn't think I needed to put "the views contained within this link are not necessarily those of the poster" alongside every post in this thread - I assumed people would have the brains to work that out. 

The banning or partial banning of HGVs is worth discussing, but as it is very unlikely to happen, I'd rather discuss more practical measures.


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

hulver said:


> Origamist, this is the internet. It's serious business you know.
> 
> To use a completely non-PC analogy.



Tell me about it.

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=418695&postcount=104


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> That was their conclusion, not mine. I made that clear in post 10.
> 
> I didn't think I needed to put "the views contained within this link are not necessarily those of the poster" alongside every post in this thread - I assumed people would have the brains to work that out.
> 
> The banning or partial banning of HGVs is worth discussing, but as it is very unlikely to happen, I'd rather discuss more practical measures.



The air quality in London falls way below the requirements set by our European masters. Brussels can fine us because we breathe poisonous air, and may well do so. A ban on heavily polluting vehicles within the M25 could effectively act as an HGV ban for the city. 

Some large vehicles have a good safety record and some have an atrocious one, and the differences are down to the design of the vehicle and the training of the driver, not the behaviour of cyclists. HGVs could be designed to operate safely in the city in the same way that London buses are; that would make sense. Continuing to run the most dangerous vehicles and suggesting that cyclists should be trained for their own survival does not, since there is no mechanism for training cyclists up to a standard, testing them and then keeping unsafe cyclists off the road until they pass the test. Introducing such a mechanism would simply stop a lot of people cycling which would lead to increased congestion, pollution, and high levels of unfitness and would so be disasterous. Allowing untrained cyclists onto inherently dangerous roads is immoral. Keeping the roads safe for everybody by identifying and reducing hazards is the only sensible option, and in this case that means keeping HGVs out of cities.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Oct 2008)

LOL, the irony of Origamist's call for constructive debate, when I originally killfiled you for some of your more trollish and combative posts.


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> The air quality in London falls way below the requirements set by our European masters. Brussels can fine us because we breathe poisonous air, and may well do so. A ban on heavily polluting vehicles within the M25 could effectively act as an HGV ban for the city.
> 
> Some large vehicles have a good safety record and some have an atrocious one, and the differences are down to the design of the vehicle and the training of the driver, not the behaviour of cyclists. HGVs could be designed to operate safely in the city in the same way that London buses are; that would make sense. Continuing to run the most dangerous vehicles and suggesting that cyclists should be trained for their own survival does not, since there is no mechanism for training cyclists up to a standard, testing them and then keeping unsafe cyclists off the road until they pass the test. Introducing such a mechanism would simply stop a lot of people cycling which would lead to increased congestion, pollution, and high levels of unfitness and would so be disasterous. Allowing untrained cyclists onto inherently dangerous roads is immoral. Keeping the roads safe for everybody by identifying and reducing hazards is the only sensible option, and in this case that means keeping HGVs out of cities.



The LEZ is in place and stricter regs are being phased in - it means that 1000s of vehicles are not coming to London due to non-compliance with emission standards. 

I have sympathy with your view as I'd like to see HGVs vanish from London too, but it's not going to happen as there is not an alternative transport strategy. What's more, in the bigger picture of RTAs on the UK's roads, cyclist pressure groups only have limited sway. That's just realpolitik, DD. 

Sadly, the roads have been an amoral, liminal zone since they came into existence.


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, the irony of Origamist's call for constructive debate, when I originally killfiled you for some of your more trollish and combative posts.



That's because you misrepresented my arguments and would get in a huff when your views were challenged! But by all means, put me back on ignore.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Some large vehicles have a good safety record and some have an atrocious one, and the differences are down to the design of the vehicle and the training of the driver, not the behaviour of cyclists. HGVs could be designed to operate safely in the city in the same way that London buses are; that would make sense. Continuing to run the most dangerous vehicles and suggesting that cyclists should be trained for their own survival does not, since there is no mechanism for training cyclists up to a standard, testing them and then keeping unsafe cyclists off the road until they pass the test.



Perhaps we need some kind of mechanism for training cyclists up to a standard and testing them to ensure that they meet it? Disregarding for the moment your (good) points about the downsides of such a scheme, I think my stance on this whole debate is this: no matter how well trained the driver of a lorry, or how many mirrors, cabside cameras, cyclist alarms or other in cab gadgetry s/he has, there is always the possibility of not seeing a cyclist. Perhaps the driver is looking ahead at the time he moves off, or is watching the front offside corner of the trailer, or is keeping an eye on the other cyclist positioned next to the driver's door, or whatever. The point is that the only way to be sure the driver isn't going to squash you is to keep away from his truck. (Or her truck, of course.) I can see the logic of the argument that the lorry driver is the one bringing the danger to the roads - I even agree with it, to an extent - but ultimately, no matter what training drivers receive regarding cyclists, you won't catch me sailing blithely down the inside of a moving artic, thinking "it's OK! The driver's been trained to look for me and he's got at least three rearview mirrors!" because you can never legislate for every move a driver makes, specially in the real world where many drivers have been at work (legally) for over ten hours before they've arrived in your town. And where they may never have been before, and where looking at an A-Z while at traffic lights is actually a rather safer option than driving up the wrong road and having to reverse a 45' trailer out of a dead end into a busy main road. 
So whatever happens, I'll be keeping out of the way of trucks when I'm on my bike, and I'd recommend that everyone else does too. If there are people out there who don't understand this, it's about time we devised some way of getting the message across to them before more of them ride into danger.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> That's because you misrepresented my arguments and would get in a huff when your views were challenged! But by all means, put me back on ignore.



LOL, you can believe that if you like. Regardless, some of your posts are good, which is why I'm no longer ignoring you.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> That's because you misrepresented my arguments and would get in a huff when your views were challenged! But by all means, put me back on ignore.



I thought this was cyclists vs. truckers?


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I thought this was cyclists vs. truckers?



I thought it was DD vs cyclechat...


----------



## Origamist (24 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, you can believe that if you like. Regardless, some of your posts are good, which is why I'm no longer ignoring you.



Why, thank you. Some of yours have been known to pass muster too. 

Right, I'm off on the bike...


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (24 Oct 2008)

“*HGVs could be designed to operate safely in the city in the same way that London buses are; that would make sense. Continuing to run the most dangerous vehicles and suggesting that cyclists should be trained for their own survival does not.”*


First off I think you will find that per mile travelled HGV'S are much safer than buses every year in the the Dudley Wolverhampton Birmingham area there are at least a couple of people run over and killed by buses normally old people, and then others injured.


Unfortunately the good old days of horse and cart deliveries are gone so HGV's are here to stay. With better planning from Shops and industry deliveries could be reduced by quite a large level , the amount of times I've been sent out with a 45 foot trailer with one or two pallets is amazing only to be sent to the same place the following day again with one or two pallets ( the super markets being the worst for this) Better street planning would help as would better lorry design. but for you to suggest that Cyclists wouldn't benefit from training is like saying we won't bother teaching children the green cross code as it's the cars that are running them over !!! Your digging a bigger hole for yourself with every post Dondare !
You need to look at the problem from a real life prospective, not just how you would like life to be.


P.s if the text was too small for you to read I suggest that you should have gone to Spec savers.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

Thanks for the big writing.

Specsavers are s_hit_e.


----------



## gavintc (24 Oct 2008)

I read somewhere that a Victorian town and road planner calculated that as a result of planned developments, within 100 yrs, London would be buried under 6 feet of horse manure. Thankfully, the diesel engine arrived in time.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> “*HGVs could be designed to operate safely in the city in the same way that London buses are; that would make sense. Continuing to run the most dangerous vehicles and suggesting that cyclists should be trained for their own survival does not.”*
> 
> 
> First off I think you will find that per mile travelled HGV'S are much safer than buses every year in the the Dudley Wolverhampton Birmingham area there are at least a couple of people run over and killed by buses normally old people, and then others injured.
> ...




Roads are designed by people, not random forces of nature; vehicles are designed by people and driven by people and laws are made by people: what is wrong with demanding that the result of this is a safe environment?


----------



## zimzum42 (24 Oct 2008)

cos you won't think it's a safe environment until everyone is pootling around on pashleys

even as a cyclist, i think this is an impractical way forward.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> ... vehicles are designed by people and driven by people and laws are made by people: what is wrong with demanding that the result of this is a safe environment?



the problem with demanding that the "result of this is a safe environment" is exactly what you've put in the sentence I've quoted above: "vehicles are ... driven by people". And people sometimes make mistakes and always will.


----------



## dondare (24 Oct 2008)

zimzum42 said:


> cos you won't think it's a safe environment until everyone is pootling around on pashleys
> 
> even as a cyclist, i think this is an impractical way forward.



I'd say a safe environment was one where someone could pootle along on a Pashley without running the risk of being mashed up against a pedestrian barrier because the driver was unable to see either the cyclist or the barrier.


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> the problem with demanding that the "result of this is a safe environment" is exactly what you've put in the sentence I've quoted above: "vehicles are ... driven by people". And people sometimes make mistakes and always will.



People do make mistakes but that's a reason for attempting to make vehicles and roads safer, not excusing the fact that they're not safe enough. Smaller, more manoeverable vehicles with cabs that give the driver a better view of the road would reduce the number of mistakes and the likelihood of a mistake leading to a fatality.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

It would be a lot safer if you kept away from large vehicles at junctions,whats so difficult about that,is it hard to hang back or something?


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> First off I think you will find that *per mile travelled HGV'S are much safer than buses* every year in the the Dudley Wolverhampton Birmingham area there are at least a couple of people run over and killed by buses normally old people, and then others injured.



If this is the case then it's because lorries clock up huge milages on motorways which are roads with all the hazards removed, no pedestrians and no cyclists. I do not believe that buses (possibly excluding bendys) kill anything like the number of cyclists in London as lorries do.


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

col said:


> It would be a lot safer if you kept away from large vehicles at junctions,whats so difficult about that,is it hard to hang back or something?



Obviously some cyclists are unaware of the risks, but that does not mean that they deserve to die. But the same situation arises if the cyclist reaches the junction first and the driver doesn't think to hang back; again it's the cyclist that gets killed.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Obviously some cyclists are unaware of the risks, but that does not mean that they deserve to die. But the same situation arises if the cyclist reaches the junction first and the driver doesn't think to hang back; again it's the cyclist that gets killed.



No one deserves to die,but the risks of not being seen,which seems to be the biggest cause is certainly minimised by hanging back,as for the cyclist getting there first,at least they probably will have been seen,again minimising the risk.


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> If this is the case then it's because lorries clock up huge milages on motorways which are roads with all the hazards removed, no pedestrians and no cyclists. I do not believe that buses (possibly excluding bendys) kill anything like the number of cyclists in London as lorries do.



So far, bendy buses have not killed a cyclist in London, but the Mayor is determined to get rid of them.


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2008)

col said:


> It would be a lot safer if you kept away from large vehicles at junctions,whats so difficult about that,is it hard to hang back or something?



That's easier said than done sometimes. Do you cycle much in very dense traffic, with dozens and dozens of junctions where large numbers of HGVs operate? Sometimes staying out of HGVs blind spots is not that simple - particularly when you get overtaken on the approach to a junction and can be obscured by other vehicles.


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I understand what you are saying, but I've never been caught out.
> 
> The bit in bold I don't really follow, could you expand on it please.



I refer you back to:

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=421762&postcount=144


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> No, but they have killed a few peds by running them over while they were waiting at a bus stop.
> 
> It's kinda ironic as well because dondare goes on about the lenght and width of hgv's. Yet those ''bendi'' buses are the same width and the maximum lenght allowed on the public road without an escort.



I wonder how PSV and HGV driver training differs (if at all) with regard to vulnerable road users/hazard perception? I'd like to know.

I suspect your average bus driver is more aware of cyclists, simply because he comes into contact with them far more regularly and has better visibility from his driving position.


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> How fast did the driver go through that junction?



Slow as he was turning around a tight left.

This was the problem as he was braking after the overtake and so was I when I realized what he was doing, this meant he was alongside and forced me to mount the pavement. There was a sizeable gap on the inside, but if I'd tried to outrun him I would be the subject of a cyclechat KSI/HGV thread.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Oct 2008)

KSI, HGV, BBC ... I think the problem is all the TLAs.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> That's easier said than done sometimes. Do you cycle much in very dense traffic, with dozens and dozens of junctions where large numbers of HGVs operate? Sometimes staying out of HGVs blind spots is not that simple - particularly when you get overtaken on the approach to a junction and can be obscured by other vehicles.




A hgv overtaking doesnt normally keep you in a blindspot for long and unless it was a close overtake doesnt really endager you anymore than any other overtake.If there are a lot of large vehicles around and your getting hemmed in why not just stop and wait for them to go instead of staying with them?


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2008)

col said:


> A hgv overtaking doesnt normally keep you in a blindspot for long



It can and does. There is a blind spot directly behind the trailer. What you are also forgetting is that in dense traffic a HGV is not going to sail miles ahead - there is a concertina effect in the rush-hour (the average motorised traffic speed is less than mine). What's more, it is easy for other traffic to obscure a rider as sightlines in heavy traffic are compromised.



col said:


> and unless it was a close overtake doesnt really endager you anymore than any other overtake.



Overtaking dynamics are different though - the cab can pass you with meters to spare, but not necessarily the 45ft trailer. On quite a few occasions I have had to brake hard for HGVs otherwise I would have been swiped. Also overtakes can be followed by left hooks - if it's a car I've got a chance, if it's a HGV I've got big problems. 



col said:


> If there are a lot of large vehicles around and your getting hemmed in why not just stop and wait for them to go instead of staying with them?



I probably pass and get passed by 40 or so buses on every commute, not to mention a dozen or so HGVs and plenty of WVMs. If I were to stop and then rejoin the flow it would not make any difference, as the make-up of motorised traffic is similar along the roads I ride. 

Col, from your response I'm guessing you do not ride in heavy traffic regularly - is this correct?


----------



## BentMikey (25 Oct 2008)

I hope I got some very good and potentially frightening footage today. Four tipper trucks in row, I waited and let them past, and stayed in primary behind them later, not up the death alley cycle lane.


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> No, but they have killed a few peds by running them over while they were waiting at a bus stop.
> 
> It's kinda ironic as well because dondare goes on about the lenght and width of hgv's. Yet those ''bendi'' buses are the same width and the maximum lenght allowed on the public road without an escort.



Don't get me started about bendy buses....


----------



## Andy 71 (25 Oct 2008)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> Hello All,
> 
> 
> Speaking as a HGV driver who has done some extremely big loads in my time I think this is down to education of all road users ,road safety especially cycles should be taught at a young age and should be a part of a child's school education as it used to be, car drivers and anyone driving on a car licence (vans/7.5t trucks) Should have to take a much harder test than it is, as proved day in day out on our roads any idiot is allowed to use one ! It's no good HGV drivers having to take advanced tests if no one else needs to be educated to such a standard. That's my view anyway.
> ...



I think I have to agree with Badger's view. One truck is more ecological than loads of vans, just as one bus can take 100 people who might otherwise be occupying cars.

I think that saying the presence of HGVs is the problem, is a much of a red herring as saying if there were no cyclists, you wouldn't have any HGV/bike collisions.

Many such collisions are caused by people not understanding the what the HGV can or cannot see and undertaking on the inside. Equally, surely it MUST be possible to come up with some sort of technology to make HGVs aware of bikes/peds in their blind spots.

Yes, it would be great if the roads were free of powered vehicles and I could have free reign. Every type of road user might take that view as well. The reality is that we have to share. There is no excuse for dangerous or irresponsible behaviour on the part of any road user, and cyclists do get a hard time sometimes, but it is literally, a two way street - we can't have it both ways. If you don't give someone a chance to be aware of your presence, how can you expect them to take evasive action?


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> So far, bendy buses have not killed a cyclist in London, but the Mayor is determined to get rid of them.




I hope he does. Those things are a real menace.


----------



## Andy 71 (25 Oct 2008)

col said:


> It would be a lot safer if you kept away from large vehicles at junctions,whats so difficult about that,is it hard to hang back or something?



Hear, hear Col. Impatience is actually the biggest killer on our roads.


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

Andy 71 said:


> I think I have to agree with Badger's view. One truck is more ecological than loads of vans, just as one bus can take 100 people who might otherwise be occupying cars.
> 
> I think that saying the presence of HGVs is the problem, is a much of a red herring as saying if there were no cyclists, you wouldn't have any HGV/bike collisions.
> 
> Many such collisions are caused by people not understanding the what the HGV can or cannot see and undertaking on the inside.* Equally, surely it MUST be possible to come up with some sort of technology to make HGVs aware of bikes/peds in their blind spots.*


Taking the left door off would be a simple way of removing the blind spot. 



Andy 71 said:


> Yes, it would be great if the roads were free of powered vehicles and I could have free reign. Every type of road user might take that view as well. The reality is that we have to share. There is no excuse for dangerous or irresponsible behaviour on the part of any road user, and cyclists do get a hard time sometimes,* but it is literally, a two way street* - we can't have it both ways. If you don't give someone a chance to be aware of your presence, how can you expect them to take evasive action?



No it isn't. If the cyclist makes a mistake, the cyclist gets killed. If the driver makes a mistake, the cyclist gets killed.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> It can and does. There is a blind spot directly behind the trailer. What you are also forgetting is that in dense traffic a HGV is not going to sail miles ahead - there is a concertina effect in the rush-hour (the average motorised traffic speed is less than mine). What's more, it is easy for other traffic to obscure a rider as sightlines in heavy traffic are compromised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not now no,i avoid it as much as possible,iv done my fair share of riding on very busy roads over the last 35 years,and now take other ways where possible.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Taking the left door off would be a simple way of removing the blind spot.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. If the cyclist makes a mistake, the cyclist gets killed. If the driver makes a mistake, the cyclist gets killed.



More reason to avoid them isnt it?


----------



## dondare (25 Oct 2008)

You can't avoid something that takes up the whole road and can move faster than you do.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> You can't avoid something that takes up the whole road and can move faster than you do.




Maybe your right,i often find myself out of control going faster than i can normally and being drawn to them


----------



## cycling fisherman (25 Oct 2008)

dondare YOU are a twat


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> You can't avoid something that takes up the whole road and can move faster than you do.



Hmm, almost enough to make me wonder how I've managed to ride bicycles on the road for over 25 years without once having a close encounter with an HGV.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> I hope he does. Those things are a real menace.



I think he will succeed.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Hmm, almost enough to make me wonder how I've managed to ride bicycles on the road for over 25 years without once having a close encounter with an HGV.



I have been physically squeezed against the side of a parked van by a lorry that started to change lanes as _he_ was overtaking _me_. But it's really not experienced cyclists like myself who are in the greatest danger. When I started cycling lorries were much smaller and also less common so the learning curve hasn't been too steep. But what about all those people starting out now? They're the ones who don't understand the risks of filtering or using cycle-lanes that direct them right into the killing zone; who don't know that when the cab turns across their path the trailer is coming at them from behind; and they're not going to learn from experience in this instance, they're just going to get killed. You can call them numpties (although a roll-call of the dead seems mainly to consist of people that you'd expect not to be numpties), or say that the should be better educated even though cyclists don't have to be trained; but the reality is that there have been a succession of tragedies that have occured simply because big lorries cannot be used safely on small public roads.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

cycling fisherman said:


> dondare YOU are a twat



And you have got a really annoying avatar.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Won't it get a bit cold though? it is approaching winter!




Have a glass door then. Like buses have.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> On a more serious note, it has to be said again dodare that your posts are almost comical. Ban bendi buses, ban HGV's, you will be looking to ban cars next...



Ban dangerous drivers and dangerous vehicles. Every single aspect of road travel is under the control of human designers and human legislators: there is no reason at all why they can't be a lot safer than they are now.

A car or an ordinary bus can be used safely in town if the driver is careful enough, a lorry cannot and probably a bendy bus can't be either.


----------



## gavintc (26 Oct 2008)

I think you have lost the plot dondare, if you do not appreciate the value that trucks bring to our society and they are no longer desirable, but an essential, vital element of our life.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Lorries make up 2.5% of motor traffic and account for 25% of cycling fatalities. So, are lorry drivers 10 times as criminally incompetent as other motorists or are they driving a vehicle ten times as dangerous as anything else on the roads?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

I'd say HGVs more than 10 times more dangerous than other vehicles, as I think most HGV drivers are rather better than average.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> I think you have lost the plot dondare, if you do not appreciate the value that trucks bring to our society and they are no longer desirable, but an essential, vital element of our life.




It really makes no difference what either of us think; lorries will be part of London traffic until anti-pollution legislation stops them coming in or the recession means that all the haulage companies go bust; and until then we'll keep on hearing news of cyclists being killed.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'd say HGVs more than 10 times more dangerous than other vehicles, as I think most HGV drivers are rather better than average.



That's what I'd say too.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> A car or an ordinary bus can be used safely in town if the driver is careful enough, *a lorry cannot *and probably a bendy bus can't be either.



I'm not sure why I have to keep making the same point - unless you're being deliberately obtuse in order to advance your increasingly flaccid argument - but the fact is that thousands of lorry movements are carried out safely every day in cities and towns up and down the length of Britain.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'm not sure why I have to keep making the same point - unless you're being deliberately obtuse in order to advance your increasingly flaccid argument - but the fact is that thousands of lorry movements are carried out safely every day in cities and towns up and down the length of Britain.


*Because:*


dondare said:


> *lorries make up 2.5% of motor traffic and account for 25% of cycling fatalities*.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> ... or are they driving a vehicle ten times as dangerous as anything else on the roads?



Of course lorries are more dangerous than smaller vehicles; no one has ever claimed anything else. They're bigger, they bend in the middle (ish) and they have blind spots. Another fact about lorries is that we're stuck with them (and I wouldn't claim that this is ideal, I'd rather go back to some mythcal golden age when every man wore a trilby, half the world was owned by Britain and everything went via the railways), so the quicker cyclists learn to keep out of the danger zone, the fewer of them will be killed. Of course cyclists will sometimes be hurt or killed because of errors on the driver's part and I'd agree that drivers need training to increase their awareness of cyclists too, but (as I've said all along) it would be a stupid cyclist indeed who went cruising down the inside of a truck because the driver had been trained to look for him. You will never eliminate the risks posed to cyclists from other road users, no matter what you do.


----------



## Andy 71 (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> No it isn't. If the cyclist makes a mistake, the cyclist gets killed. If the driver makes a mistake, the cyclist gets killed.



Fundamental rule of nature - when a 10-tonne steel box collides with a 15 kilo steel frame on wheels, the latter will always come off the worst. 

HGV drivers (including my most of the male members of my family) are routinely taught that their vehicles have different characteristics to other vehicles, what the dangers are and that their driving technique must be adjusted in this regard. The British LGV licence is the most expensive and difficult to attain. A don't think that you can just pass your test, and someone will just employ you. 

Equally, as cyclists, our characteristics are that we are less audible and visible than others, but in urban environments, can sometimes travel as fast as motorised traffic. 

It is a true, but unfair fact of life that the road haulage business is very competitive and cutthroat these days, and there are some tossers out there - some drivers will show impatience in order to keep up with overloaded schedules and to finish the job within their permitted hours. 

British drivers, are no exception to this - they are fighting for business against the thousands of (untaxed) foreign HGVs on British roads, many of whom when stopped by the Police show excessive hours being driven on their tachograph, as well as having often unroadworthy (LHD) vehicles which add to the danger. Often, British companies are behind this, having outsourced to cheaper Polish or Romanian haulage firms. 

Yes, of course there should be ironclad enforcement but due to the demise of rail freight and the effect of globalisation, we have many thousands of lorries on our roads, day and night. The Police just don't have the resources.

It's a complex problem - For the meantime, it would be be better, if possible, to avoid them in the first place.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Lorries make up 2.5% of motor traffic and account for 25% of cycling fatalities. So, are lorry drivers 10 times as criminally incompetent as other motorists or are they driving a vehicle ten times as dangerous as anything else on the roads?



Or are some of that 25% of cyclist casualties caused by the cyclist in question not knowing enough to keep out of the danger zone? I don't know, just pointing out that such a statistic means very little as a bare figure.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Cause of the weight involved 44 ton truck against a 75kg cyclist plus bike....


I'd give the lack of visibility from the cab as being the main cause of these accidents, and the weight of the vehicle as being the main cause of the seriousness of them. But it doesn't have to be 44 tons, a cement lorry or tipper truck is just as lethal if the driver hasn't noticed you.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> But it doesn't have to be 44 tons, a cement lorry or tipper truck is just as lethal if the driver hasn't noticed you.



Or a car. Or a motorbike. Or even another cyclist or a pedestrian.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Or are some of that 25% of cyclist casualties caused by the cyclist in question not knowing enough to keep out of the danger zone? I don't know, just pointing out that such a statistic means very little as a bare figure.



Clearly many cyclists don't appreciate the danger, and every day there are more inexperienced cyclists on the roads who don't appreciate the danger. With no training or testing required how can they?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Apparently most of the deaths involve either cement lorries or tippers, and much less so other types of HGV.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Or a car. Or a motorbike. Or even another cyclist or a pedestrian.



Not really. Lorries are the most lethal. You can say that the statistics mean nothing but they do back up common sense here; a lorry can crush you to death under it's wheels or against a barrier, and that's often exactly how they kill.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Surely this is down to the cyclist though. If I had only started cycling I would have to be pretty thick/ignorant/naive to think that I could commute with ease through rush hour traffic without any problems.
> 
> Either cut short the distance that you travel, lock your bike up and get the bus/train. Or ride at the weekends building your knowledge/road sense, or read cyclecraft.




Unfortunately many novice cyclists just don't know what to do in order to survive. They'll disregard the law and ride on the pavements believing that to be safer, they'll jump red lights because they think that that's what cyclists do and might have heard that it's also safer (remember that debate?) or they'll carefully obey the law, fit lights, wear a yellow tabbard and a helmet and follow the advice given in the HC about cycle lanes which will lead them right up the inside of the traffic waiting at the lights and right into the "execution zone" as BM's most recent video shows.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> why are you even there to be crushed?




Just cycling to work/school/shops /&c.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah o.k...we have concluded why you was on a bike in the first place, but why are you on the nearside of a truck..?



Because cyclists ride closer to the kerb than motor vehicles.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Surely this is down to the cyclist though. If I had only started cycling I would have to be pretty thick/ignorant/naive to think that I could commute with ease through rush hour traffic without any problems.
> 
> Either cut short the distance that you travel, lock your bike up and get the bus/train. Or ride at the weekends building your knowledge/road sense, or read cyclecraft.




Many cyclists are children and are inexperienced and naive. But most of the incidents that I've read about involved adult cyclists who weren't doing anything illegal or stupid or dangerous, it was simply a case of the driver not seeing them.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah...but why are you down the nearside of a truck?



Both approaching the lights, lights are red, both stop and wait, lights turn green, lorry turns left, road turns red.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Hmmm...what about the other advice in the highway code though? You know the rule of giving a hgv plenty of room? You are cherry picking dondare.





*73
Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.*


Needs to be given more prominence. Rule 73? If I was writing the HC I'd make it rule number 1 for cyclists and also scrub any mention of cycle lanes. 

Here's a couple of other rules that tend to be ignored:

*211
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.
212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.*


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Both approaching lights, lights turn red, (but I have read the highway code), I wait behind the truck or *go about 2 or 3 yards in front of the vehicle* establishing eye contact with the driver.





*71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.*

And that's the law, not just advice. But you've already said that you habitually run reds so what's the law to you?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

2 or 3 yards in front of an HGV? That's 'kin stupidly close, probably in a blind spot. Establishing eye contact is not something to rely on for your life..


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Absolute BS, go and look at some of the articles on HGV's turning left and killing a cyclist, and see where the cyclist was.




Exactly where you'd expect a cyclist to be.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Clearly many cyclists don't appreciate the danger, and every day there are more inexperienced cyclists on the roads who don't appreciate the danger. *With no training or testing required how can they*?



Fair point, and perhaps (as I said many pages ago) this is an argument for training to be introduced for cyclists.


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Fair point, and perhaps (as I said many pages ago) this is an argument for *COMMON SENSE* to be introduced for cyclists.





Get a good mirror, keep out of the execution zone, and be safe.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

Common sense is far from common, unfortunately.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Is there a law requiring a second person outside the vehicle when reversing an HGV, or is that just good H&S practice?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Is there a law requiring a second person outside the vehicle when reversing an HGV, or is that just good H&S practice?



No. Many large sites operate such a policy in theory, but in practice it's rarely observed. Equally, many companies whose premises are sited on tiny city centre back roads have no such official policy but will always send someone out to watch you in.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> I'd give the lack of visibility from the cab as being the main cause of these accidents, and the weight of the vehicle as being the main cause of the seriousness of them. But it doesn't have to be 44 tons, a cement lorry or tipper truck is just as lethal if the driver hasn't noticed you.




You have said it yourself,there are blind spots,so not only do drivers have to look out ,but cyclists need to know about those blind spots and possible dangers>new cyclists should at least be made to do a class to have all this explained to them before going out ,its not a one way blame here,its also a cyclist putting themselves in a dangerous place,which i would say is the cause of the majority of these types of accidents,I dont believe any driver is trying to clip a cyclist in a large vehicle,its an accident that happens,so the more cyclists that keep away from them,the less accidents there would be.


----------



## cycling fisherman (26 Oct 2008)

> so the more cyclists that keep away from them,the less accidents there would be.



no shoot sherlock


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Fair point, and perhaps (as I said many pages ago) this is an argument for training to be introduced for cyclists.



Optional training and testing for cyclists already exists but probably most new bike-users won't bother with it. Compulsory training and testing would lead to fewer people bothering to cycle, therefore more congestion and pollution and a less fit, less healthy population.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Absolute BS, go and look at some of the articles on HGV's turning left and killing a cyclist, and see where the cyclist was.



I bet that for every article you can find showing that the cyclist was at fault I can find at least one where the lorry driver was.

I'll start...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> I bet that for every article you can find showing that the cyclist was at fault I can find at least one where the lorry driver was.
> 
> I'll start...
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html



We're not actually trying to score points here, are we? It would be a shame if this thread degenerated into a tit for tat "my mode of transprot is better than yours" type thread. No one has ever denied that sometimes the lorry driver is to blame. The important thing is, what can we do to reduce the frequency of such incidents?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> We're not actually trying to score points here, are we? It would be a shame if this thread degenerated into a tit for tat "my mode of transprot is better than yours" type thread. *No one has ever denied that sometimes the lorry driver is to blame*. The important thing is, what can we do to reduce the frequency of such incidents?



I agree, and for all that for you. However Badger and Lee often try to imply that it's rarely if ever the lorry driver's fault, and that cyclists and other vulnerable road users are not their responsibility. I don't like that, and it's markedly different from your responsible approach.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> We're not actually trying to score points here, are we? It would be a shame if this thread degenerated into a tit for tat "my mode of transprot is better than yours" type thread. No one has ever denied that sometimes the lorry driver is to blame. The important thing is, what can we do to reduce the frequency of such incidents?



Only allowing vehicles into cities if the design of the vehicle allows them to be used safely on small, busy roads.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Only allowing vehicles into cities if the design of the vehicle allows them to be used safely on small, busy roads.



But just think for a moment of the practicalities of that approach. It would mean many hundreds more transit vans on the roads, which would arguably lead to more cyclist deaths and injuries. Quite apart from the need to tranship goods onto smaller vehicles every trip, thereby wiping out the already precarious profits of a significant chunk of UK employers.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I agree, and for all that for you. However Badger and Lee often try to imply that it's rarely if ever the lorry driver's fault, and that cyclists and other vulnerable road users are not their responsibility. I don't like that, and it's markedly different from your responsible approach.



It doesn't help my argument to cite cases of driver negligence either, if my main point is that some designs of vehicle are inherently too dangerous to be used in town however careful the driver is trying to be.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> But just think for a moment of the practicalities of that approach. It would mean many hundreds more transit vans on the roads, which would arguably lead to more cyclist deaths and injuries. Quite apart from the need to tranship goods onto smaller vehicles every trip, thereby wiping out the already precarious profits of a significant chunk of UK employers.



Ah... profits.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> We're not actually trying to score points here, are we? It would be a shame if this thread degenerated into a tit for tat "my mode of transprot is better than yours" type thread. No one has ever denied that sometimes the lorry driver is to blame. The important thing is, what can we do to reduce the frequency of such incidents?




I'm not really trying to score points, just refute this one:




User3143 said:


> Absolute BS, go and look at some of the articles on HGV's turning left and killing a cyclist, and see where the cyclist was.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Ah... profits.



Now you're cherry picking. How about addressing the other points about hundreds more transit vans on the roads? I'm guessing from the amount of WVM threads in commuting that these are at least as big a problem for cyclists ... multiply that problem by a few hundred and then tell me that lots of smaller vehicles is the way forward.
Besides, if a firm doesn't make a profit, it can't employ anyone. In the haulage industry the margins are small enough for having to tranship goods to smaller vehicles to put many small firms out of business.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Vehicles much larger than transit vans can be used safely if the driver has a clear view of that part of the road where his wheels are going to go.


----------



## gavintc (26 Oct 2008)

Profits and business go hand in hand. We need profit to make a successful country. For many, success and profit making is a dirty word, but the transport industry operates on slim profits and are very much the stem that supports the flower that is British industry.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Vehicles much larger than transit vans can be used safely if the driver has a clear view of that part of the road where his wheels are going to go.



Well, yes. And most of the time artic drivers do. But there are some blind spots in an artic's mirrors and always will be. Why you are unable to see that it would be easier and more practical and quicker to save lives by educating cyclists to keep out of a truck's blindspots, rather than redesigning every one of the thousands of trucks in the country (thereby making them less safe on the motorways), I'm at a loss to understand.
The daft thing is, I think we're both arguing for the same ultimate goal, that of seeing fewer cyclists squashed by lorries.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Well, yes. And most of the time artic drivers do. But there are some blind spots in an artic's mirrors and always will be. Why you are unable to see that it would be easier and more practical and quicker to save lives by educating cyclists to keep out of a truck's blindspots, rather than redesigning every one of the thousands of trucks in the country (thereby making them less safe on the motorways), I'm at a loss to understand.
> The daft thing is, I think we're both arguing for the same ultimate goal, that of seeing fewer cyclists squashed by lorries.



Educating all cyclists is not practicable. Can you think how it might be done? 
Motorways are very safe roads with no roundabouts, crossroads, T-junctions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or cyclists. Why design a vehicle to be used on such a road if it then can't be used safely elsewhere? How would extra vision panels on doors, for example, make lorries less safe on motorways?


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Educating all cyclists is not practicable. Can you think how it might be done?



Easy, Government Information Films. 

They've been on the go for decades, we just need one highlighting the dangers of large (not just heavy goods) vehicles turning left. 

Also pointing out that, whilst railings at such junctions provide some protection for pedestrians, they act as a trap for cyclists.

Move this debate onto a CTC, British Cycling (lots of political clout since Peking) or similar forum and get it lobbied at parliament. We all know what the problem is, so let's get politicians to do their f*cking job instead and get the message out to the people.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Shouldn't the aim of designers and legislators be to make the roads safer for everyone rather than give road-users survival tips? 
If pedestrian barriers were removed it will probably save the lives of some cyclists, but will it allow more pedestrians to get themselves killed?


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> *Educating* *all cyclists* is not practicable.* Can you think how it might be done*?



Right, here you asked a question. Note writing in red. 



ComedyPilot said:


> Easy, Government *Information* Films.
> 
> They've been on the go for decades, we just need one *highlighting* the dangers of large (not just heavy goods) vehicles turning left.
> 
> ...



I fully answer your question in a manner that is both legible, feasible and realistic.



dondare said:


> *Shouldn't the aim of designers and legislators be to make the roads safer* for everyone *rather than give road-users survival tips*?
> If *pedestrian barriers were removed* it will probably save the lives of some cyclists, but will it allow more pedestrians to get themselves killed?



Yet your reply has nothing to do with the educational task you set in your original question?????? 

If you wanted a reply on road design and safety, you should have posed such a question. Asking one thing, getting a valid reply, then complaining that it wasn't the reply you wanted, even though it was valid for the initial question posed does bring into question your intelect and perception.

If that wasn't bad enough, the *'rather than give road-users survival tips'* comment flies totally in the face of the original question posed.

And as for the barriers being removed? At what point was it suggested they should be taken down? I certainly didn't. 

Please read the posts before replying, saves smart-arsed replies. Better still, make your mind up what question you want to ask, and stick to it.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Whoops! That's telling me off.

Here's another non-sequitur, (it relates to an earlier discussion on this thread).

I saw two petrol tankers yesterday, or possibly the same one twice. On the M25.


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Whoops! That's telling me off.



Well, don't do it again!


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

They were valid points, tho'.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2008)

Let's hope the Panorama doc gets commissioned.


----------



## HF2300 (26 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Let's hope the Panorama doc gets commissioned.



I don't know, the film referred to in the Op was rather scattergun, this thread's finally calming down and getting to the point after 400 odd replies, and Panorama's pretty prime time and sensationalist these days - will it do the required job?


----------



## gavintc (26 Oct 2008)

HF2300 said:


> Panorama's pretty prime time and sensationalist these days - will it do the required job?



That is so true, it has become rather 'red top' and superficial.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2008)

HF2300 said:


> I don't know, the film referred to in the Op was rather scattergun, this thread's finally calming down and getting to the point after 400 odd replies, and Panorama's pretty prime time and sensationalist these days - will it do the required job?



Beggars can't be choosers. Cycling on primetime tv is a vanishingly rare occurence, unless it's racing related. 

The opening film is flawed but at least it broaches the problem. I also recall a ROSPA film about the issue, but couldn't find it - maybe someone else can.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

I hope you don't really drive a truck, not anywhere near me anyway.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I hope you don't really drive a truck, not anywhere near me anyway.



Why? None of his posts have indicated that he's anything other than a competent road user. My experience behind the wheel and on a bike leads me to the conclusion that there are more idiot cyclists out there than truck drivers too.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

I'm judging that based on his own words about the way he rides a bike, and about his somewhat less than stable emotional response (IMO) whenever the pressure gets a little elevated. I could be entirely wrong of course, but it's quite telling that he refused to be filmed riding his bike.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Don't patronise me dondare, I'm on about getting in front the truck and maintaining eye contact with the driver to let them know I am there.



You jump the lights and think it's OK to do so. You ride without lights at night and think that you're all the better a cyclist for it.
I ride within the law and have my own strategies for staying alive but my argument remains the same, deaths are caused by dangerous drivers and dangerous vehicles. A thousand numpty cyclists don't kill as many as one lorry driver who can't see enough of the road to know if it's safe to turn or not. 

Here's another bit of the Code:


*Turning left
182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

183
When turning

• keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction*


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> That's funny, you have quoted me with an answer that has no relevance at all to the quote.



If you are stopped in the correct place at the lights, and then move forward two or three yards then you've broken the law. But in other posts you've already said that you don't stop at lights anyway. The other light reference (you riding without them) was added to emphasize that you don't bother too much about the law at all. 

The Highway Code reference was to point out, again, that it's for drivers to look out for and give way to cyclists on their left when they're turning left.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Why? None of his posts have indicated that he's anything other than a competent road user. My experience behind the wheel and on a bike leads me to the conclusion that there are more idiot cyclists out there than truck drivers too.



Idiots are allowed to cycle. I would very much hope that the rigorous training and testing process for HGV drivers filters idiots out.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> If you assume this when you are out on the road, then you are very naive and an incident is just waiting with your name on it.



I shouldn't assume that truck drivers follow the Highway Code?


----------



## cycling fisherman (26 Oct 2008)

I think that the dondares and anti hgv morons of this world would love it if there was no HGV drivers on this forum, then they could perhaps get away with some of the ridiculous and frankly outrageous claims and ideas that they make.

However, there are a number of HGV drivers on this forum including myself who have given the other side of the debate, and the dondares & the other morons do not like it...
its as simple as that, i read some of the comments of the "anti's" with total disbelief.

HGV drivers are BETTER than your average driver, LGV class 1 vehicles will allways enter london and towns and cities.

My vehicle runs on diesel and the additive adblue through a system known as scr, this reduces the emissions to a very near nil. injecting the adblue to the converter reduces all the harmful chemicals into nitrogen and water. 
Another advantage of using adblue is that the emission standards of Euro 4 and 5 will be met.

cyclist education is the way forward.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Shame that, then they wonder why they have an accident. (give me strength)
> 
> What do you know about it? is this aimed at just hgv drivers or all drivers.



Don't HGV drivers have to take more tests than ordinary motorists?

When you are driving something that can kill then it's up to you to make sure that it doesn't. You know before you even decide to become a driver that the roads are used by careless children and inexperienced adults, people who are old and infirm and in various ways incompetent who aren't skillful or alert enough to avoid being killed by a driver who thinks it's up to everyone else to keep out of _his_ way. If you aren't prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with driving then you shouldn't be doing it. 

As you know, my gripe about HGVs is based on the obvious fact that they can't be used safely in narrow busy streets with cyclists and junctions, and the real-life accident figures bears this out.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I shouldn't assume that cyclists folow the highway code.



But cyclists aren't killing lorry drivers.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

cycling fisherman said:


> I think that the dondares and anti hgv morons of this world would love it if there was no HGV drivers on this forum, then they could perhaps get away with some of the ridiculous and frankly outrageous claims and ideas that they make.
> 
> However, there are a number of HGV drivers on this forum including myself who have given the other side of the debate, and the dondares & the other morons do not like it...
> its as simple as that, i read some of the comments of the "anti's" with total disbelief.
> ...



I believe you. So the fact that half the cyclist's deaths in London involve HGVs must be down to the nature of the vehicle rather than the driver. Which is what I'm saying.





cycling fisherman said:


> My vehicle runs on diesel and the additive adblue through a system known as scr, this reduces the emissions to a very near nil. injecting the adblue to the converter reduces all the harmful chemicals into nitrogen and water.
> Another advantage of using adblue is that the emission standards of Euro 4 and 5 will be met.
> 
> cyclist education is the way forward.



Safer vehicles and safer roads are the way forward.


----------



## dondare (26 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> you reckon? after all the things that have been mentioned on this thread about cyclist positioning, cyclist attitude, basic common sense.
> 
> Nature of the vehicle, my arse dondare. Between you and BM I don't know who's the more ignorant, I really don't.
> 
> In all honesty, you are full of it the amount of anti-hgv drivel that you have come out with leaves me bored and very tired.



Children ride bikes. They don't have the experience and skill required to position themselves correctly, you have to make allowances. It isn't a matter of simple common sense to predict the path of both the front and the back of a long vehicle that's manoevering. I'm not justifying stupid or illegal behaviour by cyclists, I'm saying that not everyone riding a bike can possibly know how big vehicles move or how to avoid them.
When you buy your licence (Road Tax) you're entering into a contract with society not to use your vehicle in a way that endangers the public. That's _all_ of the public, not just the ones who take care to keep out of your way.


I also am bored and tired so I'm going to bed now and tomorrow I'll talk about something else. I'm sure that we've both made all of our points.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> I shouldn't assume that truck drivers follow the Highway Code?



You certainly shouldn't assume that they've seen you. Just because the highway code says it's ok for you to blithely ride between a 45' trailer and some pedestrian railings at traffic lights, doesn't mean it's safe to do so. And Lee is right: I'm afraid if you do ride like that (and I hope you don't!), sooner or later you'll find yourself in trouble.


----------



## Origamist (27 Oct 2008)

cycling fisherman said:


> I think that the dondares and anti hgv morons of this world would love it if there was no HGV drivers on this forum, then they could perhaps get away with some of the ridiculous and frankly outrageous claims and ideas that they make.



Quite the opposite - I am glad there are HGV drivers on this forum.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

I think it's very interesting and great that there are HGV drivers on here. The wide range of attitudes are quite telling, too. I'll point out Rhythm Thief as a great example, IMO. Respect.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Quote from Buffalo Bill:



> However, one of the things that seemed to have been a little over-looked in recent weeks is that not all of the cyclists killed by lorries have been near a junction. At least 2 of the deaths have taken place where both the cyclist and the lorry were going straight ahead, ie the cyclist was run over from behind, and most definitely not in the blind-spot.



http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/bike-show-special-on-the-lorrycyclist-problem#comment

According to Lee et all, this is still the fault of the cyclist.


----------



## dondare (27 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Define the age of a child because most children I see ride on the pavement.I'm still waiting for the day I see a 12yr old cycling down Baker Street.


I don't cycle down Baker Street but I see plenty of children riding bikes on the road as well as the pavement on my commute, which takes in Camden and Barnet. It's quite clear they haven't honed their survival skills yet and this is something that every driver needs to take into account unless they don't mind killing the odd child. What I'm thinking of is kids cycling to and from school which is something that should be encouraged, by making the roads safer for example. 


User3143 said:


> The first bit in bold you are joking surely?



No joke. First the vehicle on the left moves out, giving them more room. Then the cab swings abruptly across in front, forcing them to stop. Then the rear wheels cut across squashing them flat. It's that last bit in particular that they're not expecting.


User3143 said:


> Not road tax, it's VED and I don't buy it.


Yes I know it's called VED now, but it's still most widely known as Road Tax. And I suppose it's paid for by the lorry owner rather than the driver, but the point is still the same. 



User3143 said:


> As for your last sentance refer back the cyclist that rides like a twat. (I can only drive for other people so much)



I haven't used that expression (although I could about many cyclists that I see). I have pointed out that anyone is permitted to ride a bike on the roads without having to pass a test, and that among the general population you will find every kind of incompetence. Not just twattishness, but also physical and mental disability. You would like to keep all but the most able, alert, skilled and prescient cyclists off the road so that lorry drivers have less chance of killing someone that they can't see. I would like to keep the most dangerous vehicle off the road so that they're safe for everybody. 

What's actually going to happen is that we'll all go on using them and cyclists will continue getting squashed.


----------



## dondare (28 Oct 2008)

Is this putting it better?
_Anyone_ is permitted to ride a bike on the roads *without having to pass a test*, and that among the general population you will find every kind of incompetence, up to and including physical and mental disability. 

However, although my argument is that you simply can't expect all cyclists to be competent and experienced enough to avoid potentially dangerous situations, and your argument seems to be that is that case they're twats and it's their own look-out if they die, whenever I hear about a lorry killing a cyclist the victim does not seem to fall into the incompetent/inexperienced/twat category. They just were in the wrong place: that is where driver couldn't see them. It would seem that getting rid of that blind spot (or vehicles with it) would save lives in future more surely than insisting on a higher standard of cyclist.


----------



## dondare (28 Oct 2008)

When drivers go out they need to care about all other road-users, even those who's road skills are poor. In fact they need to take the greatest amount of care with people who's road skills are poor. Roads should be safe and if drivers were patient they could be. 
Except for the blind-spot thing of course. Get rid of the lorry driver's blind-spot and _then_ the roads could be safe.
Incidently, my own road skills are exemplary; I'm not concerned on my own behalf. I'm just fed up with hearing about lorries killing cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> Incidently, my own road skills are exemplary



This bit makes you sound like Lee, IMO. They may or may not be good, but it's usually the terrible road users that think this sort of thing. I think every one of us on here have plenty to learn about traffic skills, including myself.


----------



## Origamist (29 Oct 2008)

_TfL inaction turning lorries into scapegoats and putting cyclists at risk:_

http://www.fta.co.uk/news/item/tfl-...s-into-scapegoats-and-putting-cyclists-at-ris


----------



## dondare (29 Oct 2008)

I certainly believe that it's true that many very poor drivers believe themselves to be "top guns", whether it's also true of cyclists I don't know. 
For myself I do have decades of experience cycling in London and elsewhere, I take inordinant care to obey the law and exercise patience if the way ahead is blocked either by muppets or HGVs. I can honestly say that if all cyclists rode exactly like me then you'd never again hear any of the most common criticisms of cyclist's behaviour and probably hear far less about cyclists getting killed in accidents, too. (I'm not claiming to be a better, faster or more skillful cyclist than anyone else on this forum, though.)


----------



## Origamist (29 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Let's hope the Panorama doc gets commissioned.




"As for the programme itself, it's not to be happening, though the producer who wants to make it was resurrecting the research this year, having not come up with enough last year, and so I think we can hope there is a long-term interest in the thing being made."

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread11587.html


----------



## Origamist (30 Oct 2008)

I'll pop along to this and report back. 



_London Borough of Southwark_
_Monday 3rd November 2008_
_Time: 7am - 11am_
_Location: St Georges Road close to the junction of West Square_

_Key Messages_
_HGV Drivers: Regular and correct mirror use, beware cyclists are_
_vulnerable road users and may take you by surprise._
_Cyclists: HGV's have large blind spots, look to make eye contact with_
_the drivers, avoid cycling down the inside of large vehicles._

_Cyclists to be made aware of the vulnerability of pedestrians and the_
_dangers of riding on the pavement._

_Other_
_A Dr Bike will be taking place throughout the event_
_The campaign will be supported by banners and education materials which_
_will be handed out on the day._
_We have emailed all of our adult cyclist trainees notifying them of the_
_event._


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> I'll pop along to this and report back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Blimey. The whole thread condensed into one single post.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2008)

Origamist said:


> I'll pop along to this and report back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I went along this morning. The Met were stopping cyclists (and HGVs, but I didn't see any of the latter get pulled over) and explaining to them about the recent cluster of fatalities involving HGVs and cyclists. I talked to an Inspector from the Traffic OCU and he said 8 cyclists had been killed by a left turning HGV and one by a left turning bus (however, he was a bit vague on the last collision) so far this year. I also chatted to a principal road safety officer who said that there had been film crews to the event and he was pleased that the profile of the problem was being raised. 

There was an opprotunity to get into a tipper truck and check the visibility from the cab (it had 3 nearside mirrors). I saw one young woman who seemed stunned that she could not be seen if she was to the front left of the cab. 

They were giving away a TFL sponsored mini-book: "Ignorant Cyclists" / "Ingnorant Lorry Drviers". It's short but to the point. They also dished out a Hi Viz rucksack cover. I took a few pics of the event and will post them this evening. 

It would be good if more cyclists had access to this kind of event. St Georges road is probably not the ideal location, but I guess it's a compromise.


----------



## Origamist (19 Jan 2009)

*Cycle training for Lambeth lorry drivers*

Lorry and bus drivers working for a Lambeth Council are receiving training sessions in cycling road safety in a bid to prevent collisions involving cyclists and HGVs.

Drivers of refuse vehicles, school buses and other HGVs run by Lambeth are receiving classroom and practical on-road cycle training to highlight the dangers posed to cyclists caught in lorries’ blind spots.
The council is also installing signs on its lorries and buses warning of the danger of cycling of their inside.

*Lorry drivers out on the road on** bikes*
The training, in conjunction with Cycle Training UK, involves drivers riding bikes themselves to give them greater understanding about cycling.
Lambeth is the only London borough to have so far adopted these kinds of measures. A cyclist was killed in Streatham in April 2008 as a result of a collision with a truck.

Cllr Sally Prentice, Lambeth Council cabinet member for Environment, said: “London has the potential to be a world-class cycling city. We hope other organisations that employ HGV drivers follow our lead on this and run similar training schemes so we can make London a safer place for cyclists. The council is happy to work with companies to promote these initiatives.”

*"We hope other employers follow the example"*
Charlie Lloyd of London Cycling Campaign, a former lorry driver, said, "LCC has been lobbying for measures such as these for a long time, and we're very pleased one borough has followed our advice."
"Improving driver awareness can save lives. We hope other boroughs and employers follow the example of Lambeth Council."

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1253


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Jan 2009)

It doesn't amtter now anyway. If my experience of looking for a job is anything to go by, soon there'll be no lorries left.


----------

