# Truck hazard



## Euro (14 Nov 2013)

My fellow truck drivers and I are distressed by the number of truck/cyclist incidents (see trucknet). If any of my family were cycling, I would ask them to bolt on one of those compressed-air foghorns as used by recreational sailors.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Nov 2013)

Euro,

Agreed it is very tragic, but if the cyclist has to resort to sounding a compressed air horn, something has already gone very badly wrong, either the cyclist has put themselves into a very bad place, or the driver has not been observant enough.

Alan...


----------



## byegad (14 Nov 2013)

I understand your concerns, having a son with a Class1 licence I know how much, or little, is visible from the cab. The Air Zound is a pump filled air horn with 120+db output, loud enough for all but the deaf, or loud heavy metal listening drivers. However, as a cyclist, I feel the real solution would be better education of cyclists and the fitting of some sort of sensor to lorries to avoid the left turning crushing accident. Cyclists should know not to go there and drivers should easily know if a cyclist is there! However you cannot legislate completely for human error.


----------



## Koga (14 Nov 2013)

There is no quick cure here.
The roads would need improving, all traffic members would need educating (cyclist, car drivers, truck drivers) and in general peoples mentality and priorities would need changing.
There also is the issue of no real political will or ambition to encourage and make cycling safe.


----------



## fossyant (14 Nov 2013)

Euro, you are coming here to the converted. The answer for cyclists is to stay well away from big vehicles, and not to try and squeeze past.


----------



## rbreid (14 Nov 2013)

Living in the "real" world and not an "ideal world" I do have an Airzound fitted as well as a bell and yes it has proved a life saver on more than one occasion.


----------



## Teuchter (14 Nov 2013)

After the spate of deaths this last couple of weeks in London, I was thinking about exactly this on the way in this morning while watching another cyclist bombing up the inside of a line of cars, inches from the doors of parked cars on one side and not thinking to even slow down as he undertook past junctions.

While every death on the roads is a tragedy, I can't help but feel that a lot of cyclists put themselves in situations where it's only their luck that is carrying them through. On a regular basis I see other cyclists over/under taking lines of traffic next to junctions - including lorries and buses who would have next to no chance to see them.

It's the driver who kills a cyclist who they could have had no possibility of seeing and would have no reason to suspect had been stupid enough to put themselves there that I feel the most sorry for.

I must say that among the various professional drivers I come across on the roads, lorry drivers are consistently the most mindful of me as a cyclist (this in comparison to many bus, taxi and white van drivers).


----------



## Koga (14 Nov 2013)

rbreid said:


> Living in the "real" world and not an "ideal world" I do have an Airzound fitted as well as a bell and yes it has proved a life saver on more than one occasion.


I haven't seen that one before, looks brilliant. Can you give some product feedback on this ?


----------



## rbreid (14 Nov 2013)

Koga said:


> I haven't seen that one before, looks brilliant. Can you give some product feedback on this ?


You have message


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Nov 2013)

Interesting (but entirely predictable) to see how truck drivers view the current state of affairs - http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106925


----------



## Brandane (14 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Interesting (but entirely predictable) to see how truck drivers view the current state of affairs - http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106925


Looks like a mixed bag of opinions, much the same as can be found on CC..
There are a few valid points made by the posters, which I have had personal experience of, during my 6 years driving an artic. For example, unlit cyclists coming up the nearside of an HGV turning left on a dark rainy night. What chance has a driver got of seeing them, 40' away in a mirror covered in rain drops?

Some cyclists make mistakes and do stupid things on the roads; you would need to be in serious denial not to accept that. Those same cyclists need to take a good look at their vulnerability and take sensible measures to reduce it. Riding sensibly and making themselves visible to other road users for starters.

Likewise, some truck drivers need to look at themselves and realise the dangers they can cause to the more vulnerable road users. I can say with hand on heart that the vast majority of guys I worked with in my trucking days were very professional whilst at the wheel of a truck. They have to be, or they wouldn't be driving for long!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Nov 2013)

fossyant said:


> The answer for cyclists is to stay well away from big vehicles...



It's a two-way thing; they should stay away from each other.

GC


----------



## Markymark (14 Nov 2013)

I steer well clear of large vehicles but I do tend to feel in my experience in London that the driving is of a high standrd and they are aware. I have seen more instances of large vehicles taking evasive action around silly cyclists than the other way around. This morning. If the tipper trunk hadn't stopped he would have hit the cyclist undertakng (no cycle lane) the indicating lorry arriving at the lights.


----------



## Frood42 (14 Nov 2013)

Hmmmm, so I have to have an airhorn on my bike now do I.....
I stay back from big vehicles, but you are the one bringing a large vehicle onto the road that increases the danger to every other road user, so you are the one who needs to take on some extra responsibilty for that large vehicle and the damage it can do.

Education of cyclists to help mitigate is one factor in this, but the fact remains you are increasing the danger levels to every other road user with what you bring to the road, so it is the larger vehicle that needs to be looked at, be it restricted delivery hours etc...

Most lorry drivers have been fine, the only ones I am concerned about are those contracter driven tipper trucks, they seem to be the worst for some reason, where as supermarket vehicles seem to be less so, actually no major issues with supermarket logo'd large vehicles yet...

And I do have to laugh that they say the roads are too dangerous for cyclists and they should be removed from the roads, who do they think is creating that danger...

All these generalisations are really starting to get on my nerves! 
I don't jump red lights, I have lights, I have a helmet (not needed by law), I stay back from large vehicles, I don't ride on the pavement (unless it is a shared space pavement, then I go slowly to look out for pedestrians), I let buses out from bus stops, I ride in a visible position... FFS, now I have to have a horn!

Do you know what, F*K right off!


Rant over, all calm now 

.


----------



## Globalti (14 Nov 2013)

Having seen the stupidity of some cyclists and as a veteran hitchhiker and one-time 3 ton truck driver, having seen the care and professionalism of most truck drivers, I have to say that I think most of the blame lies with cyclists as a disorganised, ill-mannered and ill-trained shower.


----------



## Frood42 (14 Nov 2013)

Need we be reminded of this 
Not sure even an airzound would have helped here:


----------



## Platinum (14 Nov 2013)

The road environment should be changed so that stupid behaviour by any road user, whether carelessness, negligence, ignorance or just making inevitable human mistakes does not automatically result in a death sentence.


----------



## bianchi1 (14 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> The road environment should be changed so that stupid behaviour by any road user, whether carelessness, negligence, ignorance or just making inevitable human mistakes does not automatically result in a death sentence.



Any ideas? 

Cotton wool cars and trucks limited to 5 mph driven on rubber roads should do it.


----------



## Frood42 (14 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> The road environment should be changed so that stupid behaviour by any road user, whether carelessness, negligence, ignorance or just making inevitable human mistakes does not automatically result in a death sentence.



nah, everyone just needs to take responsibility for the hazards they bring to the road, put down those mobile phones, oh and yeah, the bowl of cereal with milk...

oh and get some road engineers who in city centres or urban areas don't prioritise the speed of traffic flow over vunerable road users, like the dinosaurs at TFL who still cannot get a segregated cycle lane right (thinking CS2 extension)...


----------



## jarlrmai (15 Nov 2013)

Thanks for the advice, let me know how the horn would have prevented this


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_fgrPas-0E


or this


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w90hPZcJU38


or this


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gku1dyYTn0


Let me make it clear, if a cyclist has to use a horn then the truck driver is doing something wrong.


----------



## Teuchter (15 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> All these generalisations are really starting to get on my nerves!
> I don't jump red lights, I have lights, I have a helmet (not needed by law), I stay back from large vehicles, I don't ride on the pavement (unless it is a shared space pavement, then I go slowly to look out for pedestrians), I let buses out from bus stops, I ride in a visible position... .


I think the point most of us are trying to make is that you do all of this and as a result guess what...

*You're still alive.*

Any generalisations are aimed towards the people who don't ride as well as you. We all see plenty of them every day so don't try telling me they don't make up a significant proportion of the cyclists out there. Thus the generalistations.


----------



## Frood42 (15 Nov 2013)

Teuchter said:


> *You're still alive.*


 
Yeh, great, so I am still alive, and I should be thankful for that, should I..? 
What a poor state of affairs it has come to when I have to be grateful to still be alive when I get home at night...

Sometimes I do wonder though how I am still on the bike, despite me taking plenty of precautions I still get numpties, but at least if I get hit by someone on a bike I will still get up again...

And why the hell should I be thankful that I am still alive because some twit was paying more attention to their mobile phone than to the road ahead...
I see more people messing with mobile phones (and seems to be mainly young women) in cars than I see RLJ cyclists in London...

I just want to get to work and home again without having to worry that some impatient twonk isn't going to pull out in front of me or hit me from behind, but sadly I cannot do this when I am riding on the road...

And while there are cyclists out there with less than helpful attitudes, they don't make up as much of a significant proportion of the People on Bikes out there as your wording suggests... I see just as many cars jump red lights as I do cyclists, and they are all in the same mad cap rush to get home or to work, it's bonkers...
Pedal to the floor to get to the next red light where they then have to sit in a queue, rinse and repeat several times, it's madness that they think my causing them to have to drive with a bit of care before they join that next queue is such an insult...

Any why is it whenever I near traffic lights, I have to get in primary and I have to check behind several times that the car behind me is actually GOING TO STOP... rather than gamble on that amber/red light...
.


----------



## Teuchter (15 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Yeh, great, so I am still alive, and I should be thankful for that, should I..?
> What a poor state of affairs it has come to when I have to be grateful to still be alive when I get home at night...
> 
> etc


I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting any of us should be grateful to still be alive after cycling. My point was that one of the reasons that you and I have not joined the ranks of statistics is because of the approach we take to our cycling, the decisions that we make and the situations that we choose not to put ourselves into (like squeezing up the inside of trucks at junctions, for instance).

I don't want to suggest that all cycling injuries and fatalities could have been avoided if the cyclists adopted a certain approach to their cycling and I know that there are plenty who have died on our roads despite riding safely.

Good road design, safety improvements to vehicles and increased driver awareness are all important. Let's not forget that the single element that plays the most important part in our own safety however is us ourselves. I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Platinum (15 Nov 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Any ideas?
> 
> Cotton wool cars and trucks limited to 5 mph driven on rubber roads should do it.



Surely you must have heard of sustainable safety http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/


----------



## Frood42 (15 Nov 2013)

Teuchter said:


> Good road design, safety improvements to vehicles and increased driver awareness are all important. Let's not forget that the single element that plays the most important part in our own safety however is us ourselves.


 
Yes, being responsible for ourselves and constantly learning is a good thing, but it can be tiring (can't think of a better word right now) to have to also be responsible for those who can so easily hurt you rather badly through simple inattention, a lazy can't be bothered today attitude, or just downright ignorance...

When I learnt to drive (just 13 years ago), there was almost zero taught about vunerable road users, and once you have memorised what you need to pass your test it seemed you could then forget it all without worry... Not forgetting once you have your license, well, you have it.

Good road design would be great (which puts people and not vehicles first), can you come teach the dinosaurs at TFL how it is done..?


----------



## bianchi1 (15 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> Surely you must have heard of sustainable safety http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/



The reality.

“In The Netherlands many people use the bicycle, especially in short – primarily urban – trips. While this increases the number of cyclist fatalities, it also results in a lower number of deaths for other modes, due to a lower usage of, for example, cars.” Henk Stipdonk, SWOV, The Netherlands [The effect on road safety of a modal shift from car to bicycle, Traffic Injury Prevention, accepted paper]. 

You cannot fully remove risks..as much as you would like too.


----------



## Frood42 (15 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> Surely you must have heard of sustainable safety http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/


 
Thank you for this link, the video was interesting to watch, but I can never see TFL doing this properly, they would introduce too many compromises which would lessen the effectiveness of it. The CS2 extension being one case, great they have put in a segregated cycle lane, but there are so many compromises it just doesn't quite work properly...


----------



## Crankarm (15 Nov 2013)

My Mum reported seeing two builders trucks literally jousting trying to run each other off a dual carriage way on the A418 recently. Both going in same direction one pulled out to pass the slower one in front, slower truck then sped up, both blocking the duel carriageway. The two trucks were then locked in a stale mate. Truck in left slower lane then drifted into side of other construction truck in over taking lane, sparks flying between the two vehicles, each trying to force other truck off road. Mum stayed well back in her car pretty frightened as she said they were mental.


----------



## mustang1 (15 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Hmmmm, so I have to have an airhorn on my bike now do I.....
> I stay back from big vehicles, but you are the one bringing a large vehicle onto the road that increases the danger to every other road user, so you are the one who needs to take on some extra responsibilty for that large vehicle and the damage it can do.
> 
> Education of cyclists to help mitigate is one factor in this, but the fact remains you are increasing the danger levels to every other road user with what you bring to the road, so it is the larger vehicle that needs to be looked at, be it restricted delivery hours etc...
> ...


----------



## classic33 (15 Nov 2013)

Why is the Road Haulage Association against trying to sort the problem out, or even willing to acknowledge that the problem exists?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 Nov 2013)

classic33 said:


> Why is the Road Haulage Association against trying to sort the problem out, or even willing to acknowledge that the problem exists?


Money! Next question.


----------



## classic33 (16 Nov 2013)

Euro, sorry if your first post has met with such opposistion.
At present the number of incidents involving HGV's/LGV's seems to be on the increase overall. The last week has certainly seen a number of cyclists killed on the road in London.
Boris, I don't think will dare stick his head into this, yet. Its only adverse publicity for him if he does. When somethings done or said will be done, that might see a decrease in the number of incidents, then he'll pop his head above the parapet.


----------



## classic33 (16 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Money! Next question.


 Money doesn't stop the professional body acknowledging that the problem exists. Turn a blind eye and hope it goes away seems more plausable as an a answer.


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

everyone has a responsibility! There are good drivers, bad drivers, good companies, bad companies, good truck design, bad truck design, good driver training, bad driver training, good cyclist behaviour, bad cyclist behaviour, good road design, bad road design. Maybe we should all stop blaming each other and look at our own behaviours and, as I've said before, start working together to put in layer on layer of processes and best practice to keep cyclists safe. No cyclist sets out to get killed, no driver sets off from home to kill. All humans are fallible and we should all strive to behave in a way to reduce these awful circumstances in whatever way we can. Road designers should be speaking to both cyclists and truck companies when designing roads and junctions, everyone should be talking about how we are going to stop this together, not standing around shouting and blaming each other, which is exactly what's going on right now.
Hats off to the OP who had the guts to come on here, in the current climate, admit he's a truck driver and state how upset they are.


----------



## RT2 (16 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2771703, member: 30090"]Good to see that RT is representing...[/quote]

Glad someone noticed! :-)
Hi again everyone, I've been tempted back to CC by recent events, although for some reason I've had to re register as my original username doesn't seem to work any more. This thread ... http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106915 ... is a more accurate representation of my views though. Try and ignore Carryfast, who really does seem to be quite a blinkered character. I'm only grateful that he doesn't drive any more.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> Hats off to the OP who had the guts to come on here, in the current climate, admit he's a truck driver and state how upset they are.



What "guts" does it take to make an anonymous victim-blaming post on a cyclists' forum?


----------



## Archie_tect (16 Nov 2013)

fossyant said:


> Euro, you are coming here to the converted. The answer for cyclists is to stay well away from big vehicles, and not to try and squeeze past.


Euro's to be congratulated and encouraged for joining in and letting people know how he feels and to share his experience... we are all more aware of the dangers but if it helps to educate just one person who's perhaps just starting out cycling again then any post can't be criticised.
 Euro!


----------



## rbreid (16 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> What "guts" does it take to make an anonymous victim-blaming post on a cyclists' forum?


You must have read a different Original post to me. Victim blaming???? Entrenchment blurring vision has spoilt what for 9 or so posts was forming a quite constructive thread. Unlikely that anything positive will come from this thread now other than an emotive non constructive shouting match. Shame it always seems to go this way on this subject and common sense and common ground get burried in pointless animosity and hatred.Very sad


----------



## Archie_tect (16 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> What "guts" does it take to make an anonymous victim-blaming post on a cyclists' forum?


...that post is helping nobody TC... in fact it probably merits deleting it yourself.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

rbreid said:


> You must have read a different Original post to me. Victim blaming???? Entrenchment blurring vision has spoilt what for 9 or so posts was forming a quite constructive thread. Unlikely that anything positive will come from this thread now other than an emotive non constructive shouting match. Shame it always seems to go this way on this subject and common sense and common ground get burried in pointless animosity and hatred.Very sad



Lorries/drivers/hauliers/construction firms are _killing _cyclists and pedestrians with impunity, and a truck driver posts anonymously on a cyclists' forum _to say they should get foghorns._ Insulting doesn't even begin to describe it. If I sound angry, then it's because I am. Every time a thread appears in Cyclist Down, my blood runs cold as I click the link to the report with the inevitable picture of the mangled bike, half-expecting to recognize the wreckage. Then there's the moment of relief, followed by the second sickening feeling that your own relief is someone else's catastrophe. And then come the excuses and the victim-blaming, and the supposedly "well-meaning" idiotic and useless advice, all of which only ever amounts to one thing - those who are doing the killing refusing to take responsibility for it. When Steve Wright was killing women in Ipswich, police gave conferences advising women to stay off the streets, and we were catapulted back to 1977. "If you are out alone at night, you are putting yourself in danger." Women weren't putting _themselves _in danger then, and cyclists and pedestrians aren't putting _themselves_ in danger now. Others are putting us in danger. And we, apparently, are supposed to indulge them. No thanks.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> ...that post is helping nobody TC... in fact it probably merits deleting it yourself.



You might just answer the question. What guts _does _it take?


----------



## Archie_tect (16 Nov 2013)

None at all... it's a cycling forum... it's not a physical contest TC, it's unwarranted abuse, would you speak in that way to a total stranger in the street- what would they think of you?


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> None at all... it's a cycling forum... it's not a physical contest TC, it's unwarranted abuse, would you speak in that way to a total stranger in the street- what would they think of you?



Abuse? Where? The post you took exception to was a response to Buggi - I disagreed with her assessment of the OP's bravery. If you want to roll with the analogies, I certainly wouldn't accost a group of cyclists in the street and tell them that they'd better get foghorns if they want to make it to the end of the week.


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> What "guts" does it take to make an anonymous victim-blaming post on a cyclists' forum?


 
at what point, in the post below, is any blame laid? I see someone saying they he and his colleagues are distressed too and suggesting a perfectly plausible idea for a tool to bring us to their attention if all else has failed.



Euro said:


> My fellow truck drivers and I are distressed by the number of truck/cyclist incidents (see trucknet). If any of my family were cycling, I would ask them to bolt on one of those compressed-air foghorns as used by recreational sailors.


 
Perhaps they are just as pissed off as we are that their employers refuse to accept responsibility and invest some money. Can't be a very nice prospect getting in your truck knowing you might be the next truck driver to do this bcoz you can't see out your cab.

your analogy doesn't make sense either. Telling women to stay off the streets isn't victim blaming, its just saying lets take some sensible precautions until we catch this killer. Suggesting a fog horn isn't saying its our responsibility to tell the truck driver we are there, its just a tool he suggests which may help us if a trucker hasn't seen us coz its louder than your scream.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> at what point, in the post below, is any blame laid? I see someone saying they he and his colleagues are distressed too and suggesting a perfectly plausible idea for a tool to bring us to their attention if all else has failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are just as ****ed off as we are that their employers refuse to accept responsibility and invest some money. Can't be a very nice prospect getting in your truck knowing you might be the next truck driver to do this bcoz you can't see out your cab.



Not distressed enough to hang around and listen. I see "Euro" hasn't been back to answer @jarlrmai's question. His contribution, if one can dignify it with that name, appears limited to the OP. I believe this is what is known as a "sh1t and run".


----------



## vickster (16 Nov 2013)

Maybe he's out on the road?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Not distressed enough to hang around and listen. I see "Euro" hasn't been back to answer @jarlrmai's question. His contribution, if one can dignify it with that name, appears limited to the OP. I believe this is what is known as a "sh1t and run".


Though, to be fair, Euro has given feedback to the members on trucknet and the response is not 100% disheartening. Loads of the usual, but a couple of considered replies. http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106943


----------



## Crackle (16 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Though, to be fair, Euro has given feedback to the members on trucknet and the response is not 100% disheartening. Loads of the usual, but a couple of considered replies. http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106943


I was just going to post that. I think in general the discussion is heartening as is the forum. Of course there are some wayward replies but it seems far less rabid than even we can be sometimes.


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

maybe he hasnt come back bcoz the thread became unconstructive. I saw no malice or victim blaming in his OP, just what was quite a plausible idea. Or maybe he's at work hoping he doesn't hit a cyclist today.
i haven't gone over to trucknet but I'm sure the thread had a miriad of different opposing emotional opinions and ideas, just as we have on here, but despite anonymous bravado or otherwise, do you really think they are so inhuman that this doesn't affect them? Bottom line is, no one wants this. I'd suggest organising a joint rally on parliament so that we can show a bit of unity against the companies and TfL but i know I'll get told that's a stupid idea by some. But if we joined forces with the truckers perhaps they will have no choice but to listen?


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Though, to be fair, Euro has given feedback to the members on trucknet and the response is not 100% disheartening. Loads of the usual, but a couple of considered replies. http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106943



@Rhythm Thief is on there I see! Yes it's not all of a piece, and is mostly more misguided than hostile. In the wake of the preceding week's carnage I don't think it's too much to ask for a truck driver to think carefully and read up a bit before posting half-baked and insulting "advice".


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> maybe he hasnt come back bcoz the thread became unconstructive. I saw no malice or victim blaming in his OP, just what was quite a plausible idea. Or maybe he's at work hoping he doesn't hit a cyclist today.
> i haven't gone over to trucknet but I'm sure the thread had a miriad of different opposing emotional opinions and ideas, just as we have on here, but despite anonymous bravado or otherwise, *do you really think they are so inhuman that this doesn't affect them?* Bottom line is, no one wants this. I'd suggest organising a joint rally on parliament so that we can show a bit of unity against the companies and TfL but i know I'll get told that's a stupid idea by some. But if we joined forces with the truckers perhaps they will have no choice but to listen?



No - I don't think that. But it isn't acceptable that the best we have is that concerned drivers "hope" they don't hit a cyclist. The driver is just one link in the chain of responsibility, and the nicest thing I read on that thread is the drivers who said they would love to be banned from London. But it's the transference of responsibility onto the victims that incenses me, the constant focus on the behaviour of those who are maimed and killed, and not those doing the maiming and killing. No thanks to the foghorn, and I don't want ill-informed advice, well-meaning or otherwise - is that polite enough?


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2772064, member: 259"]Interesting first and only post from Boris Euro there. [/quote]


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

have you seen that one who responds about the cycle awareness course? If that's the kind of inadequate course they are going on, then no wonder we are dying. That's why they are "hoping" they don't hit us. Perhaps we should get in a truck for the day and they should get on a bike for the day. It would totally change both our perspectives and behaviours for the better. Seems they are welcoming a ban in London anyway. Further evidence that they do care and are under equipped which is the fault of their employees


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> have you seen that one who responds about the cycle awareness course? If that's the kind of inadequate course they are going on, then no wonder we are dying. That's why they are "hoping" they don't hit us. *Perhaps we should get in a truck for the day and they should get on a bike for the day. It would totally change both our perspectives and behaviours* for the better. Seems they are welcoming a ban in London anyway. Further evidence that they do care and are under equipped which is the fault of their employees



It's interesting and chilling to see the "view" from a cab - @steveindenmark has posted the well-known blind spot video on a simultaneous thread - but the main effect of it is to demonstrate that many HGVs are fundamentally unsafe. This doesn't seem to have changed the hauliers' behaviour very much yet. This from Gordon Seabright's refreshingly robust response to the recent fatalities for CTC (emphasis original):

_The industry could move to using safer vehicles with low driver positions, *which are already on the market*, but they choose not to introduce them in significant numbers. Instead they run occasional schemes called “Exchanging Places”, in which cyclists are invited to sit in lorry cabs and see for themselves how limited the visibility is. In other words, hauliers are demonstrating how unfit to share the roads their vehicles are, and expecting vulnerable road users to take responsibility for avoiding them.
We know from the Freight Transport Association’s disparagement of even modest efforts on behalf of cycle safety by government that hauliers refuse to take this issue seriously. Until they do, CTC would like to see *the leaders of the haulage industry called in to see the Transport Minister and explain themselves in person every time their HGVs kill a cyclist*. _

_http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/hold-hauliers-to-account-over-cyclist-fatalities-says-ctc_​


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Claud, you made me think of something.

The mirrors on most LGV vehicles are not good. As I have said before, mirrors are not the answer to the problem.

Coach mirrors are far better and most coaches are rigid. Why are there so many coach/cycle accidents?

I cannot believe that this is all driver error. It must be driver/ cyclist/ road design/ vehicle design error. The sooner all the bickering and finger pointing from all sides stop. The sooner there will be a chance of things getting sorted.

Steve


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

the fact that they are fundamentally unsafe is down to the company, not the individual who is driving it. If they cant see, they can't see. End of. Short of getting out and having a look what can they do? even if they did that by the time they got back in there could be a cyclist there. no wonder they are hoping to be banned from London. TfL build a shoot infrastructure, haulage companies refuse to invest, but its the drivers and cyclists that suffer in consequences. from what I've read on transnet there is no malice towards cyclists, just the same frustrations we feel from a different perspective.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Buggi what you have said is spot on.

If BMW can make a car that drives itself I would have thought letting a lorry driver see all round his vehicle without getting out of the cab, would be a doddle.

Steve


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

there are enough brains between the haulage companies, TfL, LCC, truckers and cyclist organisations to get together and design the following:
1 roads and junctions that are safe for all.
2 trucks that have great visibility with back up technology where visibility is poor
3 fit for purpose driver training (not the inadequate crap outlined on their forum)
4 fit for purpose cycle training which compliments the driver training and works with it rather than against it.

all of these things would help reduce the injuries and deaths but instead everyone works in silos and stands around blaming each other, refusing to listen to the other ones issues and nothing gets solved.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpres...intained-construction-lorries-again/#comments.


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Buggi what you have said is spot on.
> 
> If BMW can make a car that drives itself I would have thought letting a lorry driver see all round his vehicle without getting out of the cab, would be a doddle.
> 
> Steve


 even so, humans are fallible. You can never rely on one thing which is why there should be layer on layer of processes designed to overlap the weaknesses of the other layers in the process. Everyone needs to work together on this (see my other recent post)


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

2772215 said:


> Or, just get them to make lorries that can drive themselves safely as well.


Or, what the hell, why not have someone aboard with the principal responsibility for road safety?


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Deptford. Again you are assuming it is all the drivers fault. Do you really believe that cyclists don't make mistakes?

To balance the argument, maybe there should be something on the bike which makes it stop at red lights or it sneaking along the inside of lorries and buses. Something like a brain.
Steve


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> the fact that they are fundamentally unsafe is down to the company, *not the individual who is driving it*. If they cant see, they can't see. End of. Short of getting out and having a look what can they do? even if they did that by the time they got back in there could be a cyclist there. no wonder they are hoping to be banned from London. TfL build a s*** infrastructure, haulage companies refuse to invest, but its the drivers and cyclists that suffer in consequences. from what I've read on transnet there is no malice towards cyclists, just the same frustrations we feel from a different perspective.



That's true and I don't dispute it. Had a truck driver opened a thread with "As truck drivers we are dismayed by the recent spate of fatalities and concerned about the dangers the vehicles we are responsible for driving present to cyclists and pedestrians. I'd just like you to know that we are doing the following things to raise this issue with those responsible for vehicle design and procurement, work patterns and schedules and driver training..." it would have been a different proposition. But he didn't, did he?


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Adrian, one is illegal and the other isn't.

Maybe not but that is where the brains part comes in.

Steve


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Deptford. Again you are assuming it is all the drivers fault. Do you really believe that cyclists don't make mistakes?
> 
> To balance the argument, maybe there should be something on the bike which makes it stop at red lights or it sneaking along the inside of lorries and buses. Something like a brain.
> Steve


I am not assuming anything of the kind. Much of my criticism is laid firmly in the hands of the construction industry as a whole. There is an enormously disproportionate death toll from their lorries and it can't be that it's the drivers alone. It's the drivers *in their vehicles*. Again, from the TfL report


> HGVs are disproportionately involved in fatal pedal cycle collisions, with 53 per cent of pedal cycle fatalities between 2008 and 2012 involving direct conflict with a HGV. Following an apparent trend of tipper lorry involvement in collisions resulting in a cyclist fatality, a review of the 2011 data was undertaken. It was found that seven of the nine large goods vehicles involved in a fatal cyclist collision that year were construction vehicles.



Outside just about every building site around here there's a man, a banksman, whose responsibility is to ensure the safe access and egress from these sites. Now, if these vehicles were truly safe, would they really be paying someone to do that job? And if they need someone on site, how comes they don't need anyone anywhere else? The question of H&S (throughout the rest of the tipper truck's journey) is another area pointed to by the above mentioned report.

Even where drivers are under pressure to deliver and collect loads as quickly as possible along roads they quite possibly are not familiar with, and where they are under pressure to receive phone calls on hand-held mobiles whilst driving, accidents arising are not solely the fault of the drivers either in my view. And they can't all be phoning the missus.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

I have read that a few times but I cannot see where it says the drivers of the lorries were to blame for any of the accidents. In fact it does not say what or who was to blame.

Steve


----------



## CopperCyclist (16 Nov 2013)

jarlrmai said:


> Thanks for the advice, let me know how the horn would have prevented this
> (snip)
> or this
> (snip)
> ...



I think you have a point, but if argue it the other way round (ish). In your visits, if the cyclist had to use his horn, then clearly the driver is already in the wrong. 

However, in the sort of accidents we are seeing in London it's can be an undertaking cyclist being squished. They may be able to use a horn to earn the truck they are undertaking, but obviously the best solution is to simply not undertake. 

Responsibility is clearly needed both sides, and I don't cycle in a city with the same issues as London. I often feel very sorry when see videos of good drivers sat waiting to turn left at lights because a constant stream of cyclists on the left are refusing to yield, but equally stories of the other side of the coin (Putz for example) are horrific.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I have read that a few times but I cannot see where it says the drivers of the lorries were to blame for any of the accidents. In fact it does not say what or who was to blame.
> 
> Steve


And I cannot see where I've put the blame on drivers anywhere in this thread, apart from an implied responsibility for driving whilst using hand-held phones. That's why I responded to your claim that I was putting all the blame on the drivers. j


----------



## buggi (17 Nov 2013)

2772830 said:


> The brain part is where I assess the situation and make a judgment as to whether or not it is safe.


 you might Adrian and obviously it has been safe or you wouldn't be here, but this doesn't mean everyone does it or even realises the danger. Or even assesses it and gets it right.



theclaud said:


> That's true and I don't dispute it. Had a truck driver opened a thread with "As truck drivers we are dismayed by the recent spate of fatalities and concerned about the dangers the vehicles we are responsible for driving present to cyclists and pedestrians. I'd just like you to know that we are doing the following things to raise this issue with those responsible for vehicle design and procurement, work patterns and schedules and driver training..." it would have been a different proposition. But he didn't, did he?


 no he didn't but it doesn't mean they haven't. What he did do was suggest that we have something similar to a car horn. I don't think its a bad idea.
and why didn't you ask him? You might have got the response you hoped for and if you didn't, you could of asked him why they hadn't. You kinda missed a chance to open some really meaningful dialogue but instead the thread descended into the usual pattern of blame the truck driver rather than discuss the issues and how we can work together to resolve them. One of them said on truck net "i caught my hi viz vest on my guard rails, I'm worried that if a cyclist gets caught on them, they might get dragged under my wheels". Just a little example of (a) how concerned they are, (b) how we can be forewarned of things we might not have thought about if we open a sensible dialogue with them. TfL and the haulage companies are not helping us, they are too busy shouting at each other. Maybe the cyclists and the truck drivers could go some way to solving some of the issues if they started talking and listening to each other. And if they found common ground (which i think they would) then as a joint voice TfL and the haluage industry might have to start listening.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2013)

It just happened to be a tipper truck as well.

When you see it on film it is hard to doubt that there are 2 sides to the story.

Even the other cyclist shook his head.

Steve


----------



## buggi (17 Nov 2013)

2773299 said:


> When you have responsibility for a toddler, you tell them the kettle is dangerous and to keep away from it. With an adult you expect them to know how to deal with the kettle safely.


 yes you do... But everyone makes mistakes and some have not been told. I rode a bike for many years before finding out lorries had blind spots bcoz i simply did not hang out with other cyclists and, amazingly, it was never covered in my driving lessons/test . You are presuming that all cyclists have these conversations. I gave a team talk the other day and about 30 of the 35 drivers there didn't know. So if any of them happened to get on a bike they wouldn't have known. Some people ride bikes, they are not experienced cyclists.


----------



## vickster (17 Nov 2013)

2773394 said:


> But what should we aim for, toddlers or grown ups?


Depends if you are dealing with men or women


----------



## Ganymede (17 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> yes you do... But everyone makes mistakes and some have not been told. I rode a bike for many years before finding out lorries had blind spots bcoz i simply did not hang out with other cyclists and, amazingly, it was never covered in my driving lessons/test . You are presuming that all cyclists have these conversations. I gave a team talk the other day and about 30 of the 35 drivers there didn't know. So if any of them happened to get on a bike they wouldn't have known. Some people ride bikes, they are not experienced cyclists.



I have been thinking - how do we reach these inexperienced cyclists/bike riders? I'm absolutely not talking victim-blaming, but wondering if there is anything that "engaged" cyclists can do to spread the word "do not cycle to the left of big trucks/coaches". Can CTC or BC develop a leaflet or logo or something that can be deployed at every bike shop check-out, with every new bike or bit of equipment? I would see this as preparing cyclists, not blaming them. The leaflet could be politely refused if the customer is already an experienced cyclist but it could be a lifesaver to the less-well-informed POB.

I would also want to see the improvements in lorry blind spots mentioned above, ie better, lower cabs etc and better training for drivers, not to mention heavy enforcement of all HGV standards, but this thing about cyclists' ignorance is something that we could do something about, isn't it?


----------



## vickster (17 Nov 2013)

I think if ALL lorries / trucks / vans (or any size) had the 'cyclist keep back' / 'don't pass on the left' type stickers, I think it would make people think. Very simple, it won't solve any perceived issue, but it certainly won't hurt. I notice all London buses (well all of the ones I have seen) have these on now 

A TV / press campaign aimed at cyclists may help and at least affect subconscious awareness. The leaflet above also not a bad idea


----------



## theclaud (17 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> yes you do... But everyone makes mistakes and some have not been told. I rode a bike for many years before finding out lorries had blind spots bcoz i simply did not hang out with other cyclists and, amazingly, it was never covered in my driving lessons/test . You are presuming that all cyclists have these conversations. I gave a team talk the other day and about 30 of the 35 drivers there didn't know. So if any of them happened to get on a bike they wouldn't have known. *Some people ride bikes, they are not experienced cyclists*.



And this is how it should be. Which is why any vehicle that shares our roads should be safe not only around expert cyclists but around inexperienced and incompetent ones, and also ones who occasionally make bad judgements. Lorries should be designed and operated ALWAYS with the assumption that someone small and crushable might be too close. This applies whether the small crushable person has put himself in that position or not. But from the obsession with victim behaviour that follows each incident, and the faux-balance about responsibilities, one might easily forget how much more likely it is in any given collision that the driver is directly at fault than the cyclist. Which of course suits the current power relationship on our roads very nicely thank you.


----------



## buggi (17 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> And this is how it should be. Which is why any vehicle that shares our roads should be safe not only around expert cyclists but around inexperienced and incompetent ones, and also ones who occasionally make bad judgements. Lorries should be designed and operated ALWAYS with the assumption that someone small and crushable might be too close. This applies whether the small crushable person has put himself in that position or not. But from the obsession with victim behaviour that follows each incident, and the faux-balance about responsibilities, one might easily forget how much more likely it is in any given collision that the driver is directly at fault than the cyclist. Which of course suits the current power relationship on our roads very nicely thank you.


 OMG I'm not denying it should be like that BUT IT IS NOT LIKE THAT bcoz this is the real world and until those lorries exist and humans are no longer fallible, we can't just carry on regardless and then all throw our arms up in disbelief when it happens again. Let me know when the perfect lorry is on the road and I'll stop telling the new cyclists at work about the dangers of the old ones.


----------



## theclaud (17 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> OMG I'm not denying it should be like that BUT IT IS NOT LIKE THAT bcoz this is the real world and until those lorries exist and humans are no longer fallible, we can't just carry on regardless and then all throw our arms up in disbelief when it happens again. Let me know when the perfect lorry is on the road and I'll stop telling the new cyclists at work about the dangers of the old ones.



Two points: the first is that by focussing on victim and not perpetrator behaviour you collude in it carrying on as it is and give the perpetrator a get-out. A cyclist is killed by a construction lorry. We know who was driving it and on whose behalf it operated. What can we do to stop that person and that firm killing again, with immediate effect? Clue - it isn't talking to some cyclists. The second point is that the situation in which there are inexperienced or inexpert cyclists on the roads isn't one to be lamented - there is, at the bottom of it, no fundamental problem to address. Of course we all want cyclists to develop and improve individually, and to gain in confidence, and the availability of information and training is a good thing. But there is no point in the future at which we want to achieve a 100% trained and expert cycling population - we want there _always _to be safe space on our roads for new, inexperienced, inexpert cyclists.


----------



## snorri (17 Nov 2013)

classic33 said:


> Why is the Road Haulage Association against trying to sort the problem out, or even willing to acknowledge that the problem exists?


 Have you not read what one of their Directors had to say about cycling and cyclists?
http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

vickster said:


> I think if ALL lorries / trucks / vans (or any size) had the 'cyclist keep back' / 'don't pass on the left' type stickers, I think it would make people think. Very simple, it won't solve any perceived issue, but it certainly won't hurt. I notice all London buses (well all of the ones I have seen) have these on now
> 
> A TV / press campaign aimed at cyclists may help and at least affect subconscious awareness. The leaflet above also not a bad idea


I saw a potentially effective pair of signs on the back of a lorry the other day - sadly only written in the dirt on the back of it.
Arrow pointing to right hand side of lorry with 'passing side'
Arrow pointing to left hand side 'Suicide'

Some of the posters above seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed onto the roads and be safe, no matter how inexperienced or ignorant. But you wouldn't let a toddler go out on the roads on their own. Toddlers don't realise the need to look for these tonnes of moving death before staggering into their path. In the same way, unless they have done some reading/had some training, many cyclists don't realise the potential dangers of lorry blind spots, etc. 

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to have a minimum level of awareness of the potential dangers before venturing onto main roads. Bike handling skills can be gained on quiet housing estate roads, or under the supervision of a competent adult, so this is not to deny inexperienced cyclists use of all roads.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> OMG I'm not denying it should be like that BUT IT IS NOT LIKE THAT bcoz this is the real world and until those lorries exist and humans are no longer fallible, we can't just carry on regardless and then all throw our arms up in disbelief when it happens again. Let me know when the perfect lorry is on the road and I'll stop telling the new cyclists at work about the dangers of the old ones.


This doesn't strike me as being an either-or dilemma. Education, training, developing road awareness are of vital importance because they are real attempts to address current dangers. Your instructor involvement could well save lives and I doubt anybody on here would criticise you for encouraging new cyclists to go out on the road and to do so with their eyes wide open to actual dangers.

At the same time as you're working to help more people to stay upright and alive, there are others working to stop, or reduce, the things that knock them down and kill them. Upright and alive; not down and dead. No conflict IMO. They seem to be the same goal approached from different angles.


----------



## theclaud (17 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> I saw a potentially effective pair of signs on the back of a lorry the other day - sadly only written in the dirt on the back of it.
> Arrow pointing to right hand side of lorry with 'passing side'
> Arrow pointing to left hand side 'Suicide'
> 
> ...



Of course not - you are responsible for the toddler. Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept an urban road environment in which adults who have not undergone training are rendered as vulnerable as unaccompanied toddlers? Why not simply remove, restrict or control the "tonnes of moving death"?


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Of course not - you are responsible for the toddler. *Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept an urban road environment in which adults who have not undergone training are rendered as vulnerable as unaccompanied toddlers?* Why not simply remove, restrict or control the "tonnes of moving death"?



Yes.
But most adults will already have some 'training' in that they will already know the dangers of moving vehicles from having been pedestrians or drivers.
The rest of the 'required training' only really needs to be something like a short video or leaflet explaining some of the dangers that inexperienced cyclists are often not aware of.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect anyone using the roads to take _some_ responsibility for their own safety. Yes, trucks should have better visibility from the cab. Yes, drivers faffing with mobile phones/satnavs/whatever while they are driving should have the book thrown at them. But with the best will in the world, unless you totally ban trucks from the roads*, there will always be a situation where the driver does not see a cyclist who has moved into a blind spot/has done something stupid. 

*and even if you get rid of trucks, there will still be morons in cars, vans, etc around which it is wise for cyclists to undertake some degree of defensive riding.


----------



## buggi (17 Nov 2013)

2773459 said:


> But why aim for something far below ideal?


Collaborating ideas and behaviour is far from aiming below the ideal. Its putting in layer on layer of protection. No one group is going to reach the ideal acting on its own.




theclaud said:


> Two points: the first is that by focussing on victim and not perpetrator behaviour you collude in it carrying on as it is and give the perpetrator a get-out. A cyclist is killed by a construction lorry. We know who was driving it and on whose behalf it operated. What can we do to stop that person and that firm killing again, with immediate effect? Clue - it isn't talking to some cyclists. The second point is that the situation in which there are inexperienced or inexpert cyclists on the roads isn't one to be lamented - there is, at the bottom of it, no fundamental problem to address. Of course we all want cyclists to develop and improve individually, and to gain in confidence, and the availability of information and training is a good thing. But there is no point in the future at which we want to achieve a 100% trained and expert cycling population - we want there _always _to be safe space on our roads for new, inexperienced, inexpert cyclists.


... Focusing on cyclists is not taking focus away from the haulage industry. Road safety should be approached from all angles bcoz even if lorries had no blind spots they are still frickin huge and require room to turn. The drivers are human, and therefore prone to error, which means even if they were perfectly designed the situation could still occur. Yes the driver could be held responsible but the cyclist would still be dead, which is why it should be approached from all angles. By refusing to do so, we are condemning someone to death on principle.

2nd.. Why don't we want to achieve a 100% trained cycle population? If we started a school level now in 20 years the attitudes towards cycling would be completely different if everyone was trained bcoz all these people that run haulage companies would be more aware of issues we faced if theyd been on a bike themselves.

3rd if every cyclist was trained and also behaved themselves (ie didn't RLJ or pull the stupid manoeuvre in the you tube clip above) the haulage industry wouldn't have a leg to stand on when they tried to argue it was our fault. And although i fully understand the reasons for RLJing the sad truth is that while we continue to do it, drivers will always hold the trump card.

i refer you back to the process safety model i posted in the thread that got closed, which i seem to remember that even those arguing against me could see the logic. The more layers of protection that go in, the more chance we have of surviving. Yes those layers should first and foremost be technology, better mirrors, better junctions, driver training and driver behaviour, but if (bcoz humans are fallible) we need to add cyclist training and behaviour in as another layer, then I'm all for it if it saves even just one life.

you say that talking to cyclists wont stop that firm from killing someone else with immediate effect. On the contrary... It might be the only thing that does bcoz i cant see anything else changing with immediate effect, can you??


----------



## Crankarm (17 Nov 2013)




----------



## classic33 (17 Nov 2013)

2773394 said:


> But what should we aim for, toddlers or grown ups?


Both.


----------



## vickster (17 Nov 2013)

Good post - but I don't get the point below? Willful RLJing is not IMO excusable or understandable, rider comes up to light that is solidly red and either sails through, or goes through and track stands in the middle of the road proceeding once there are no vehicles or so the cyclist thinks. I am not talking about the light that turns red while crossing the junction or turns amber / red and unable to safely stop due to speed / weather / traffic behind etc

I am astonished by the number of cyclists who appear to be red-green colour blind, men and especially women who are much less likely to be so genetically 



buggi said:


> And although i fully understand the reasons for RLJing the sad truth is that while we continue to do it, drivers will always hold the trump card.


----------



## snorri (17 Nov 2013)

I really don't see much wrong with cycle training, certainly not a licensing system, but some training would do no harm.
It is popular to compare infrastructure for cyclists on mainland Europe and the UK, but we seldom here of cyclists themselves being compared.
Purely from my own observations I get the impression that your average mainland Euro cyclist is an altogether more competent cyclist than his/her UK counterpart.


----------



## classic33 (17 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> Have you not read what one of their Directors had to say about cycling and cyclists?
> http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association


I have actually spoken with them, for a project on here that never happenned in the end, and slightly dismayed at the response given. 
I got a better response from their Irish counterparts, who were more open to the idea.
To recognise that something might need doing, requires that you acknowledge that there's a problem to begin with. Something the RHA were not willing to do. Now ask yourself why?


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

The only RLJing that I condone/have done is the jumping the red light to _stop_ in front of the first car in the queue - i.e. achieving visibility, _not_ crossing the junction on red. In many cases the need to do this has been largely removed by the provision of ASLs.


----------



## classic33 (17 Nov 2013)

Two quick questions.
Has anyone else seen the signs on the back of some lorries which state "If you can't see me, I can't see you".
Why was the Irish RHA equivalent, the first to call for mandortary side guards & lights to be fitted the length of the trailers.


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

*Mod message* I've deleted some posts because they had descended into a personal argument. 
Please everyone remember to stick to what is said in the posts, and not attack the posters.


----------



## classic33 (17 Nov 2013)

The sign is there for all following traffic.


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

2773818 said:


> Has anyone sat behind one, utilising any form of transport it matters not, and wondered whether there should be some element of apology?


Why should there be an apology?
It is explaining basic physics...

Or would you be expecting an apology along the lines of "I'm sorry that I have blind spots, but to fit enough mirrors and CCTV cameras to ensure all round vision would cost a lot of money and this would put our expenses up and put us out of business as unless all trucks are required to do this by law we would then be uncompetitive." ??


----------



## classic33 (17 Nov 2013)

From the Freight Transport Association website
http://www.fta.co.uk/export/sites/fta/_galleries/downloads/cycling/fta_cycling_code.pdf


----------



## theclaud (17 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> Why should there be an apology?
> It is explaining basic physics...
> 
> Or would you be expecting an apology along the lines of "I'm sorry that I have blind spots, but to fit enough mirrors and CCTV cameras to ensure all round vision would cost a lot of money and this would put our expenses up and put us out of business as unless all trucks are required to do this by law we would then be uncompetitive." ??



I think if I were attempting to manoeuvre something through a public space, which presented an extraordinary danger to others, and was demanding that they keep their distance on pain of death, I might manage to adopt a slightly apologetic tone...


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> Have you not read what one of their Directors had to say about cycling and cyclists?
> http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association


The guy is obviously anti cyclist and has some really weak arguments, but there are some wortwhile points.

Cyclists should have their lights on at all times. I do on my Koga. It has a dynamo and so it is no skin off my nose. It would also stop those cyclists from forgetting to fit them in Autumn. All other vehicles in Denmark have to have their lights on at all times, why not bikes.

Dont use i pods when riding. Thats a no brainer.

All cyclists should have accident insurance. Why not I have theft insurance.

All cyclists should pay road tax. Change it to the Danish system where we pay a weight tax instead. The heavier the vehicle, the more you pay. Can you tax a 5 year old? Charge all cyclists £5 a year and the money goes into a cycle fund to improve the life of cyclists. No idea how to enforce it but its a nice idea.

Steve


----------



## theclaud (17 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> The guy is obviously anti cyclist and has some really weak arguments, but there are some wortwhile points.
> 
> Cyclists should have their lights on at all times. I do on my Koga. It has a dynamo and so it is no skin off my nose. It would also stop those cyclists from forgetting to fit them in Autumn. All other vehicles in Denmark have to have their lights on at all times, why not bikes.
> 
> ...



I'll drop Mr Flanders a line and let him know that he's wasting his time with his anti-cyclist rants. It seems enough of us are prepared to do his work for him.


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

2773836 said:


> Apart from the bleating part at the end, yes that would cover it.


My point was that trucking firms who 'do their duty' and fit such technology would put themselves at a bit of a competitive disadvantage, so it should really be made a legal requirement.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> My point was that trucking firms who 'do their duty' and fit such technology would put themselves at a bit of a competitive disadvantage, so it should really be made a legal requirement.


TfL's proposal is to levy charges on trucks that are not fully compliant, and thereby erode the competitive advantage of using unsafe vehicles on the road.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2773964, member: 9609"]May be construction sites should be forced to provide better off-road surfaces, then the authorities could demand all tippers to be fitted with under-run side protection. Or may be simpler, as a condition of planning permission, developers must agree to use tippers of a certain specification.[/quote]
Indeed the better on site road surfaces is already happening in practice. And as a construction lorry spends 99%* of its time on public roads, there is clearly a need for the exemptions to be removed.

*


> increasing the use of safety features on existing vehicles,especially blind-spot vision aids and sensors. As a basic step there is a clear need to remove the range of exemptions that are claimed, despite vehicles spending 99 per cent of their time on urban streets


----------



## buggi (17 Nov 2013)

.


vickster said:


> Good post - but I don't get the point below? Willful RLJing is not IMO excusable or understandable, rider comes up to light that is solidly red and either sails through, or goes through and track stands in the middle of the road proceeding once there are no vehicles or so the cyclist thinks. I am not talking about the light that turns red while crossing the junction or turns amber / red and unable to safely stop due to speed / weather / traffic behind etc
> 
> I am astonished by the number of cyclists who appear to be red-green colour blind, men and especially women who are much less likely to be so genetically


 i don't agree with it, i can just understand why. Ideally a seperate light in the sequence of lights for cyclists to give them a head start at junctions could cut out the need for this.


----------



## RT2 (17 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> Why should there be an apology?
> It is explaining basic physics...
> 
> Or would you be expecting an apology along the lines of "I'm sorry that I have blind spots, but to fit enough mirrors and CCTV cameras to ensure all round vision would cost a lot of money and this would put our expenses up and put us out of business as unless all trucks are required to do this by law we would then be uncompetitive." ??


 
The problem is that you can fit as many mirrors as you like and fill the cab with cctv screeens linked to a camera at the back of the truck, but the driver still only has one pair of eyes. Mirrors can create blind spots too: the driver can't see through them and - while I make a point of looking around my mirrors at roundabouts and junctions - it's very easy to lose a car behind them, never mind a bike. My lorry has six mirrors, and I have a good idea of what is around me at all times, but occasionally when I was doing city centre deliveries during the day I'd be surprised to spot a cyclist wobbling up the left hand side of my trailer, between the trailer and a pedestrian fence, while I sat at traffic lights indicating left. 
And this brings me on to my second point, which is that increasingly bike lanes seem to be designed to put cyclists in dangerous positions. Has anyone else seen the videos of the Bow roundabout "facilities"? Terrible: experienced cyclists seem to avoid using them completely and go with the flow of "hard" traffic (which is what I'd do), but I can understand how someone with less experience would feel they were in the cycle lane and therefore safe. Boris and the TfL seem to be in denial about the role their ill - thought - out cycle superhighway might have played in the latest round of tragedies, but I'd have said a positive first step would be to completely redesign them, or better still do away with them altogether and encourage cyclists to use the road. Although I recognise that an awful lot of less confident cyclists wouldn't be happy with this, it can't be much more offputting than constantly reading about the outcome of cyclist vs. eight wheel tipper.


----------



## Spinney (17 Nov 2013)

RT2 said:


> Mirrors can create blind spots too: the driver can't see through them


I drive a car, and I am conscious of the blind spot created by my one, relatively small mirror.


----------



## Frood42 (18 Nov 2013)

RT2 said:


> Has anyone else seen the videos of the Bow roundabout "facilities"? Terrible: experienced cyclists seem to avoid using them completely and go with the flow of "hard" traffic (which is what I'd do), but I can understand how someone with less experience would feel they were in the cycle lane and therefore safe. Boris and the TfL seem to be in denial about the role their ill - thought - out cycle superhighway might have played in the latest round of tragedies, but I'd have said a positive first step would be to completely redesign them, or better still do away with them altogether and encourage cyclists to use the road. Although I recognise that an awful lot of less confident cyclists wouldn't be happy with this, it can't be much more offputting than constantly reading about the outcome of cyclist vs. eight wheel tipper.


 
I cycle through Bow roundabout every day, it is still a whole load of crap going west to east, mainly the lead up to it, with the McD's and the whole load of Bus Stops before it where traffic can get snarled up. It usually means I end up going over the Bow Flyover rather than using the cycling farcility there, but then you have the downhill bit of the Flyover, where cars don't look properly for bikes when joining the main road, even though they are supposed to give way for me coming down the Flyover... the segregation can also be a bit confusing to join if you are coming down the Flyover for both bikes and cars, but there is a way to get into it a little further up the road.

East to west is a bit better with the semi-segregated cycle lane and the ASZ style traffic lights, so I don't really find the need to go over the Flyover anymore.
I do have to be careful that some vehicles don't think I am going to stay in the cycle lane to meander around the last bus stop when there is no bus there, as the cycle lane shoots you out onto the main road it can be better to keep going in a straight line rather than going around the bus stop... There is also the fact that I am not going to join the cycle lane if the main lights are in my favour rather than the "cycle lane" lights... so again I have to be rather careful...

There are some good parts to the cycle superhighways (bits of the CS8 and CS3 are ok) and then there are some terrible bits where TFL have compromised far too much...

The one I dislike the most is the CS2, too much of it is a guideway, and not a proper cycle lane/path.
So both cars and cycles are trying to occupy the same space in the same lane at the same time... The worst thing I find along the Mile End road part of it is car drivers who want to undertake other cars... You have to take a strong position along the CS2 to make sure you are visible on this wide and fast road.

There are places where I would prefer to see that blue paint removed all together... and there are places where they could easily paint in white solid lines along the cycle guideway to make it a proper cycle lane...

There are also cycle lanes near where I live which I would like to see removed as they are unsafe or just used as car parking...
Sometimes I do wonder if the only reason the Councils put in cycle lanes is so that they can get money to create additional car parking space but instead suggest they built have a cycle lane and so are able to tick a box... Far too many times do I have to pull out of cycle lanes because of parked cars or even double parked cars... especially in Leytonstone... and when they do put in the cycle lane, of course, they run it along the inside of car door zones... idiots!
Why do I have to take the abuse for their poor design decisions or their ignorance when creating this sort of "infrastructure"..! 
.


----------



## classic33 (19 Nov 2013)

*This*
Would anyone be willing to come into the lions den and give the view from the industry side of things?
Details here. 
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/truck-hazard.143632/
Thread started by a driver, who tried to put the drivers viewpoint across but I believe some of the replies may have put him/her of coming back.
This in relation to the recent number of cyclists killed in London over the last two weeks. Maybe a response from those in the industry will enable a better understanding of the problem, on all sides. Be warned though there are some who seek nothing more than throw such threads off-topic.

*Got this, from the FTA*
Many thanks for your message giving us the opportunity to give the industry's view on the Cycle Chat cycling forum - but unfortunately we find that forums do not tend to be the best places to discuss such sensitive issues. We will, however, be sending out messages this week in support of Brake's Road Safety Week.
Kind regards,


----------



## buggi (19 Nov 2013)

well my mum gave an interesting viewpoint the other day. We used to live near a two lane roundabout, quite a good size one. Now my mum is a woman that used to ride a bike occasionally, not a cyclist, she now hasn't ridden for over 10 years and she doesn't drive. She knows jack shoot about lorries.

its only recently while I've been talking about this that she's started to think about what she used to do. She said she often pulled up on her bike at this roundabout on the left of a lorry or a bus and used it as "cover" to protect her from traffic coming round the island. She would wait for the lorry to go and then go at the same time. It never once occurred to her the lorry might be in the right hand lane to turn left, bcoz it required a wide turning circle and bcoz it was in the right hand lane never checked its indicators.
to make it worse, she told me that often it wasn't just by chance... If she saw a lorry waiting at the island she would deliberately try to catch it up so she could do this.

then i had to admit... When i was in my late teens... I also used to do this with the no.6 bus at the same spot. I knew it was it turning right, however i did it for the same reasons... To protect me from traffic coming round the island. They can't hit me if there is a bus between us. That was the logic! Obviously now i know better but I'd forgotten i used to do it.

so that got me thinking... How many cyclists do this thinking the lorry offers some form of protection... So not just there by chance but have actually strived to put themselves there for this very reason??


----------



## classic33 (19 Nov 2013)

Guilty. However in my defence you had to be in the correct lane on entering the roundabout. I also checked the indicators, just to make certain. I'd also be slower at pulling away than the lorry. For some reason car drivers seemed reluctant to chance running a red if there was a lorry pulling out at the next entrance!


----------



## MacB (19 Nov 2013)

If a vehicle represents a danger due to blind spots then that's what needs to be addressed - mirrors, cameras, sensors, alarms, redesigns - whatever is required.

For those that cite 'living in the real world' as a reason not to do so then I would suggest that it's only by living in the real world that we are aware of the visibility problem. What is actually meant by 'living in the real world' is that it would be expensive - I've never been convinced by economic arguments against saving lives.

Dancing around blaming victims, infrastructure and other road users is really ignoring the elephant in the room or in this case the juggernaut on the highway.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> She said she often pulled up on her bike at this roundabout on the left of a lorry or a bus and used it as "cover" to protect her from traffic coming round the island. She would wait for the lorry to go and then go at the same time. It never once occurred to her the lorry might be in the right hand lane to turn left, bcoz it required a wide turning circle and bcoz it was in the right hand lane never checked its indicators.
> to make it worse, she told me that often it wasn't just by chance... If she saw a lorry waiting at the island she would deliberately try to catch it up so she could do this.


 
   

Oh, my, now I do use vehicles as a shield, BUT only if they are in the other lane to me and are moving out slowly.
Whenever I come to lights, roundabouts, junctions etc... I go into primary in the appropriate lane depending on my exit, so that I have control of the traffic behind me, and so I have good visibility of what is ahead.

If a vehicle to the right of me is pulling out to go around the roundabout then I will also pull out if safe and use that vehicle as a shield.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/co...ctive-Traffic-Riding---Part-3---Roundabouts-0
If I am coming up behind buses or lorries/tippers, I will take primary behind them, and if the tipper has a rear camera, give them a cheeky little wave () to let them know I am there and not disappeared down the left out of sight of there mirrors.

For example this morning I was coming up to a set of lights, I could see cars were queueing, I could see a black taxi slowly approaching from behind, I communicated to the taxi that I was going to move into primary by using a sort of hold back signal, which he saw and did hold back (thanks by the way!), although he seemed to anticipate this with me looking back a few times. I then moved into primary and joined the queue of traffic, why you ask?

I could see that a WVM had taken the ASL (so no safe space in it) and that there was a queue of cars that would just have to come past me again if I filtered left down the cycle ASZ entry or down the right that had already come past me further back down the road.

I also know the road well and that the cycle lane disappears after the traffic lights, that the single road becomes a two lane road, and that two lane road becomes three lanes at the roundabout, and that I want to be in the middle lane for the roundabout.

So the safest thing is to get in primary early, join the flow of traffic, take primary in the left hand lane after the lights, then communicate with traffic behind that I will be moving into the middle lane for the roundabout (using the lane to go to Leytonstone as if I was a car/motorbike).
Then take the roundabout in primary in the middle (Leytonstone) then left hand lane (A114 Forest Gate/Leytonstone), then the middle lane again in primary as I exit the roundabout and come to the traffic lights (as I want to go to Leytonstone and not Forest Gate).
Then after the lights move back across to Secondary assuming there are no buses in the bus stop.

I do this every morning and I have not had any major issues, you get the odd undertaker on the roundabout, but apart from that all fine.
Of course, you may want to take this differently, but it feels much safer this way than hugging to the left...

http://goo.gl/maps/heCNc - First set of lights, want to get in Primary much earlier than pictured, especially if there is a queue of traffic, as someone will always take the ASZ...
http://goo.gl/maps/3MbXy - Primary left hand lane if in flow of traffic as will be taking the middle lane at the roundabout.
http://goo.gl/maps/Co9P3 - Middle lane for Leytonstone in primary coming up to the lights.
http://goo.gl/maps/O7xnX - Middle lane L'Stone in primary if in flow of traffic, not always safe to move to secondary though as you get cars sometimes trying to undertake who have joined the roundabout in the wrong lane, the lane that is supposed to be for turning left, not for going straight on.
http://goo.gl/maps/Tkc26 - Primary in left hand lane, painted A114, as soon after the lights I will be exiting and moving to the middle lane for Leytonstone.
http://goo.gl/maps/ietE1 - Take Leytonstone exit in primary and move into the middle lane rather than staying in the left lane, as the left lane is for left turns only to Forest Gate.
http://goo.gl/maps/k8SNM - Middle lane primary coming up the lights, after the lights move into Secondary assuming there are no buses about.

Your mileage may vary, but this is my prefered way to take this large roundabout, there are other lanes that the cars can use, and at the time I go through it is not too busy. I personally can do 18-20 mph around this roundabout on the hybrid, which means I can keep up with most of the traffic around it, especially with the way the lights are sequenced, as you must invariably stop at the first set on the roundabout and the first set after the exit anyway.

For those less confident there is a pedestrian/cycle path that goes under the roundabout, but is a pain to get too and is not as direct as the road.
I tend to use the pedestrain/cycle underpass on my return in the evening, as it is easier to join, plus people are in too much of a rush to get home at night...
.


----------



## classic33 (19 Nov 2013)

Would a cyclist ban in Londons Zone 1 be workable to get around any further deaths?
Not my idea, letter in the Sun calling for one by Alan Waites. We as cyclists it seems entirely at fault again!!


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2013)

classic33 said:


> Would a cyclist ban in Londons Zone 1 be workable to get around any further deaths?
> Not my idea, letter in the Sun calling for one by Alan Waites. We as cyclists it seems entirely at fault again!!




Pathetic...


----------



## classic33 (19 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Pathetic...


 Well we're at fault simply for being on the roads in the first place. No mention of road tax seen.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Nov 2013)

MacB said:


> If a vehicle represents a danger due to blind spots then that's what needs to be addressed - mirrors, cameras, sensors, alarms, redesigns - whatever is required.


 
An interesting viewpoint over on Trucknet which I hadn't thought of before is that while truck drivers cannot always see cyclists, cyclists can always see trucks. The exact post was:



> We are getting this the wrong way around, at NO point does the cyclist not SEE the truck or bus so make the cyclist, who can see the truck/bus, ALWAYS at fault for any accident.


 
Now, while I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of this, and would take issue because it doesn't cover trucks left hooking riders, or turning without indicating, or passing too close or any of the other things the worse sort of truck driver gets up to, it does make the point that creeping up the inside of lorries at traffic lights is a bad idea, and it's a lot easier for the cyclist to avoid doing that than it is for the truck driver to see them once they're there.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

classic33 said:


> Would a cyclist ban in Londons Zone 1 be workable to get around any further deaths?
> Not my idea, letter in the Sun calling for one by Alan Waites. We as cyclists it seems entirely at fault again!!


 
 I don't think so...

Actually I would like to see all motor vehicles except buses banned from Zone 1 so that pedestrians and cyclists can get about safely...
.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

2777911 said:


> That could work equally well or badly


 
Yes, but can I not make the suggestion to ban the cars/trucks when they make the suggestion to ban bikes, just to be beligerrent about it...
I know its not very constructive, but neither is the suggestion to ban bikes..

But then you already know that 
.


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> An interesting viewpoint over on Trucknet which I hadn't thought of before is that while truck drivers cannot always see cyclists, cyclists can always see trucks. The exact post was:
> 
> Now, *while I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of this*, and would take issue because it doesn't cover trucks left hooking riders, or turning without indicating, or passing too close or any of the other things the worse sort of truck driver gets up to, it does make the point that creeping up the inside of lorries at traffic lights is a bad idea, and it's a lot easier for the cyclist to avoid doing that than it is for the truck driver to see them once they're there.



_Don't necessarily agree with the specifics_??? I sometimes have to double-check lately that I'm on the right forum...


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> An interesting viewpoint over on Trucknet which I hadn't thought of before is that while truck drivers cannot always see cyclists, cyclists can always see trucks. The exact post was:
> 
> 
> 
> > We are getting this the wrong way around, at NO point does the cyclist not SEE the truck or bus so make the cyclist, who can see the truck/bus, ALWAYS at fault for any accident.


 
So when that rushed worker overtakes me for that extra load, misjudges my speed and decides to immediately cross my path, it will be my fault..?
If that rushed worker decides to ignore the give way sign just because I am on a bike, it will be my fault?

Those will be the scenarios are what will be my undoing, as I do not go up the inside of large vehicles, if I cannot filter right safely I wait behind in primary.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7R6opx0Egs


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9__e_EkKYfc


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSBBRyJ1fdg


----------



## Banjo (19 Nov 2013)

Euro said:


> My fellow truck drivers and I are distressed by the number of truck/cyclist incidents (see trucknet). If any of my family were cycling, I would ask them to bolt on one of those compressed-air foghorns as used by recreational sailors.


 Thanks for coming on here and at least expressing your worries.
Air horns are available for bikes but not likely to become popular.
My view is that more education for both cyclists and drivers of all vehicles is needed.

Why anyone on a bike would squeeze up the side of a hgv or any larger than normal vehicle is completely beyond my understanding.

Out on the open road I cant remember the last time a lorry caused me any concern. Cars cause me concern on a daily basis.

Banning HGVs from cities during peak times will result in more deliveries done in smaller vans. Whats worse, 1 Lorry or twenty vans?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Nov 2013)

No, I quite agree. I did cover that in my post. All that I'm trying to get at is that - whatever the rights and wrongs of this - it's difficult sometimes to spot a cyclist down the inside of a truck, especially if the mirrors are covered in raindrops, the cyclist is inadequately lit, or whatever. This isn't going to change anytime soon, and while the introduction of proximity sensors might help, it's always going to be a dangerous place for cyclists. Therefore, and this is the approach I adopt when on a bike, it's simplest just to avoid going up the inside of lorries, and some of the posts further up the thread indicate that a good many cyclists have no idea how dangerous a place it can be.
As it happens and for the record, I absolutely don't think that cyclists should be "ALWAYS at fault for any accident". Not my views at all.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> No, I quite agree. I did cover that in my post. All that I'm trying to get at is that - whatever the rights and wrongs of this - it's difficult sometimes to spot a cyclist down the inside of a truck, especially if the mirrors are covered in raindrops, the cyclist is inadequately lit, or whatever. This isn't going to change anytime soon, and while the introduction of proximity sensors might help, it's always going to be a dangerous place for cyclists. Therefore, and this is the approach I adopt when on a bike, it's simplest just to avoid going up the inside of lorries, and some of the posts furthe rup the thread indicate that a good many cyclists have no idea how dangerous a place it can be.
> As it happens and for the record, I absolutely don't think that cyclists should be "ALWAYS at fault for any accident". Not my views at all.


 
I've edited the post to make it more obvious I was referring to the quote from Truck Net.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

Banjo said:


> Thanks for coming on here and at least expressing your worries.
> Air horns are available for bikes but not likely to become popular.
> My view is that more education for both cyclists and drivers of all vehicles is needed.
> 
> ...


 
HGV's and vans not running during rush hour... although for me the concern is more the tipper trucks running around during rush hour.
The HGV's I see that deliver to Tesco (and other brands) are not doing so during rush hour traffic.

Why pay drivers to sit there in rush hour traffic or to drive in large amounts of traffic increasing the risk of an accident..?


----------



## Euro (19 Nov 2013)

jarlrmai said:


> Thanks for the advice, let me know how the horn would have prevented this
> Jarmai, I think that a very loud hoot would be very likely to draw the cyclists presence to the attention of the HGV driver in the un-nerving videos which you posted. In a car or a wagon I am always jolted by the sound of a horn and my immediate assumption is that I have done something wrong.
> 
> I appreciate your comrades reluctance to include yet another piece of equipment but, I don't believe that:
> ...


----------



## PK99 (19 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> HGV's and vans not running during rush hour....?



The flaw there is that a number of the recent incidents did not occur in rush hour


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

PK99 said:


> The flaw there is that a number of the recent incidents did not occur in rush hour


 
It would be a start though, with the higher numbers of people about during rush hour then banning large vehicles, especially construction vehicles like tipper trucks, would be a start.

Then a move towards more urban friendly vehicles could be another step.

The biggest problem for me is that we are trying to patch or fix what for an urban area is an already flawed vehicle design.
Techonology can help with existing vehicles, but again it is a sticking plaster, and we don't want drivers relying on those technological aids too much...

The other option is segregation of cyclists on some of the major roads and junctions.
.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> The other option is segregation of cyclists on some of the major roads and junctions.
> .


 
Actually, I think that may be part of the problem, especially at the Bow Roundabout where a lot of incidents seem to happen. I'd far rather see cyclists trained to take up their road space like any other vehicle. Once you segregate cyclists at busy junctions, it's the start of the slippery slope to us being banned from the roads altogether.


----------



## buggi (19 Nov 2013)

I keep seeing this phrase "victim blaming" when people dare to suggest cyclist don't ride up the inside. To suggest training a cyclist in this way is not victim blaming, its teaching them how to survive.
TfL and the haulage companies between them have pretty much created this whole mess. The billions TfL have spent on these blue lanes could have paid for the most up to date equipment on lorries, driver training and free cycle training to everyone in London. And what have they just announced... They want to spend another billion. Well they need to stop painting blue lines and invest the money in equipment and training for all concerned.
also banning lorries at peak hours will only increase them at other times of the day or night so that won't work. Get rid of cycle lanes and superhighways, use the money for equipment and training for all, and FFS make the training meaningful. A cyclist buying a trucker breakfast IS NOT going to make the driver see him when he's back on his bike.


----------



## buggi (19 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2773235, member: 9609"]
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0BVeKD5Xw[/quote]
while everyone is concentrating on the "bad" cyclist, did anyone notice the two cyclists on the left who also nearly get taken out by the car and truck on the corner? They are not doing anything illegal but cycle training would teach them to be in primary position, so neither the car nor the truck could attempt to overtake them on the corner


----------



## RedRider (19 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> Have you not read what one of their Directors had to say about cycling and cyclists?
> http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association


Quite depressing to read but not surprising. thanks for posting. Some here say don't take part in events like critical Mass because it might upset the odd motorist.


----------



## discominer (19 Nov 2013)

tipper truck tailgated me (on my bike) dowm Crow Road today, trying to bully me out of primary. He was so close that when I looked round I couldn't see the cab windscreen. Nuts.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Actually, I think that may be part of the problem, especially at the Bow Roundabout where a lot of incidents seem to happen. I'd far rather see cyclists trained to take up their road space like any other vehicle. Once you segregate cyclists at busy junctions, it's the start of the slippery slope to us being banned from the roads altogether.



Yes, segregation is not my favoured option, but I can think of nothing else for those new to cycling or afraid of traffic.


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Yes, segregation is not my favoured option, but I can think of nothing else for those new to cycling or afraid of traffic.


 How about removing or controlling the source of the danger?


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2778559, member: 30090"]What? Why get rid of the cyclists?[/quote]
Behave.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> How about removing or controlling the source of the danger?



Not sure if you saw the rest of the conversation...
My suggestion would be more urban friendly vehicles
And also perhaps controlled or better planned routes for those vehicles avoiding major cycle routes...



> Frood42, Today at 17:30
> 
> It would be a start though, with the higher numbers of people about during rush hour then banning large vehicles, especially construction vehicles like tipper trucks, would be a start.
> 
> ...


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> *Not sure if you saw the rest of the conversation...*
> My suggestion would be more urban friendly vehicles
> And also perhaps controlled or better planned routes for those vehicles avoiding major cycle routes...



Yes - sorry - I was using your "I can think of nothing else" as a general prompt, rather than taking it at face value. Take the persistent issue about poor visibility down the left-hand side of the truck. How about a second person in the cab who was responsible for ensuring that the turn is clear?


----------



## Boynkins (19 Nov 2013)

The big artics tend to be fine with me, I very rarely have any problems with them and try to pull in and wave them past as it must be frustrating being stuck behind a bike on a steep uphill. I have had my shoulder brushed by the wheel arch of a tipper when he passed me at a traffic island instead of slowing down for 10 seconds, which was terrifying.
I think that ALL urban roads should be one way, with segregated cycle lanes on both sides, plenty of room for cyclists to go both ways and plenty of room for drivers to go on their journeys. Safer and would encourage more people to cycle, making it safer still.
Other countries do LOADS more than we do.
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-infrastructure


----------



## MacB (20 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Now, while I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of this, and would take issue because it doesn't cover trucks left hooking riders, or turning without indicating, or passing too close or any of the other things the worse sort of truck driver gets up to, it does make the point that creeping up the inside of lorries at traffic lights is a bad idea, and it's a lot easier for the cyclist to avoid doing that than it is for the truck driver to see them once they're there.


 
Immediately your list of instances not covered is a great deal larger than the one instance the suggestion does cover, going up the inside of a lorry. I don't disagree with educating cyclists but all this does is pander to the 'can't see won't see' mindset. Large vehicles need to be made safe via training and design regardless of what we do with other road users...unless you make the roads lorries only.

I'm also not convinced the concept that it's not going to happen any time soon so we all need to work around these vehicles is valid. The lack of will for change exists only within a minority of the population and the basis is entirely financial. Any public highway, let alone the centres of towns and cities, is not the place to be tooling around in a massive piece of machinery that is unfit to share the space with others. In fact if you remove the financial implications then the list of alternatives is enormous.


----------



## theclaud (20 Nov 2013)

*Ian Walker* ‏@*ianwalker*  2m
Remember! Be careful on the roads today (unless you're operating dangerous machinery, in which case you can apparently do what you like)


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Yes - sorry - I was using your "I can think of nothing else" as a general prompt, rather than taking it at face value. Take the persistent issue about poor visibility down the left-hand side of the truck. How about a second person in the cab who was responsible for ensuring that the turn is clear?


 
I see another person in the cab as another patch for vehicles not designed for an urban area, and they could potentially be a distraction if they decide to talk about the "footy" (insert sport/topic of choice) instead... and again, just like technology, do we want the drivers to become to reliant on them..?

It would lower unemployment, but as with alot of things, sadly, it will come down to the choice of profit margin vs collateral damage, and the cynic in me tells me that a larger profit margin will win out, but then businesses do need to make money...


----------



## Stephen C (20 Nov 2013)

Not sure if this has already been posted, but I found it quite good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25007830


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2778611, member: 30090"]IMO you are being unfair to RT there, and I suggest you read the rest of his post.

And RT, whilst a HAT (like myself although I'm retired), is about the most balanced individual on this site I've seen when it comes to trucks and cycling (far more then me) whose opinion should be respected.

Great to have you back RT, (User3143).[/quote]

No, I was being fair to the quote that was pulled from another forum and trying to put forward my point of view...
If I came across as overly assertive/aggresive to @Rhythm Thief then I apologise to him/her (no sex noted on profile), that was not my intention, my opinion instead was aimed at the rather "different" view point by the person who made the original post quoted by RT from another forum.
.


----------



## Euro (20 Nov 2013)

I meant to continue with:

I believe that:

truck manufacturers will not make a great effort to solve the problem. It is up to us

Boris will not ban trucks and buses from London

More mirrors are not the answer. Our vision is already obstructed by two square feet of mirrors

reducing the accepted norms of drivers might help. Employers expect us to work to the legal limit of a 15 hour working day, 10 hours driving per day, four and a half hours driving without a break. e.g. that 44 tonner is driven by someone who worked a 15 hour shift the day before yesterday. He then drove an hour to get home. Fed and washed for one hour, had 6 hours sleep, drove for an hour to get to work, worked another 15 hour shift, repeated the procedure and has now been driving for 10 hours today. All legal.


----------



## snorri (20 Nov 2013)

Perhaps the technology is available to develop a "person detector" which would give an audible warning in a vehicle cab if said person is in a danger zone..


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2778615, member: 30090"]Because the industry that they work in dictates this.
Most food deliveries happen early in the morning on a JIT basis which allows a full shop that is clutter free come opening time.
Tipper/construction can't work like this.[/quote]

All I will say is that if there is the will then the industry CAN be made to work differently.
Lets use rail, lets use river, lets change how the companies can make their money from these projects.
Lets make it more profitable to work differently, and to use other methods to haul material, and things will change, as they will chase the money/profit.

Lets change how they access the roads, have them pay a charge (so they make less profit at the end of/during a contract), make it more expensive to use the capital roads during rush hour, less expensive or free outside of rush hour. Want to use a cycle/private car heavy route, again make it expensive to use those routes.
Give subsidies to use river or train movement of freight over long distances rather than trucks.
In future contracts make it more expensive to use non-urban friendly vehicles, and free if they use urban friendly vehicles.

Combination of stick and carrot should do it, and I am sure brighter people than me have other ideas.


----------



## snorri (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2779422, member: 259"]It already exists apparently.[/quote]
Well well, what are we waiting for? 

There's no need to answer that question


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

Euro said:


> I meant to continue with:
> 
> I believe that:
> 
> ...


 
Hi Euro,
Good to see you back 

You are right, they will not ban trucks completely from London, and we have already seen Boris diterhing around or trying to deflect from that, but there are alternatives to complete bans.

The working hours scenario is not a complete shock to me.
Not something we should ignore, but could be one layer in a many layered approach.

Cemex seems to be one company that has stuck in my mind since the the BBC 1 programme “War on Britain’s Roads”, with increased safety features and driver training (which took an outsider, someones mother, to come in and push), but I would like to see what the industry is doing to re-design these vehicles or use alternative transport methods..?

If 99% of the time a vehicle is on the road, should the vehicle not be designed for the road, and the site where it spends 1% of its time made to accomodate this?

In London we have the Thames and a Rail network, these are alternatives and London could try and make these an inviting alternative.
I know this may not be of much help outside of London though...

I just don't think an Air Horn on my bike is going to be of benefit to me personally, if I had to use that air horn to get a drivers attention then they have already done something badly wrong (as jarlrmai already showed in three videos), thankfully it seems to be a minority in my time on the road when it comes to lorries and only one really, really bad situation with an HGV.

7,000+ miles and counting with no offs on Central London and Greater London roads this year (2013), which is not bad considering most of it is commuting miles 
.


----------



## theclaud (20 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I see another person in the cab as another patch for vehicles not designed for an urban area, and they could potentially be a distraction if they decide to talk about the "footy" (insert sport/topic of choice) instead... and again, just like technology, do we want the drivers to become to reliant on them..?



I'm not talking about someone just for company who occasionally looks out of the window. At the moment the haulage industry is taking a gamble in response to the recent outcry. _It is going out of its way to demonstrate that its vehicles are unfit to share public spaces._ Not to take responsibility for this as they should, _but to do the exact opposite_ - using fear to warn other users out of the way, and having done so, blaming them if they get squashed. Or to put it more simply, bullying. In the video below (which I think may have been posted already) the driver says "I cannot see at all [down] that side of my trailer". It doesn't occur to him for a second that it is an admission which should bar his vehicle from the road entirely. The rhetorical task needed is to frame these bullying tactics for what they are. My suggestion above is a response to the fact that it is clearly beyond the power of a driver alone to guarantee safe operation of many of these kinds of vehicle on the road. It may not be beyond the power of a two-person team, one of whom has defined responsibility when driving for nearside clearance, and can also act as a banksman when required.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25007830


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Nov 2013)

if Cemex can do it, Thames Materials should do it. But they won't unless they are told to do it. And they would do it if designers, by which I mean Architects and Civil and Structural Engineers wrote a provision in to the Contract. They would do it if the HSE demanded it. And they would do it if the DfT cared enough to put a regulation in place. Which makes you wonder which planet Architects, Civil and Structural Engineers, the HSE and the DfT are on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Materials for those who can't bring the name to mind.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Now, while I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of this, and would take issue because it doesn't cover trucks left hooking riders, or turning without indicating, or passing too close or any of the other things the worse sort of truck driver gets up to, it does make the point that creeping up the inside of lorries at traffic lights is a bad idea, and it's a lot easier for the cyclist to avoid doing that than it is for the truck driver to see them once they're there.


there's a bit of a problem with this. The great majority of London's deaths caused by trucks are caused by trucks travelling faster than the cyclist. The whole 'undertaking' thing is a convenient myth put about by those who want to shift the blame on to the cyclist. And, without wanting to labour the point overmuch (as in state the obvious for the umpteenth time) if you look at the nature of the trucks involved, you will see that the deaths co-relate to the vehicle and not the cyclist.

It's sad to see some of our less bright fellow cyclists falling for this schtick.


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I'm not talking about someone just for company who occasionally looks out of the window. At the moment the haulage industry is taking a gamble in response to the recent outcry. _It is going out of its way to demonstrate that its vehicles are unfit to share public spaces._ Not to take responsibility for this as they should, _but to do the exact opposite_ - using fear to warn other users out of the way, and having done so, blaming them if they get squashed. Or to put it more simply, bullying. In video below (which I think may have been posted already) the driver says "I cannot see at all [down] that side of my trailer". It doesn't occur to him for a second that it is an admission which should bar his vehicle from the road entirely. The rhetorical task needed is to frame these bullying tactics for what they are. My suggestion above is a response to the fact that it is clearly beyond the power of a driver alone to guarantee safe operation of many of these kinds of vehicle on the road. It may not be beyond the power of a two-person team, one of whom has defined responsibility when driving for nearside clearance, and can also act as a banksman when required.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25007830


 
Yes, I understood your point  and what you are suggesting or telling me.

While they would not really be there for being matey, I can see it happening, or I can see the company deciding they are not doing enough while they are in the cab, and being asked to do other things, like talk on the phone instead of the driver. We all know drivers should not be talking on phones, but it is happening...
A mobile phone using driver is unlikely to have any qualms about chatting about Saturdays football results...

I like the idea and if *done properly* I think it could be good.

But the cynic in me is saying, but...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> there's a bit of a problem with this. The great majority of London's deaths caused by trucks are caused by trucks travelling faster than the cyclist. The whole 'undertaking' thing is a convenient myth put about by those who want to shift the blame on to the cyclist. And, without wanting to labour the point overmuch (as in state the obvious for the umpteenth time) if you look at the nature of the trucks involved, you will see that the deaths co-relate to the vehicle and not the cyclist.
> 
> It's sad to see some of our less bright fellow cyclists falling for this schtick.


 
I wouldn't like anyone to think that I was falling for anything. But I do have some experience - quite a lot, in fact - of driving big vehicles around city centres, and a comparable amount of experience cycling in the same environment.
I take your (and TheClaud's) point about trucks travelling faster than the cyclist, and I've been left hooked by trucks on two occasions that I can remember. There was nothing I could have done on either occasion: the driver in each case had obviously seen me and simply decided to pass me immediately before turning left. I've also had the opposite experience of sitting in the cab at traffic lights indicating left. The lights change, I do my all round mirror check before releasing the handbrake and moving away, only to see a cyclist between the front end of my trailer and the pedestrian fence. Sometimes this manoevre was performed by unlit cyclists on a wet winter's evening, when - with the best will in the world - they're almost impossible to see in the mirrors.
I appreciate that not every incident between a truck and a cyclist is the result of the cyclist undertaking, and I appreciate that in cab technology may help prevent some of the incidents which are (though personally I would never rely on the driver's proximity sensors working, or him paying attention to them: I'd just keep myself out of the danger zone wherever I could), but I also know from my own experience that some cyclists put themselves in dangerous places. In cab technology may well have a part to play in all this, but I bet it wouldn't be as effective as training cyclists to take and hold a strong primary position, and educating drivers to understand just why they might be doing that.


----------



## Euro (20 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Hi Euro,
> Good to see you back
> 
> You are right, they will not ban trucks completely from London, and we have already seen Boris diterhing around or trying to deflect from that, but there are alternatives to complete bans.
> ...


 Hi Frood! Thanks for that! Now here's another thing, maybe a loud horn is not the answer because the majority of HGV drivers are over 50 years old. Many, me included in their sixties. Hearing is not measured in our annual medical exam. We have a visual, Schnellen test;
Doc: Drive, can you read the top line of the chart?
Drive: What?
Doc: That'll be £120 (honestly), leave a cheque at reception.
We have experienced years of aural overload when we disconnect the red suzie (technical term: the curly wire that hangs out the back of the cab), hours sitting 18" from a 12 litre V8 and normal geriatric deterioration. What is the demographic of you cycle people? Our impression is young (< 30), British middle class, educated (> A-level), professional (> £25p.h.) multilingual (> 3 languages), fit (BMI and BP and pulse satisfactory)....go on, I'm right aren't I?
Now that the armed forces that used to be the main HGV catchment area) are a small to medium sized enterprise, the main source of younger drivers are not convicts (as an earlier Tory Minister suggested) but East Europeans. Now, I'm not racist but .....etc, etc
We have great respect for the Polish lads who were, after all, at war with Hitler long before we were, and are fit, work hungry educated and nice. But they come from a culture where they drive on the right and have their steering wheels on the wrong side. You try driving down the wrong side of the road!, reading foreign language signs, get here by driving from Poland (drive on the right), through Germany (drive on the right), through Holland etc. etc
Please translate the signs from our nearest neighbour:
Rappel
Priorite a droit
Tennez la gauche
Chausee deforme
Voie uniq
etc
and correct my French

and why should any youngsters fork out £2k to get an HGV licence when they are only going to get the minimum wage (or very nearly)


How are things in the nebula?


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Nov 2013)

RT - cyclists put themselves on the left hand side of buses and trucka all the time. That is..............kind of stupid. But it doesn't get them killed. What gets them killed is the kind of truck.

Now - this is not an ironcast rule, and I'd never suggest going left or right of a big vehicle without a bit of thought - I saw the aftermath of a young cyclist run over by a bus turning right, and it's a memory that won't fade away - but the concentration by the popular prints on undertaking is done at the expense of a consideration of what has happened - which is that cyclists have been hit by vehicles turning left while moving faster than the cyclist. Worse still, it overlooks the one you really cannot do too much about, which is the cyclist being hit from behind. 

The above is based on what happens in London. The media attention, again, grossly distorts the risk, because London is a relatively safe place to ride a bike - but, as in all things, what happens here makes the headlines.


----------



## Platinum (20 Nov 2013)

I don't live in London, I live in a tiny little village in the middle of nowhere. And I'm scared to ride on the roads here, so I wouldn't even consider in a million years going on my bike in the middle of a big city.

But in Holland it is easy and comfortable, even when you're lost in the middle of a strange city. You're sometimes barely even aware that there's other traffic at all. They design their roads in the EXPECTATION that people will make mistakes. It's too easy for Boris to blame people when they inevitably make the mistakes that people are inevitably going to make, if it's not his fault then it makes it easy for him to continue doing nothing.


----------



## Ganymede (20 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> They design their roads in the EXPECTATION that people will make mistakes.



Now THAT makes sense... great post Platinum.


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> But in Holland it is easy and comfortable, even when you're lost in the middle of a strange city. You're sometimes barely even aware that there's other traffic at all. They design their roads in the EXPECTATION that people will make mistakes. It's too easy for Boris to blame people when they inevitably make the mistakes that people are inevitably going to make, if it's not his fault then it makes it easy for him to continue doing nothing.


I've posted in a different thread that Holland may not be the nirvana you think. 6 deaths per year in Amsterdam (800,000 people) is lousy copared with 14 deaths per year in London (8,000,000 people), even adjusting for different cycling penetration.


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

Euro said:


> Hi Frood! Thanks for that!
> ... Many, me included in their sixties.



Experienced people who are willing to continue to learn I would consider to be one of the greatest assets to a company that there could be. There is no training that can replace that.



Euro said:


> What is the demographic of you cycle people? Our impression is young (< 30), British middle class, educated (> A-level), professional (> £25p.h.) multilingual (> 3 languages), fit (BMI and BP and pulse satisfactory)....go on, I'm right aren't I?



"You cycle people" 

I am young, 30 when I started cycling again, after a 14 year gap.

Middle class - I would say no - I was brought up on a farm in Suffolk. It was a house without double glazing and without central heating. The only way to get around was/is by car, public transport is appalling compared to London. 
My dad was a farmer (tractor/forklift driver - not a landowner) and is now a bin man. My mum works at a holiday camp cleaning chalets. I wouldn't change my upbringing in anyway, but I would like to have the opportunity to win the lotto and get my parents a nice cottage somewhere, where they can retire early (if they want to that is).

A-Level educated - tick

Professional - tick, I work in IT in a specialist area, so pay is quite good, less than £45,000 per annum but still good.

Multilingual - not a chance! Unless you count Techy speak that is...

Fit - dear, oh dear, I wish! I do admit I have lost a little over 4 stone and have gone from Obese level 2 to overweight, but I still have a way to go... BP was borderline when I last had it checked quite some time ago... But I have cycled 7000 miles this year, so I must be doing ok.




Euro said:


> the main source of younger drivers are not convicts (as an earlier Tory Minister suggested)



Tory minister - say no more... 



Euro said:


> but East Europeans....Polish lads ... and are fit, work hungry educated and nice. But they come from a culture where they drive on the right and have their steering wheels on the wrong side. You try driving down the wrong side of the road!, reading foreign language signs, get here by driving from Poland (drive on the right), through Germany (drive on the right), through Holland etc. etc



Yes, that is the job, it is difficult, but that is the job, a different sort of difficulty or stress to what I do, but that is the job.



Euro said:


> Please translate the signs from our nearest neighbour:
> Rappel - no idea, something to do with absailing..?
> Priorite a droit - Priority right, or to the right or something like that...
> Tennez la gauche - Tournez a gauche - left turn, or go left, or something like that...
> ...





Euro said:


> and why should any youngsters fork out £2k to get an HGV licence when they are only going to get the minimum wage (or very nearly)



Because they are being given charge of a heavy and large vehicle which can carry varying loads.
I would rather a company pays for it as an investment into that person.
My company has a policy where if they pay for training for me, and if I leave within a certain time frame I have to pay back some or all of the costs.



Euro said:


> How are things in the nebula?



Things are good, the Vogons are still destroying planets to make hyperspace bypasses, but we manage to slow them down with the form filling and red tape, although they were far too good with it at the beginning and are still getting better at it. As long as they do not recite poetry all should be well.

Although I jinxed myself earlier today and had my first off from the bike tonight.
Nothing serious, just a scraped knee, but the rear mech on the bike sheared off .
I shall be posting in Commuting about it, perhaps it can be a pointer to someone...
No vehicles involved, just a nice shiny area of patched wet tarmac that was like black ice or mulched leaves, which I did not see and braked on when slowing for a zebra... 

hey ho, no one hurt, so cannot complain 
Except to grumble about being off the bike while it's fixed  
Really need that n+1


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Nothing serious, just a scraped knee, but the rear mech on the bike sheared off .
> I shall be posting in Commuting about it, perhaps it can be a pointer to someone...
> No vehicles involved, just a nice shiny area of patched wet tarmac that was like black ice or mulched leaves, which I did not see and braked on when slowing for a zebra...
> 
> ...


With luck it was a clean break, so just a new hanger. Hope the knee doesn't swell up.


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> With luck it was a clean break, so just a new hanger. Hope the knee doesn't swell up.



Looks like the hangar to me, going to take it to the bike shop near work, the 4 mile walk will do me good!

After cleaning the knee it looks like I got off really luckily.
Although the dried blood must have looked a sight on the DLR and Central lines... Or maybe it's normal for east London...


----------



## Platinum (21 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> I've posted in a different thread that Holland may not be the nirvana you think. 6 deaths per year in Amsterdam (800,000 people) is lousy copared with 14 deaths per year in London (8,000,000 people), even adjusting for different cycling penetration.



All the statistics that I've ever seen says that cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in the UK. It even feels so safe that everyone of any age group, children & elderly, men & women, rich & poor, ethnic minorities, everyone feels able to cycle there. (If you've got a source for your stat I'd like to see it.)

How many of those 6 deaths in Amsterdam you mention were from right-turning lorries on specific dangerous junctions?



> In 2012, 200 people cycling were killed in the Netherlands, but of those 200 no less than 108 were over the age of 65! It becomes even more mind-boggling when you consider that 60% of all bicycle crashes with serious injuries were single vehicle crashes. No motor vehicle, no other cyclists, not even a pedestrian was involved. Dutch elderly seem to just fall off their bicycles and they often sustain severe injuries or they even die.


 http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/elderly-people-on-a-cycle-tour/

Of course London is a much bigger city than Amsterdam, but surely that means we should be trying _even harder_ to safely accommodate our cyclists.


----------



## bianchi1 (21 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> All the statistics that I've ever seen says that cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in the UK. It even feels so safe that everyone of any age group, children & elderly, men & women, rich & poor, ethnic minorities, everyone feels able to cycle there. (If you've got a source for your stat I'd like to see it.)
> 
> How many of those 6 deaths in Amsterdam you mention were from right-turning lorries on specific dangerous junctions?
> 
> ...




This makes interesting reading

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/BIKE_PAL_Safety_Ranking.pdf

The Netherlands seems interesting in so much as they accept more cyclists = more cyclist deaths.

And seemingly they have had a higher percentage of cycle deaths due to goods vehicles


"Some 22% of the cyclists killed in the EU die following collisions with goods vehicles, a proportion higher than the proportion of traffic accounted for by goods vehicles. In Israel 48% of the cyclist deaths follow a collision with a goods vehicle. This proportion is 43% in Belgium, higher than the number of deaths following collisions with cars. The same is true for the Netherlands where 38% of cyclist deaths follow collisions with goods vehicles. Goods vehicle collisions also account for a considerable proportion of cyclist deaths in Great Britain with 33%, Denmark with 31% and Slovakia with 29%." Page 12


----------



## Platinum (21 Nov 2013)

Very interesting reading.

p17 Number of cyclist deaths per billion kilometres ridden
NL - 12.4 - 863.2 Kilometres cycled per person
GB - 22.4 - 79.7[!] Kilometres cycled per person

NL - 12.4 x 38% = 4.71
GB - 22.4 x 33% =7.39 deaths from goods vehicles per billion kilometres ridden

So your risk of death from HGVs is much lower in the Netherlands.

(edited to add)
p12 Netherlands has 20% of deaths from cars the UK 57%!
NL - 12.4 x 20% = 2.48
GB - 22.4 x 57% =12.77 deaths from cars per billion kilometres ridden.
That's an incredible difference. To me that shows it's wrong to focus only on putting extra mirrors and cameras and loud beepers and guardrails all over lorries when improved infrastructure can reduce the _even greater_ danger from cars as well.

Please if someone has better stats I would love to see them. I studied astrophysics, I try to base all my decisions on what can stand up after I try to demolish them. I'd love to learn that Britain really is a cycling nirvana, that would save me having to learn Dutch and move countries. But I've seen absolutely nothing to show that building _good _infrastructure is a bad thing.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2013)

Platinum said:


> All the statistics that I've ever seen says that cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in the UK.


My stat was for Amsterdam and London - it's Amsterdam that's often held up as the model that London should follow. My immediate source is an article by Andrew Gilligan for the Guardian; it's easy enough to google to confirm his raw stats are correct.


> Of course London is a much bigger city than Amsterdam, but surely that means we should be trying _even harder_ to safely accommodate our cyclists.


Of course. But as Gilligan points out, it's not as simple as sloganeering.


----------



## discominer (21 Nov 2013)

Cynthia Barlow (roadpeace) on the Today programme just now, making sense. As soon as 'cyclists wearing headphones' raised its ugly head she dealt with it head on.


----------



## Platinum (21 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> My stat was for Amsterdam and London - it's Amsterdam that's often held up as the model that London should follow. My immediate source is an article by Andrew Gilligan for the Guardian; it's easy enough to google to confirm his raw stats are correct.
> 
> Of course. But as Gilligan points out, it's not as simple as sloganeering.


NL - 863.2 Kilometres cycled per person
GB - 79.7 Kilometres cycled per person

That's about 11x the distance cycled by the average person in the Netherlands compared to Britain. Let's assume that proportion also holds in the cities. (central Amsterdam actually has a 60% modal share, greater Amsterdam 38% (http://amsterdamize.com/2011/11/21/bicycle-cultures-are-man-made/) London 3% http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/some-london-cycling-statistics/, although I've heard that Blackfriars Bridge and other places have 45% share in the rush hour. 38%/3% = 12.7 x the modal share)

Amsterdam with its population a 10th of that of London, cycling 11x as much, if people were dying there at the same rate we see in London you would expect to see 1.1 deaths in Amsterdam for every 1 in London. But we don't, your numbers of 6/14 = 0.43 deaths in Amsterdam for every 1 in London, less than half the death rate of London.

That's even less than the figures for the whole countries from the pdf bianchi1 posted, that's 12.4/22.4 = 0.55 deaths in the Netherlands for every one in Britain, [edited to remove phrase my maths doesn't directly back up] So yes, Amsterdam is a place we should be emulating.

It still doesn't add up, Gilligan's stat looks impressive on the surface but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## marknotgeorge (21 Nov 2013)

If you read a survival handbook, there'll no doubt be a section on fungi, and how although there are fungi that are perfectly edible, there are those that will kill you in various nasty ways. The upshot is that in a survival situation, unless you're very sure which varieties are which, the limited nutritional benefits make them not worth it. 

I mention this because I get the impression that some of the arguments are akin to screaming at Mother Nature for making poisonous mushrooms. Fit to be on the roads? Purely for the purposes of protecting a road user from harm, a device that requires the soft, squishy road user to wrap him or herself around a load-bearing structure is clearly not fit for purpose. But then, that's not what a bike's designed to do. Just like a truck isn't currently designed to prevent it colliding with a cyclist. It's designed to enable the supply of things like homes, computers, dog food and bike parts to people like us that from a quick scan of this thread consume some or all of those things. Unless your Ultegra bits were hand delivered from Sakai by a bloke on a rickshaw, you're part of the problem too. 

Yes, things need changing. But with the best will in the world that won't happen instantly. We need solutions that will deal with how things are now, as well as those that make things how they should be.


----------



## Dan B (21 Nov 2013)

To compare the road environment (if that's what you're doing, I may have misunderstood) to Mother Nature is unreasonable. One is the result of Darwinian evolution and physical law, and the other is the product of reasoning human beings. A better comparison would be with the workplace environment, or the railway environment, or the air traffic environment. Screaming at Mother Nature for making poisonous mushrooms might be self-defeating, but screaming at Pret a Manger for putting them in sandwiches is probably quite justified


----------



## marknotgeorge (21 Nov 2013)

I was comparing the response to a piece of risk-mitigating advice more than anything. But let's go with the workplace where Section 7a of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 states:



> *General duties of employees at work.*
> It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—
> (a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;



Translating that to the road, a cyclist has a duty to take reasonable care for his own safety. So why do people pour such scorn on those suggesting things cyclists could do to mitigate the risks?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Nov 2013)

marknotgeorge said:


> So why do people pour such scorn on those suggesting things cyclists could do to mitigate the risks?


I should imagine it's because the danger presented by other vehicles is evidence of the other side of the bargain not being honoured. It's supposed to be a mutual affair - look after yourself and others. Manufacturers and the construction industry, taken as a whole, have neglected the others (which in this context is us).


----------



## marknotgeorge (21 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I should imagine it's because the danger presented by other vehicles is evidence of the other side of the bargain not being honoured. It's supposed to be a mutual affair - look after yourself and others. Manufacturers and the construction industry, taken as a whole, have neglected the others (which in this context is us).



I see your point, thanks.


----------

