# Frightening truck "safety video"...



## User (18 Mar 2016)




----------



## MontyVeda (18 Mar 2016)

wasn't this video discussed to death years ago?


----------



## Firestorm (18 Mar 2016)

It highlights that the stipulation that you should not overtake when approaching a junction is there for a reason.
if the cyclists were there first then the truck wait behind them. If the truck was there first, it should have been indicating left and the any vehicle should be sitting behind them. 
if it were two lanes then the cyclists would be ok moving up , but the truck would not be turning left from a right hand lane. 
But the video does raise the issue of blind spots, which I am sure all road users could do with more reminding about, information is always a good thing


----------



## Vantage (18 Mar 2016)

Your signature strip says it all.
I'll either stay behind the wagon or position myself quite a good 10-15 feet in front of the drivers seat unless I think there's a chance of him/her overtaking me.
As evident in the video, a truck will often need an extra lane to turn across due to the length and in this case with the indicator lights blinking for a left turn and the front wheels already steering in that direction, what kind of brainless moronic halfwit other than a Londoner would position his/her bike in that lane???


----------



## sidevalve (18 Mar 2016)

Yeah it's been done before. but it's still the same - big vehicle sat indicating left at a junction and I'll ride up on it's inside ??!!! Well at least it helps get rid of the stupid gene.


----------



## Vantage (18 Mar 2016)

[QUOTE 4199855, member: 45"]My main point is that the truck driver can't see anything in the lane beside him. So regardless of whether anyone is or should be beside the truck he's turning into a blind area. This shouldn't be acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
I think there are calls for nearside doors to be fitted with lower windows now and some companies are making the effort to do this. I think DAF's efforts are a bit of a joke though. That little window on theirs is too small to see a fly fart. http://www.daf.co.uk/en-gb/news-and...15/q1/26-02-15-daf-commitment-to-road-safety#


----------



## Vantage (18 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> How do you know the cyclists weren't there first?


If they were, their best option is to get the hell out of the way.


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> How do you know the cyclists weren't there first?


Yep. I won't ride up the left of large vehicles but on any road ride of any distance in London, at least one large vehicle nobber overtakes me on a junction approach. Please reject the motoring propaganda, stop attacking cyclists and bring nobbers to account for careless driving.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2016)

Vantage said:


> If they were, their best option is to get the hell out of the way.


In London there's very likely to be a pedestrian barrier, so you can have few escape routes.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Mar 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Yeah it's been done before. but it's still the same - big vehicle sat indicating left at a junction and I'll ride up on it's inside ??!!! Well at least it helps get rid of the stupid gene.



Which of the fatalities are you talking about? Under-taking is not how cyclists are being killed by HGV drivers. In a quarter of cases the rider was run down from behind, in 3 the driver was playing with a mobile, in another the driver was drunk and in last year's case the hgv driver had jumped a red and had no licence or insurance. This idea that cyclists wait until they see a lorry and decide to commit suicide under it is the most pernicious and dishonest myth. If cyclists are suicidal they are very picky about which vehicles they elect to die under.

This is real people you're talking about sidevalve, name the ones you are calling stupid.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Mar 2016)

In the case of double-killer Lopes it was never worked out who he was actually employed to drive HGVs for. Sub-contracting can be useful for plausible deniability.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Isn't that the very reason why they have been removed in a lot of places.


They are not always safe for pedestrians. I was once heading west after 10 at night, and I got to Aldgate East, and the station was closed. At the time there were barriers completely stopping pedestrians crossing the road, you were meant to use the subway. However that subway has stretches where you can't see any exits. There weren't any people about, there was no way I was going that way in a short skirt. So I had to hitch up the same short skirt, scramble over the metal railings, press myself against it until it was safe to cross - and no driver would expect a pedestrian there, then clamber of the railings on the far side. I think I may have had to do this across two roads. Those railings are gone now, but the whole intersection has been redeveloped.

Those railings were alway "keep out of the damn way of cars" not really about safety. Those long subways are not a good idea, except for giving homeless people somewhere dry to sleep. http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1694


----------



## glenn forger (18 Mar 2016)

Tulse Hill:







That bridge has been driven into by HGV drivers sixteen times in the last 6 months:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...or-16th-time-in-just-six-months-a3206601.html

Must be in the blind spot.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2016)

User said:


> I had a similar experience, short skirt aside, where I got a lift from Brighton and the driver dropped me at the M23/M25 junction on the south side. Crossing over the whole junction to the north side was an interesting experience.


OK, but you aren't legally allowed to be on those roads if you are a pedestrian, so it's no surprise there's not suitable pedestrian facilities there. I hope the person that dropped you there was a stranger. A friend who drops you at a place like that is not really a friend.


----------



## snorri (18 Mar 2016)

glenn forger said:


> That bridge has been driven into by HGV drivers sixteen times in the last 6 months:
> Must be in the blind spot.


You'd have thought someone would have foreseeen the danger of establishing a goods transit depot in a place named Lowbridge.

IGMC


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2016)

I've had at least six occasions where a HGV or bus has passed me then moved straight in front of me and would have have crushed me if I hadn't taken evasive action. My favourite was when I was in the right lane at the lights to navigate a one way system, and a bus pulled in beside me, heading the same way. Immediately he passed me when the lights changed, he started to move right, I shouted (I've a loud voice) "I'm still here" and he moved back into his own lane and stayed there. That was scary because although he'd seen me at the lights, it was apparent as soon as I was out of his sight, he forgot me completely. He didn't try to push me out of the way again, so I believe it was a negligent not an aggressive act. However, when a lorry passes me just before a bend in the road, and I can see exactly where I would have been if I hadn't braked, as his wheels pressed against the gutter, that's a definite "f-you, just get out of my way or I will kill you"

Videos like this say it's the riders fault. As Glenn indicates, it rarely ever is. Which is fascinating, I see cyclists doing Darwinian moves all the time, riding up the side of stopped buses that are so close to the curb they have to push themselves on the side of bus as there no room to pedal, riders moving up the inside of a vehicle indicating left etc etc. But these riders aren't the ones who are dying.


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> OK, but you aren't legally allowed to be on those roads if you are a pedestrian, so it's no surprise there's not suitable pedestrian facilities there.


I know a motorway-motorway junction is a special case but many motorway junctions are similar, even if you're allowed to walk alongside some of the connecting roads. Crossing M42 junction 6 to get from Birmingham International to where I was going was one of the scariest things I've done... and it looks like changes since then have made matters worse and the footway I used now stops abruptly without warning on the blank side of a crash barrier at https://goo.gl/maps/hdeXGMWbZoy - that's not even an A road but only the exhibition centre entrance. I also _lurve_ the tyre tracks from U-turns across the traffic island that you see if you turn a bit.

The footway around the southern edge still looks complete but there's no way to cross the A45 before the next junction west which could mean a long old walk... or just running across the carriageway... or giving up and driving, more likely.

It's 2016. We've known about pollution and climate change for ages. Why are we still building this crap???


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> It's 2016. We've known about pollution and climate change for ages. Why are we still building this crap???


True story.

I was talking to a buddy about a decade ago, a recently graduated professional, who was driving an old beater. 
(her) "People at work laugh at my car. They say I should get a car with lower emissions". 
(me) "How strange. If you are concerned about emissions, you really shouldn't be driving at all, but taking public transport or cycling." 
(her)"Yes, but my office is near the junction of 2 motorways. There's really no way to get there except by car." 
(me)"Who do you work for?" 
(her)"The Environment Agency"


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> (her)"Yes, but my office is near the junction of 2 motorways. There's really no way to get there except by car."
> (me)"Who do you work for?"
> (her)"The Environment Agency"


I can well believe it as the Environment Agency is often accused of being against cycling schemes which affect their domain, which sucks because the tops of flood defence banks are pretty good places for cycle tracks and their sluice-tops and access tracks are useful river crossings. However, I haven't confirmed that opposition myself because there have been other landowners opposing the two I've known: NCR 33 Taunton-Bridgwater-Weston-Clevedon crossing Tutshill Sluice and Brean Cross Sluice.


----------



## Brandane (18 Mar 2016)

[QUOTE 4199855, member: 45"]My main point is that the truck driver can't see anything in the lane beside him. So regardless of whether anyone is or should be beside the truck he's turning into a blind area. This shouldn't be acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Ha! You've been brainwashed by the extremely misleading video in your OP..
This WAS done to death a while back, but until I can find it, here are my main gripes with THAT video, from the POV of one who actually drives the things:

1. Mirrors are badly adjusted, just for effect. They are showing too much of the side of the tractor unit, and in the nearside mirror all you see is the trailer - that's because the tractor unit and trailer are at an angle (again for effect) which would only be the case after the manoeuvre has started - not while sitting at a stop.
2. Camera is being held at waist height (for more effect!!). If it was at driver's eye level you would see some of those cyclists just by looking out the nearside window.
3. No mention or view of the convex blindspot mirror at the top of the passenger side window which points downwards.

Utter scaremongering on a grand scale; that video. Us HGV drivers are treated like lepers as it is; we don't need BS clips like this to make things worse!


----------



## Brandane (18 Mar 2016)

Here is a more realistic view, courtesy of a previous thread posted by @PeteXXX . The photo is taken from a fixed point; obviously you can increase your field of vision simply by moving your head around.


----------



## summerdays (18 Mar 2016)

Firestorm said:


> if it were two lanes then the cyclists would be ok moving up , but the truck would not be turning left from a right hand lane.


I've seen lorries turn left from a sort of right lane position, they tend to do it when it's a tight corner and they need the extra space, but they normally indicate and seem to try and straddle both lanes to prevent other vehicles from passing (obviously bikes could pass through the gap). I guess I'm saying don't assume that a lorry that is over to the right at a junction is going right.


----------



## Brandane (18 Mar 2016)

User said:


> I have tried that but it doesn't work for me.


That's strange. I find that if I alter the angle at which I am looking in the mirror, i.e. by moving my head, I can see areas that I couldn't previously see from with my head glued to the headrest.



summerdays said:


> I've seen lorries turn left from a sort of right lane position, they tend to do it when it's a tight corner and they need the extra space, but they normally indicate and seem to try and straddle both lanes to prevent other vehicles from passing (obviously bikes could pass through the gap). I guess I'm saying don't assume that a lorry that is over to the right at a junction is going right.


Yes they have to do that to avoid taking out the street furniture on the nearside with the back end of the trailer! I would hope that any driver turning left at a junction would use indicators, but especially an HGV doing it from a position to the right of the accepted norm..


----------



## Brandane (18 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Sorry, I was just being silly looking at the photo.


Oh, errrm, ok.. Ha ha... Remember you're not posting in SCP here, you're allowed to use the yellow faces without losing your serious poster credibility .


----------



## Lonestar (18 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> Yep. I won't ride up the left of large vehicles but on any road ride of any distance in London, at least one large vehicle nobber overtakes me on a junction approach. Please reject the motoring propaganda, stop attacking cyclists and bring nobbers to account for careless driving.



I overtook a lorry on the right at Bank a few years back only to realise the steering wheel was on the left.Still I did realise afterwards the number plate gave it away but I wouldn't always take this as the case.Still plenty of lorries for me to tangle with @ Southwark Bridge to Tower Gateway.

http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=135402

There are some real jokers out there...I've met many on my commute who can't even bother to indicate anyway when it's wall to wall with lorries but this thread sums it up a bit...I've even had comments from my workmates on almost getting run down when they were crossing the road in London...Bad eggs in their set just like ours...


----------



## Absinthe Minded (19 Mar 2016)

Vantage said:


> ... what kind of brainless moronic halfwit other than a Londoner would position his/her bike in that lane???


Some dimmo from: Sometimes Bolton, sometimes Urmston?


----------



## Hitchington (19 Mar 2016)

Vantage said:


> what kind of brainless moronic halfwit other than a Londoner would position his/her bike in that lane???


As a cyclist living in central London I get plenty of lorries, buses, coaches, trucks, vans, taxis, cars pulling up along my right hand side when I'm waiting at a junction. Not sure why that would make me a moronic halfwit?


----------



## snorri (19 Mar 2016)

Hitchington said:


> As a cyclist living in central London I get plenty of lorries, buses, coaches, trucks, vans, taxis, cars pulling up along my right hand side when I'm waiting at a junction. Not sure why that would make me a moronic halfwit?


The critics are all around, if they don't get you for cycling badly, they'll get you for duplicate posting.


----------



## Hitchington (19 Mar 2016)

snorri said:


> The critics are all around, if they don't get you for cycling badly, they'll get you for duplicate posting.


Haha, oops! Dunno how that happened?


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Mar 2016)

Firestorm said:


> It highlights that the stipulation that you should not overtake when approaching a junction is there for a reason.
> if the cyclists were there first then the truck wait behind them. If the truck was there first, it should have been indicating left and the any vehicle should be sitting behind them.
> if it were two lanes then the cyclists would be ok moving up , but the truck would not be turning left from a right hand lane.
> But the video does raise the issue of blind spots, which I am sure all road users could do with more reminding about, information is always a good thing



Each time I have been in this situation, the truck has pulled alongside me....

The last "close shave" was an artic overtaking at the approach to a pinch point causing me to mount a drive to avoid the trailer

Yes there is education for cyclists, but lets also see the education for truckers


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> but lets also see the education for truckers


There is! It's called CPC (Certificate of Professional Competency) which involves 40 hours of "training" every 5 years. It's the biggest farce ever. Just another way of creating a few jobs, at the expense of drivers. It's been covered on here before but basically it does not involve any practical training on the road; simply sit in a classroom and listen to BS about drivers hours regulations, first aid, load security, daily checks, the role of VOSA, etc. etc.. Mostly stuff that any self respecting driver should already know like the back of his hand. You can actually qualify by doing the SAME module (e.g. first aid) five times. Absolutely farcical. In my case it cost £350 for the course, and that's not taking into account the 5 days lost wages - so in reality it cost £700 +.. There is no exam or assessment either; all you have to do is be there for the duration of the course. You can choose to sit sleeping in a corner every day if you so desire.


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Any of our lorry drivers been told similar?


It's part of the learner training, for your test! If you DON'T do what you've just described for a left turn (unless the road you are turning into is extremely wide) then your trailer is going to take the shorter route and cut over the pavement, taking with it railings, signs, traffic lights etc..


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

User said:


> . If the left side of the ASL was not a safe place to be, he should effectively close it off.


You mean this bit? Sorry, I was just being silly .
I would also try to block off the ASL, but if there are 3 lanes as you describe, and the lorry is straddling 2 of them, you are inevitably going to be leaving a gap on your nearside wide enough for a cyclist to be able to pass through. I can only try and make my intention to turn left from a wide position as obvious as possible, and then rely on the road sense of others....


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> Part of the test involves driving over an ASL?


It involves turning left. If there happens to be an ASL there, then at some point you are going to have to drive over it.


----------



## summerdays (19 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> I thought the point of Adrian's post was that the driver had been told to deliberately encroach on the ASL when he stopped at the lights. I'd be surprised if that was part of any driving test.


But if it came down to it I would rather a driver who was thinking about the potential problems than one assuming the cyclist had to take all the responsibility for their safety. That doesn't make it right, just at least aware.


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> I thought the point of Adrian's post was that the driver had been told to deliberately encroach on the ASL when he stopped at the lights. I'd be surprised if that was part of any driving test.


I don't see the need to encroach on the ASL.. You can block off the access to it (as much as is possible; see previous post) without actually entering it. Crossing the first STOP line when the lights are at red would result in a failure of your test.


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> I'd be surprised if that was part of any driving test.


I'd be surprised if Tesco's were training their drivers to do something illegal which could result in points on the driver's licence. If I was driving for Tesco, I wouldn't be doing that whether they recommend it or not. It's illegal and it's MY licence, not theirs.


----------



## Vantage (19 Mar 2016)

Hitchington said:


> As a cyclist living in central London I get plenty of lorries, buses, coaches, trucks, vans, taxis, cars pulling up along my right hand side when I'm waiting at a junction. Not sure why that would make me a moronic halfwit?



You read my post wrong.
If you're there first then fair enough, nothing wrong in that.
But if the waggon is there first with the blinkers going and the wheels turned to go left and then you park up the inside of it, then you're a moronic halfwit. Even if it looks as if the waggon is going straight ahead I'll sit behind it. Lots of folk seem to have forgotten how to indicate.
The number of youtube vids I see of 'cyclists' filtering up a gap of 2 feet between two big heavy moving buses leads me to think that moronic halfwits are in abundance in London.
I'm happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## Vantage (19 Mar 2016)

User said:


> How many YouTube videos? Can you find links for them so we can see what you see?


Not at the moment. Going camping with the missus later so I've not got time.
They're easy enough to find. Google is your friend.


----------



## Vantage (19 Mar 2016)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Some dimmo from: Sometimes Bolton, sometimes Urmston?


Sorry but no, not me. 35 years cycling and I'm still not dead so I must be doing something right.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Mar 2016)

As I said upthread, cyclists behave suicidally in London all the time, but somehow, those ones never die.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2UsaO9vEJs


----------



## MontyVeda (19 Mar 2016)

[QUOTE 4201349, member: 9609"]...
in the last video the puddlejumper is indicating to turn left and the cyclist who are going straight ahead are still undertaking![/QUOTE]
The _Must Get In Front_ mentality is alive and well in all modes of transport, it seems.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Mar 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> The _Must Get In Front_ mentality is alive and well in all modes of transport, it seems.



We are all the same


glenn forger said:


> Tulse Hill:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2016)

Those drivers must be suicidal.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Mar 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Those drivers must be suicidal.


On London roads, "homicidal" is the word I would use.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (19 Mar 2016)

[QUOTE 4199992, member: 9609"]So it has little to do with visibility or near side mirrors and has everything to do with who is behind the wheel. most times I read a news article of a poor cyclist being killed it is tipper / waste-away truck, the culture in this part of the industry and how these drivers are paid is the key to better safety and little to do with more / bigger mirrors or electronic sensors.[/QUOTE]
yesterday... 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rnjEn63uD0


----------



## mr_cellophane (19 Mar 2016)

I've never driven an artic, but in the original video from the position of the cab and wheels, wouldn't the rear wheels go well over the kerb ?


----------



## Brandane (19 Mar 2016)

Strathlubnaig said:


> yesterday...
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rnjEn63uD0



I don't see much of a problem here. The lorry driver passed the cyclist on a clear stretch of road, and it wasn't a particularly close pass. He then comes to a right hand bend, at which point he becomes aware of a car coming towards him on a narrow bridge; so he stops and waits for the car to clear the bridge before moving off. If anyone in that clip was lacking in patience, it was the cyclist IMHO.. He was clearly not happy at being held up. If you can't handle traffic, don't ride on public roads.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Mar 2016)

If he straightened the lorry up he would see them. It is so misleading.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Mar 2016)

mr_cellophane said:


> I've never driven an artic, but in the original video from the position of the cab and wheels, wouldn't the rear wheels go well over the kerb ?



If he started the turn there 2/3 of his trailer would go over the kerb. Thats why this is a load of nonesense.


----------



## Brandane (20 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> If he straightened the lorry up he would see them. It is so misleading.


*cough!* Post 31; top of page 3 .


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Mar 2016)

Brandane said:


> *cough!* Post 31; top of page 3 .



I didnt see the point in wading through all the posts when it was rubbish from the outset


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> If he straightened the lorry up he would see them. It is so misleading.


isn't the point of the image/video (cab beginning to turn) to demonstrate that when an artic is turning, the nearside mirrors give the driver a great view of the side of the trailer... and thus suggesting that *if* an artic is doing a left turn, it's not wise to cycle/drive up its near side? If the lorry was straight it'd go straight on... seems straightforward enough to me (pun intended).


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Mar 2016)

I can see your point

But he has to drive up to the point he turns at which time he would pass the cyclists.

If he is stopped and the cyclists come up the inside he will see them through the mirrors if they adjusted correctly. I cannot think of an occasion where you would stop with enough left lock on that you cannot see what is coming up the Inside.


----------



## summerdays (20 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I can see your point
> 
> But he has to drive up to the point he turns at which time he would pass the cyclists.
> 
> If he is stopped and the cyclists come up the inside he will see them through the mirrors if they adjusted correctly. I cannot think of an occasion where you would stop with enough left lock on that you cannot see what is coming up the Inside.


For me it doesn't matter whether he would stop like that or not, the point they are trying to get across is that it isn't a safe place to put yourself, don't go there. It needs to be said! Equally the opposite needs to be said to lorry drivers, don't put a cyclist in that position.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> For me it doesn't matter whether he would stop like that or not, the point they are trying to get across is that it isn't a safe place to put yourself, don't go there. It needs to be said! Equally the opposite needs to be said to lorry drivers, don't put a cyclist in that position.


You know what that video says to me? that these vehicles should not be on the road - at least in the configuration shown in this video.

A number of years ago, my friend was nearly crushed by one of these as she was in his blind sport, and she was driving a 5 door red hatch back.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> You know what that video says to me? that these vehicles should not be on the road - at least in the configuration shown in this video.
> 
> A number of years ago, my friend was nearly crushed by one of these as she was in his blind sport, and she was driving a 5 door red hatch back.


i recall a public information film in the 70s warning of the very same danger to cars. Regardless of who presents the risk, awareness of the risk that blind spots pose is not a bad thing to promote.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2016)

According to an expert the BBC found, a lorry can't even be expected to see in the direction it is actually driving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33622318


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> According to an expert the BBC found, a lorry can't even be expected to see in the direction it is actually driving.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33622318


again, the problem with blind spots is they're 'blind'...






Best be aware of them until cab design improves.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> For me it doesn't matter whether he would stop like that or not, the point they are trying to get across is that it isn't a safe place to put yourself, don't go there. It needs to be said! Equally the opposite needs to be said to lorry drivers, don't put a cyclist in that position.



I think you are totally correct.

Everyone needs to be educated that is a mutual beneficial thing, we are all responsible for each other. If you watch some of the Youtube clips of bikes going down the sides of trucks it is frightening.

I would rather wait 30 seconds and let the truck get out of the way.

But there are those cyclists who will say "Why should I?"

I Guess there is no answer to that.

I liked the public information films and 40 years later I still remember a lot of them. They should start them again.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2016)

User said:


> I am not quite sure that I see how cyclists staying out of the way of lorries equates to us all being responsible for each other.


what about educating people to be aware of the potential dangers when in the vicinity of lorries and educating lorry drivers to be aware of the hazards in their 'blind' spot?


----------



## User16625 (21 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> According to an expert the BBC found, a lorry can't even be expected to see in the direction it is actually driving.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33622318




Jesus Christ!! I would have decked that prick given half a chance. Blind spot or not that move looked ridiculous at best, deliberate at worst.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Mar 2016)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Jesus Christ!! I would have decked that prick given half a chance. Blind spot or not that move looked ridiculous at best, deliberate at worst.


Totally agree. It's horrifying, Can't even watch with sound, as his screams are haunting.

Thread about it at the time is https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/hgv-driver-fails-to-spot-approaching-motorcyclist.184203/


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Regardless of who presents the risk, awareness of the risk that blind spots pose is not a bad thing to promote.


Whether it's a bad thing depends on how you promote it. The legend of cyclists being killed because they dare to overtake lorries is a bad thing to promote. Asking why these dangerous designs are still allowed is a good thing.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> Whether it's a bad thing depends on how you promote it. The legend of cyclists being killed because they dare to overtake lorries is a bad thing to promote. Asking why these dangerous designs are still allowed is a good thing.


it's not just one or the other though... some road users present danger, some put themselves in danger. Let's just highlight 'the dangers'.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> it's not just one or the other though... some road users present danger, *some put themselves in danger*. Let's just highlight 'the dangers'.


There's that legend again. Of course those mostly at fault would prefer it if left that legend undebunked and just highlighted "the dangers" in a meek neutral manner. It's time to say no to those bullies...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Mar 2016)

you seem to have a problem with the statement that *some road users put themselves in danger*... is this not a fact, or just a fact you want swept under the carpet?


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2016)

The problem is with giving that fact undue prominence in order to suggest that all blessed lorry drivers are not in any way to blame for left-hooking, for mowing down from behind and all the other real-world ways lorries have been used to kill other road users.

Much like using a trolling avatar that suggests it's only the cyclists who should be careful and shouldn't expect drivers to have functioning eyesight.


----------



## Brandane (22 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> The problem is with giving that fact undue prominence in order to suggest that all blessed lorry drivers are not in any way to blame for left-hooking, for mowing down from behind and all the other real-world ways lorries have been used to kill other road users.
> 
> Much like using a trolling avatar that suggests it's only the cyclists who should be careful and shouldn't expect drivers to have functioning eyesight.


The key word is "some". Deny that all you like, but it is still a fact.
The "trolling avatar" is actually sound advice - to all road users. Especially now that the text has been changed from the BS about being in the blind spot!


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> The problem is with giving that fact undue prominence in order to suggest that all blessed lorry drivers are not in any way to blame for left-hooking, for mowing down from behind and all the other real-world ways lorries have been used to kill other road users.
> 
> Much like using a trolling avatar that suggests it's only the cyclists who should be careful and shouldn't expect drivers to have functioning eyesight.


You're the one giving it undue prominence...



> ...some road users present danger*, some put themselves in danger*...



...that's your bold in my quote. Speaks volumes doesn't it?


----------

