# Truck drivers forum perspective of cyclist fatality.



## Brandane (20 Feb 2015)

Not sure where to post this as the original thread regarding the death of a 30 year old female cyclist in Victoria, London, on Cyclist Down has been locked. 
A tragic event for everyone involved.
Some might be interested to read the posts on TruckNet UK regarding the incident. Some are quite balanced; others are from the odd meat-heads. This is not intended to stir up the "them and us" argument between cyclists and truck drivers; myself and others on here do both. It is simply to show how the incident is viewed from a different perspective, and hopefully demonstrate the differing needs of other road users.


----------



## Banjo (20 Feb 2015)

Have to say the majority seemed to be sensible posts. 

One step in the right direction would be to stop the practice of drivers being paid bonuses for each delivery.

Tipper drivers in particular are often paid per drop and they feature highly in fatal accident statistics.

A public information type advert on TV would help something graphic to discourage cyclists undertaking HGVs though it has to be said I dont know if thats what happened in this particular tragedy.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2015)

Some excellent drivers there. Cyclists undertaking is a known problem, everyone knows it happens, it's one of the single most common complaints about cyclists after rljing.

*Mod edit:* some content removed. This is a general discussion about the problem not a specific case study.


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2015)

Having posted on there, as a cyclist, I found the majority of posters there, to be willing to approach the subject with an open mind.


----------



## Stu Smith (20 Feb 2015)

Banjo said:


> One step in the right direction would be to stop the practice of drivers being paid bonuses for each delivery.


It is illegal to pay any LGV driver a Bonus that encourages them to speed..


----------



## glenn forger (21 Feb 2015)

It's illegal to fiddle tachos but convictions now run at more than four thousand a year:

http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/drivers-hours-and-tachograph-convictions-up-says-perry

And that's despite checks being reduced. A tired lorry driver can be just as dangerous as a speeding lorry driver.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Feb 2015)

(To put that into perspective, going by conviction rates alone, for every twenty lorries that overtake a cyclist, one of them has a fiddled tachograph, the driver has tampered with the evidence of his driving). As for that link it's an exercise in self-serving. Look at the ratio in the comments between suggestions as to how to prevent deaths versus just a general whinge about cyclists. Going by recent fatalities you are three times more likely to be killed by a lorry driver who is looking at pornography on his mobile phone than you are by a cyclist in any circumstances, and the posters on that link maintain cyclists are the problem, it's darkly comic.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

And how many Taxi drivers, Van drivers, Couriers..Drive far more hours than the truck driver because they are not governed by Tachograph rules.. Plus the Car driver who as worked a 12 hour shift then gets into his or her car and drives tired..



glenn forger said:


> killed by a lorry driver who is looking at pornography on his mobile phone


All other drivers excluded from this?
There are Good LGV drivers there are bad LGV drivers..There are Good cyclist and Bad cyclist..

Its about respecting each road users problems and limitations..


----------



## Sara_H (21 Feb 2015)

The thread linked to has been closed.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> And how many Taxi drivers, Van drivers, Couriers..Drive far more hours than the truck driver because they are not governed by Tachograph rules.. Plus the Car driver who as worked a 12 hour shift then gets into his or her car and drives tired..
> 
> 
> All other drivers excluded from this?
> ...


Bad cyclists struggle to kill 4 people, bad lorry drivers can. Therefore the standard amongs lorry drivers should be higher.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Therefore the standard amongs lorry drivers should be higher



All drivers have accidents and unfortunately injure or kill innocent people..Therefore the standard amongst all drivers should be higher.Including cyclists who are unaware of the danger coming up the inside of any vehicle not just the HGV..


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Resources should be allocated proportionately to the danger they create. Cyclists toward the bottom, lorries towards the top


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> All drivers have accidents and unfortunately injure or kill innocent people..


Are you absolutely sure about that?


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Resources should be allocated proportionately to the danger they create. Cyclists toward the bottom, lorries towards the top


Most LGV drivers are assessed each year with the company they drive for..Our drivers are re-assessed twice yearly with a fully qualified driver trainer..
There will be companys that don't do this .But when was the last time a car driver was re-assessed?
What sort of training is required for the cyclist?


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Most LGV drivers are assessed each year with the company they drive for..Our drivers are re-assessed twice yearly with a fully qualified driver trainer..
> There will be companys that don't do this .But when was the last time a car driver was re-assessed?
> What sort of training is required for the cyclist?


None for cyclists as they kill less than tangerines do. I agree car drivers should be reassessed.


----------



## moo (21 Feb 2015)

Most cyclists are too timid to ride primary and own the lane. It's not surprising when you can hear and feel the irritation from MGIF muppets inches from your rear wheel. This leads them to constantly ride near the curb and adopt the bad habbit of squeezing past stationary vehicles on the left. Can you imagine the outcry from motorists if every cyclist suddenly started to ride where they should: middle of the lane on most city roads.

lack of confidence or lack of patience - cause of most incidents


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> None for cyclists as they kill less than tangerines do. I agree car drivers should be reassessed.


Cyclists may kill less than tangerines do. Some cyclists do put there selves into dangerous situations and need to take more responsibility for there actions.. I do feel like some sort of awareness course would be beneficial.
Its very unproductive to stereo type any road user.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

It depends on whether society should resource and pay to protect people from themselves or from others. There are cycke courses available to those rhat want. There should be little Tesources spent on forcing it as they do very little harm. Cars and more particularly lorries can and do huge amount of harm so much more tesources allocated in prevention. 

Car drivers (me) shoukd be reassessed at least every 10 years. 

Lorry drivers on phones kill disproportionate amount. Therefore the penalties should be much more severe.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> It depends on whether society should resource and pay to protect people from themselves or from others. There are cycke courses available to those rhat want. There should be little Tesources spent on forcing it as they do very little harm. Cars and more particularly lorries can and do huge amount of harm so much more tesources allocated in prevention.
> 
> Car drivers (me) shoukd be reassessed at least every 10 years.


Fully agree.

I don't advocate any mobile phone use in any vehicle this includes hands free one lost life is one to many.
I think you will find that the penalties for professional drivers using phones and smoking, eating and drinking whilst driving will very shortly be more severe.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Look, I agree cyclists really should be carful. I am. I teach my kids to be. but those that bring the most danger should be the most careful.

If I liked juggling chainsaws and walking past your house you'd tell everyone to keep out if my way but the onus should be in me to be extra careful and look where I'm going rather than on you staying away and wearing protective clothing.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Look, I agree cyclists really should be carful. I am. I teach my kids to be. but those that bring the most danger should be the most careful.
> 
> If I liked juggling chainsaws and walking past your house you'd tell everyone to keep out if my way but the onus should be in me to be extra careful and look where I'm going rather than on you staying away and wearing protective clothing.



What !?!
Confused .com


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> What !?!
> Confused .com


Simple. If I wanted to do something like juggling chainsaws, is it just up to me to be careful or is it also up to you to wear helmets, hiviz and protective clothing if we walk passed each other on the pavement.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

So in that respect why is the haulage industry paying thousands of £s to fit cyclist friendly mirrors and will not be allowed in London if they are not fitted..The cyclists should not use the same road as any other vehicle because they could all be a danger to them is this what you're saying?


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Nope. I'm saying those that are the most dangerous should be the most careful, take the most responsibility and have the most severe punishment for any infringements.

Roads are not themselves dangerous. If somebody brings something potentially very dangerous to it then they should make the most compromises and adapt to the situation . It is not for everyone else to adapt on their arrival.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> What !?!
> Confused .com


If there was someone on your street with a gun that was rather keen on shooting people would you expect the authorites to sort out the person with the gun or to advise people to never walk down that street but to wear a bullet proof vest if they absolutely had to?
There is a responsibility on all to look out for both their own safety whilst at the same time considering that of others around them, the greater the potential danger you bring to a situation the greater the consideration for others should be. The fact that HGVs are disproportionately responsible for KSIs suggests that they should be doing far more than they currently are about it.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> The fact that HGVs are disproportionately responsible for KSIs suggests that they should be doing far more than they currently are about it.



Such has..I'll put your suggestions forward.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Such has..I'll put your suggestions forward.



well it's really for the lorry industry to be responsible for bringing in safety improvements, not us.

If someone's running a chemical plant that was regularly poisoning the neighbours it would hardly be for the neighbours to make safety suggestions - it would be for the chemical plant owners to sort out their safety wouldn't it?


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Second man responsible for checking all round.



And how much do you think the cost of living would go up then ? Or do expect the Haulage company to stand the doubling of the wage bill..


----------



## Profpointy (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> And how much do you think the cost of living would go up then ? Or do expect the Haulage company to stand the doubling of the wage bill..



Well it's really for those doing the dangerous activity to bear the cost of preventing innocent bystanders (or cyclists) from getting killed - and the cost are duly passed on to customers.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> And how much do you think the cost of living would go up then ? Or do expect the Haulage company to stand the doubling of the wage bill..


You're right. It's a bit pricey so we shouldn't do it. I suggest the airline industry to save sine money and cut all the silly safety things like spare pilots, extensive training, safety equipment strict controls on pilots activities including drinking with 24 hours of flying etc I mean, why should the airlibe industry pay for any of this.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> And how much do you think the cost of living would go up then ? Or do expect the Haulage company to stand the doubling of the wage bill..


If a ''banksman'' in the cab helped save one life then any refusal to do it would be economically rationalised manslaughter.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

In answer to question of 'such as' stop this BS of drivers saying they couldn't see. All round visibility and if its too much for one person then 2.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Profpointy said:


> If someone's running a chemical plant that was regularly poisoning the neighbours it would hardly be for the neighbours to make safety suggestions - it would be for the chemical plant owners to sort out their safety wouldn't it?



In all honesty how safe can we make a 55ft long vehicle in a urban area..6 mirrors a legal requirement, lot of company's now using cameras for the nearside view. More driver training is already happening.
We should all be taking responsibility for our own safety.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Feb 2015)

Bill haulage insurers for the economic costs of road KSIs.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If a ''banksman'' in the cab helped save one life then any refusal to do it would be economically rationalised manslaughter



Not economically feasible. And no governing body would enforce..


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> In all honesty how safe can we make a 55ft long vehicle in a urban area..6 mirrors a legal requirement, lot of company's now using cameras for the nearside view. More driver training is already happening.
> We should all be taking responsibility for our own safety.


The haulage industry shoukd also be taking responsibility for those it puts in danger


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The haulage industry shoukd also be taking responsibility for those it puts in danger



Blinkered...


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/new-cycle-safety-film-illustrates-lorry-driver-perspective/.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/new-cycle-safety-film-illustrates-lorry-driver-perspective/.


Ffs how many more of these. When will lorry drivers happily learn what it's like when a lorry close passes you. Or what it's like when one pulls up alongside you at a junction. This trading places thing only works WHEN YOU TRADE PLACES. NOT JUST WHEN US STUPID CYCLISTS ARE SHOWN JUST HOW FUDGING BADLY DESIGNED THESE LORRIES ARE


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> In all honesty how safe can we make a 55ft long vehicle in a urban area..6 mirrors a legal requirement, lot of company's now using cameras for the nearside view. More driver training is already happening.
> We should all be taking responsibility for our own safety.


 one of the truckers in the thread makes the point that you can put all the mirrors and cameras you want onto a truck but at the end of the day the driver only has the one pair of eyes.

It makes the argument for a second person in there far more compelling when a driver is pointing out the inadequacy of all the extra 'stuff' because there is only one of him.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Ffs.When will the cyclist happily learn what its like to have a cyclist come up the inside of him..And then have the feeling of what if I hadn't seen him or worse still doesn't see him..
Yesterday I was out on my bike for 30 Mile not one close pass from either truck or car does that make me lucky.If it does I must be lucky everyday or could I be positioning myself correctly and respecting the situation around me..


----------



## psmiffy (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> In all honesty how safe can we make a 55ft long vehicle in a urban area..6 mirrors a legal requirement, lot of company's now using cameras for the nearside view. More driver training is already happening.
> We should all be taking responsibility for our own safety.


I think the more obvious question is - is a 55ft long 5 axled lorry the most appropriate vehicle in a tight urban environment? - the roads are simply not designed for a vehicle which when turning practically sweeps double the width of road of smaller vehicles - yes banning them would increase the costs of construction - but would decrease the costs to society


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> It makes the argument for a second person in there far more compelling when a driver is pointing out the inadequacy of all the extra 'stuff' because there is only one of him


This will never happen as in previous posts.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Why should a cyclist not be able to pass a lorry safely?



So you would quite happily pass a truck on the nearside ?


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Yes frequently.


Like playing the lottery.But one day you will lose.


User said:


> Because the price of tat in Argos is worth more than a cyclists life


Simple economics.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Ffs.When will the cyclist happily learn what its like to have a cyclist come up the inside of him..And then have the feeling of what if I hadn't seen him or worse still doesn't see him..
> Yesterday I was out on my bike for 30 Mile not one close pass from either truck or car does that make me lucky.If it does I must be lucky everyday or could I be positioning myself correctly and respecting the situation around me..


My video. Lorry driver could easily see me well in front. Close pass. Shoukd I have been blamed for being on his left when he passed me? Police got involved for this one.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> My video. Lorry driver could easily see me well in front. Close pass. Shoukd I have been blamed for being on his left when he passed me? Police got involved for this one.






Stu Smith said:


> There are Good LGV drivers there are bad LGV drivers..There are Good cyclist and Bad cyclist..


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> This will never happen as in previous posts.


My father drove lorries, proper big stuff, bits of oil rig type of big. He had a drivers mate, always. On really, really big stuff where you needed two or three tractor units they had a whole team of people, drivers mates and bogie men all watching and whistling and calling out on every single junction, or bridge or pinch point. It may have been a different type of haulage but to reference your previous post which you have failed to answer my question on


Stu Smith said:


> All drivers have accidents and unfortunately injure or kill innocent people.


I can assure you that my father most certainly didn't.
I don't see why you seem to consider two people in a cab a non starter, it doesn't even have to be the full journey, are you familiar with how pilots operate for large ships?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> This will never happen as in previous posts.



No I'm sure you are right, human life valued less than commerce?? but if (some/all??) drivers themselves see little benefit in the whistles and bells then shouldn't we be looking at other methods and spending what money the haulage industry does want to offset its disproportionate killing record on things that might make more difference in the cab than mirrors and cameras that can't get adequate attention in the mass of other observations a driver is making in a very short timespan.

*I'm considering only the in cab aspect here as this is the way the thread seems to be progressing, I'm not advocating it as the sole means of making things better, there in no journey I've ever made on a bike that was so urgent I needed to go up the side of a high cab vehicle. I dont honestly understand the logic or mentality of those who do and would never advocate it, but people do and if nothing else then for the vehicle drivers mental wellbeing should the worst happen then there needs to be some more effective means of mitigating the potential harm that can occur when a bike and high cab are in close proximity - for whatever reason and whoever may have been there 1st. 

So Stu, you seem to have a level of knowledge and understanding to know what won't work. Rather than punt the question at other people, what do you suggest will make a positive difference at a price point per human life the haulage industry won't baulk at?


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

apparently there are good and bad hgv drivers. Throw all the bad ones in prison would be a good start. It might make the rest pay s little more attention.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I don't see why you seem to consider two people in a cab a non starter, it doesn't even have to be the full journey


Driver need to collect a load in Manchester where would he pick up a second man and then drop him off, Would he drop him off before he loads or does this second man stop with him until he leaves Manchester then were does he drop him off,,Then the driver is to deliver in Birmingham he picks up yet another second man so he can deliver into Birmingham does this second man wait with him? Anybody who knows haulage this could be hours or does the second man walk back to where..
The driver then needs to go back to base in Liverpool yet another second man..Who is paying for all these second men that would be needed for every HGV entering a town or City..
Do not want to sound glib but its not economically feasible.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Tough.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> So Stu, you seem to have a level of knowledge and understanding to know what won't work. Rather than punt the question at other people, what do you suggest will make a positive difference at a price point per human life the haulage industry won't baulk at?


How safe can you make such a large vehicle in the constraints of urban roads..
The haulage industry can put as many mirrors and cameras on the vehicle it likes,it takes seconds for a cyclist or other vehicles cars are not immune to being side swiped with a HGV to come in the blind spot whilst the HGV driver is checking his offside mirror.

More education for both Cyclist and Drivers. But there seems to be a lot of negative comments on this..Are we all that good we can't be educated on something that could save our life..
I've also put forward side sensors on the cab working on the same principle as reversing sensors..


----------



## Dan B (21 Feb 2015)

How much are the drivers wages in proportion to the retail value of the goods in the trailer?


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> How much are the drivers wages in proportion to the retail value of the goods in the trailer?



The wage bill is the second largest cost after the fuel costs..


----------



## Profpointy (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Driver need to collect a load in Manchester where would he pick up a second man and then drop him off, Would he drop him off before he loads or does this second man stop with him until he leaves Manchester then were does he drop him off,,Then the driver is to deliver in Birmingham he picks up yet another second man so he can deliver into Birmingham does this second man wait with him? Anybody who knows haulage this could be hours or does the second man walk back to where..
> The driver then needs to go back to base in Liverpool yet another second man..Who is paying for all these second men that would be needed for every HGV entering a town or City..
> Do not want to sound glib but its not economically feasible.



but killing lots of cyclists pedestrians is economically OK? Basically that means it's still being paid for, but not by the haulage industry but by the victims. Economists term is "externalities" where the cost is not being born by those benefitting. 

Bear in mind if the law said haulage industry has to do this or that, it would simply have to comply and the costs would not actually be born by the industry but passed on to its customers. It's a bit like the bollocks argument hauliers made for cheaper fuel. They are competing with other hauliers who have to buy the same fuel after all.


Of course, this is rather begging the question of whether a 2nd observer would be of benefit, but the principle of "not economically viable" simply means that someone else has to pay for the collateral damage. 

None of this means cycling up the inside of a truck is remotely wise. And not cycling up the inside doesn't stop left hooks nor pulling in whilst towing a long trailer after half-overtaking either.


----------



## classic33 (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> This will never happen as in previous posts.


They'll just get a driver willing to be in the cab on his own, before they'll pay for a second person to be there, again. Removed on cost grounds and because some drivers felt they were there simply to spy on them.

Be a chance to train new drivers up though. Even if it was only on the route there & back.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> Be a chance to train new drivers up though



Off subject slightly. But there are not many new drivers coming into the industry Dare I say "Good"drivers at the moment are at a premium..


----------



## classic33 (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Off subject slightly. But there are not many new drivers coming into the industry Dare I say "Good"drivers at the moment are at a premium..


Not just new to the industry, but new to the company/type of vehicle.

Local haulage company does it for all new drivers(to the company) and on route learning.


----------



## Dan B (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> The wage bill is the second largest cost after the fuel costs..


That doesn't answer the question. 20 tonnes of baked beans is about £25000, according to the back of this envelope. How much is the driver paid to take it from warehouse to supermarket?


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Our drivers carry 25 tonnes of Whiskey one day and the next day it could be a load of empty blue GKN pallets.
Paid exactly the same each day no matter what they are carrying..


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Off subject slightly. But there are not many new drivers coming into the industry Dare I say "Good"drivers at the moment are at a premium..


No surprise there! Who wants the grief of long and anti-social hours; sleeping in a tin box with no toilet facilities; eating whatever happens to be available; away from home most of the week; stroppy transport managers; pleading with forklift drivers to actually do their job; traffic jams; VOSA inspections; CPC; no parking available at drops/collection points; curtain slashers and overnight looters; diesel thiefs; ...... I could go on .... and all this for the princely sum of between £8.00 and £9.00 per hour plus maybe £15 "night out" money if away from home (and no, you don't get paid for rest periods!). Figures are going rates for a day shift driver based in Scotland.(Who incidentally might well find himself in central London at some part of the week, not planned at the start - nothing is. So where does he find this magical second man?).

I do agency work 3 or so days a week and suit myself what work I accept. No way would I be running around the country like some do, for the money on offer. I have a choice, others don't. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys - as they say. I exclude myself and some others from that. In my case it is a handy second income and nothing else. Which introduces another point about so called "professional drivers". What makes people so sure that just because someone drives for money, that driving is their profession? I know a lot of agency drivers who only do one shift now and again, fitting it around other work. We have passed a driving test for that class of vehicle, same as all other drivers on the road should have done.

Another point about this second man/lookout thing. I wouldn't want to be the driver having to sit and listen to some PITA all day, every day. I like to concentrate on my driving, with only the radio to listen to, and I can switch that off. Then there are the legal implications if there IS an accident where there was a second man. I'm not sure that any court will accept the drivers defence that "my second man said it was clear!". It's the drivers responsibility to make sure it is clear, not some underpaid flunky in the passenger seat.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Like playing the lottery.But one day you will lose.
> 
> Simple economics.


Talking of simple economics, who pays for the cost of the deaths? Apart from the heavy emotional pain of family and close ones, we all pay for them. The police, the ambulances, the cost of severe transport delays. So, when the next inevitable death comes along, why should all of us pay just so the construction trade can get off scot free? The simple economics is that the cost should be paid by the people incurring the expense. Simple economics.


----------



## Dan B (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Our drivers carry 25 tonnes of Whiskey one day and the next day it could be a load of empty blue GKN pallets.
> Paid exactly the same each day no matter what they are carrying..


Still not answering the question, perhaps I should ask it slightly differently: how much does the driver get paid to deliver 25 tonnes of whiskey and come back with blue pallets?

£40 a kilo x 25000 kg = £1000000 for the run down and (I'm assuming) no value for the run back: I don't think that doubling the wage bill from £10 to £20 per hour is going to make a massive amount of difference to the price that the consumer pays for a bottle.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Feb 2015)

User said:


> How long would it take me to get to or from work if I never passed the vehicles that are stationary or near stationary?


You say vehicles I didn't, I only said high cab, that is very few in the grand scheme of things and those already stationary at traffic lights is an even smaller proportion. What point are you trying to make with deliberate misdirection?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> How safe can you make such a large vehicle in the constraints of urban roads..
> The haulage industry can put as many mirrors and cameras on the vehicle it likes,it takes seconds for a cyclist or other vehicles cars are not immune to being side swiped with a HGV to come in the blind spot whilst the HGV driver is checking his offside mirror.
> 
> More education for both Cyclist and Drivers. But there seems to be a lot of negative comments on this..Are we all that good we can't be educated on something that could save our life..
> I've also put forward side sensors on the cab working on the same principle as reversing sensors..


To quote you "as in previous posts" there seems to be some opinion at least on the truck forum that all the mirrors and sensors in the world are only as good as one single person to observe them in with everything else they're required to pay attention to, I asked what apart from these which aren't working well enough to remove the risk ref the obvious flaw highlighted by a truck driver themself.

If an arms race of ineffective gadgets and mirrors is all you have to offer then it is clear that a) that money is largely being wasted by the industry & b) more/different needs to be spent/done for everyone's benefit - drivers included so as not to have a death on their conscinence through penny-pinching or inadequate design.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Feb 2015)

User said:


> You can call it misdirection if you like. I see it as narrow commercial interest holding other people to ransom because they cannot put their house in order.


I call it misdirection because you completely misrepresented what I wrote. Not all vehicles are high cab.

I'm totally on the wavelength with the truck safety issue and not putting all the onus in us on bikes.


----------



## Stu Smith (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> So you would quite happily pass a truck on the nearside ?





User said:


> Yes frequently.





User said:


> How long would it take me to get to or from work if I never passed the vehicles that are stationary or near stationary?



Every time you do this you take a calculated risk..
Why don't you take a leaf out of a truck drivers book and set off a little earlier so you don't have to take risks to arrive on time.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> I wouldn't want to be the driver having to sit and listen to some PITA all day, every day. I like to concentrate on my driving, with only the radio to listen to, and I can switch that off.


It's a long post which I'd like to respond to properly when I have more time, but I had to pull this bit out to say that your desire for solitude and comfort is a piss poor reason to not have a second person in the cab _IF_ it prevented a fatality.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Why don't you take a leaf out of a truck drivers book and set off a little earlier so you don't have to take risks to arrive on time.


Hows that working out for them?


----------



## PK99 (21 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> It's a long post which I'd like to respond to properly when I have more time, but I had to pull this bit out to say that your desire for solitude and comfort is a piss poor reason to not have a second person in the cab *IF it prevented a fatality*.



That's an interesting "IF"

My guess is that it would cause as many as it prevented by distracting the driver. 99% of the time the role is redundant and inevitably a chatty relationship would develop resulting in driver distraction.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

PK99 said:


> That's an interesting "IF"
> 
> My guess is that it would cause as many as it prevented by distracting the driver. 99% of the time the role is redundant and inevitably a chatty relationship would develop resulting in driver distraction.


99% of the time they probably don't need somebody in the cab with them and I don't see why a responsible HGV driver isn't capable of saying, 
"Shut up a second, lets concentrate and keep an eye out here."
If they're not perhaps they shouldn't be driving HGVs.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Is it also possible to argue that not all HGVs should be tarred with the same brush, how do the stats add up for tippers vs skip vs artic vs flat bed etc? If there is clearly a group which is presenting more of an issue than the others then they get targetted, you never know, maybe the people that are crying that their beans may go up by a penny a can will be able to sleep easy.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Stu Smith said:


> Driver need to collect a load in Manchester where would he pick up a second man and then drop him off, Would he drop him off before he loads or does this second man stop with him until he leaves Manchester then were does he drop him off,,Then the driver is to deliver in Birmingham he picks up yet another second man so he can deliver into Birmingham does this second man wait with him? Anybody who knows haulage this could be hours or does the second man walk back to where..
> The driver then needs to go back to base in Liverpool yet another second man..Who is paying for all these second men that would be needed for every HGV entering a town or City..
> Do not want to sound glib but its not economically feasible.


A couple of nights ago I stood in awe, not for the first time, as I watched the ISS fly overhead. I'm quite sure that getting an extra bod in the cab of a truck is not beyond the wit of man.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Talking of simple economics, who pays for the cost of the deaths? Apart from the heavy emotional pain of family and close ones, we all pay for them. The police, the ambulances, the cost of severe transport delays. So, when the next inevitable death comes along, why should all of us pay just so the construction trade can get off scot free? The simple economics is that the cost should be paid by the people incurring the expense. Simple economics.



Average cost of a road death is £1m

Keep trotting out "simple economics" is rather too simplistic.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Feb 2015)

The latest thought from that link:



> Anyone passing a lorry deploying this sign would automatically assume blame for any resulting collision.
> 
> newmercman
> Forum Moderator
> ...









Notice that's from a mod over there. Holy jumping jehosephat.


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3548999, member: 9609"]May be some sort of pilot scheme like they have for ships coming into port.? would be very very expensive and create massive delays, can't see any government risking the resulting inflation.

Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Pedestrians too. Lots of them. Just that cyclist are more coordinated and vocal about it.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Feb 2015)

"dan B said:


> Still not answering the question, perhaps I should ask it slightly differently: how much does the driver get paid to deliver 25 tonnes of whiskey and come back with blue pallets?
> 
> £40 a kilo x 25000 kg = £1000000 for the run down and (I'm assuming) no value for the run back: I don't think that doubling the wage bill from £10 to £20 per hour is going to make a massive amount of difference to the price that the consumer pays for a bottle.


It wouldn't even be a doubling of the wage. The 2nd person is likely to be less skilled so likely to be cheaper.

In any case if fuel is by far the largest cost then the recent price drops in fuel will probably pay for a second occupant.

and I would argue that the large haulage companies aren't doing enough to remove the risk that volatile fuel costs place on their business. 2ndd driver would pale into insignificance with this risk they run.


----------



## Dan B (21 Feb 2015)

400bhp said:


> It wouldn't even be a doubling of the wage. The 2nd person is likely to be less skilled so likely to be cheaper.


I figured the second person could be another qualified driver, then there would be much less problem with driving hours restrictions (and consequently less risk taking to arrive within the allotted hours)


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3548999, member: 9609"]May be some sort of pilot scheme like they have for ships coming into port.? would be very very expensive and create massive delays, can't see any government risking the resulting inflation.

Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
I've offered a potential clause to this up thread, do we need the extra man in every HGV? Let's expand that, do we need the extra man in every HGV in every town or city? How's, I dunno, Cardiff for HGV related KSIs or Coventry or Leeds. How about we look at some possible solutions and how they may be workable rather than simply saying they're unworkable.


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> I figured the second person could be another qualified driver, then there would be much less problem with driving hours restrictions (and consequently less risk taking to arrive within the allotted hours)


If the second person was a qualified driver, but his tachograph was set to "rest", then it would be a serious infringement of drivers hours regulations for him to be doing anything other than "resting".


----------



## Markymark (21 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> If the second person was a qualified driver, but his tachograph was set to "rest", then it would be a serious infringement of drivers hours regulations for him to be doing anything other than "resting".


Nah, just stick a magnet on it. Seems endemic.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> I figured the second person could be another qualified driver, then there would be much less problem with driving hours restrictions (and consequently less risk taking to arrive within the allotted hours)


Interestingly, well maybe not, I've been a drivers mate. When I was working for the agencies I had a call to go to a particular company the following day as they were collecting and moving an item which was of a size that they needed an extra person in the cab. I turned up, had a ride in the lorry, got out and checked we weren't going to hit anything on dodgy corners and that was that. I managed to do this with only a motorcycle licence and almost unbelievable without forming a close and lasting relationship with the driver.


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> A couple of nights ago I stood in awe, not for the first time, as I watched the ISS fly overhead. I'm quite sure that getting an extra bod in the cab of a truck is not beyond the wit of man.


No it's _not_, but it would be costly and ultimately it's not really a solution to the problem. As I posted earlier, I as a driver of ANY vehicle, am certainly not going to move on the say-so of a passenger. I want to see for myself that it is safe to manouevre, and if anything happens then it is down to me.

I don't intend to get drawn into yet another long drawn out debate about lorries on the road. When I am driving a lorry, I give cyclist as much space as is practical. When I am on my bike, I keep the feck out of the way of lorries. If others choose to do things differently, then they have to face the consequences.


----------



## Dan B (21 Feb 2015)

But it could be set to "available", right? I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but I'm fairly sure (as in, I have just looked at a government pdf that says) there are different regulations if there are two drivers in the cab


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> But it could be set to "available", right? I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but I'm fairly sure (as in, I have just looked at a government pdf that says) there are different regulations if there are two drivers in the cab


That would depend on how long he had been driving prior to swapping over to being second man, but generally double manned crews are either driving or resting. Economics again.


----------



## Dan B (21 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> I as a driver of ANY vehicle, am certainly not going to move on the say-so of a passenger. I want to see for myself that it is safe to manouevre, and if anything happens then it is down to me.


Certainly, but I expect you can still image situations where a second pair of eyes could be used to tell you that it's _not_ safe to manoeuvre.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> No it's _not_, but it would be costly and ultimately it's not really a solution to the problem. As I posted earlier, I as a driver of ANY vehicle, am certainly not going to move on the say-so of a passenger. I want to see for myself that it is safe to manouevre, and if anything happens then it is down to me.
> 
> I don't intend to get drawn into yet another long drawn out debate about lorries on the road. When I am driving a lorry, I give cyclist as much space as is practical. When I am on my bike, I keep the feck out of the way of lorries. If others choose to do things differently, then they have to face the consequences.


As Dan said, I would imagine that the role would more likely be to let you know that it was not safe to proceed.
I do have sympathy for the haulage industry, I speak to drivers on an almost daily basis, I regularly speak to transport managers and distributors.
I don't see how the addition of more and more mirrors and cameras makes the job of the drivers any easier, as has been said you can't look in all of them at the same time, but surely there is something that can be done that makes things safer for other road users without having to make things even more fraught for the drivers.
What that is I don't know, the drivers mate, glass panels on the bottom of the doors, out of hours deliveries, hubs for the distribution of goods by smaller vehicles? What I tend to see in these threads however is both the outright poo pooing of any ideas which are aired and the lack of alternative ideas being put forward by the very people that would likely have the best suggestions.


----------



## classic33 (21 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3548999, member: 9609"]May be some sort of pilot scheme like they have for ships coming into port.? would be very very expensive and create massive delays, can't see any government risking the resulting inflation.

Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
Its not just undertaking HGV/LGV's. Its also the legal passing of such vehicles, and being passed by them.
You're in the left-hand lane, a lorry in a right turn only lane indicating a left turn, which way is it going to go. If you're already alongside in the correct lane(for your direction of travel) where do you go when the lorry swings left?


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> What I tend to see in these threads however is both the outright poo pooing of any ideas which are aired and the lack of alternative ideas being put forward by the very people that would likely have the best suggestions.


This might not go down well, but what I see time and time again on similar threads on this site is the outright poo pooing of any idea that perhaps cyclists could do more to help themselves. There are a vociferous element who keep batting the ball back into the haulage industry court. The same ones who see no problem with cycling in the dark on public roads with no lights; apparently because drivers should be able to see them anyway. Try picking them out in the mirror of an artic, the back end of which is over 50' back from the mirror. Factor in some rain on the mirror glass and it's impossible to see anything that isn't properly illuminated.
The basic design of lorries isn't going to change any time soon. The attitude of some cyclists who think it's ok to come up their nearside is the main thing that needs to change. What about cyclists who end up on the nearside because a lorry has overtaken them? In that case the driver will surely know they are there as he has seen them as he passed them.


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> Its not just undertaking HGV/LGV's. Its also the legal passing of such vehicles, and being passed by them.
> You're in the left-hand lane, a lorry in a right turn only lane indicating a left turn, which way is it going to go. If you're already alongside in the correct lane(for your direction of travel) where do you go when the lorry swings left?


If the lorry is indicating left, you have to assume it's turning left! Sometimes they have to do that from the right lane if the turn is particularly tight. They should really cover both lanes to try and make that intention clear.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> This might not go down well, but what I see time and time again on similar threads on this site is the outright poo pooing of any idea that perhaps cyclists could do more to help themselves. There are a vociferous element who keep batting the ball back into the haulage industry court. The same ones who see no problem with cycling in the dark on public roads with no lights; apparently because drivers should be able to see them anyway. Try picking them out in the mirror of an artic, the back end of which is over 50' back from the mirror. Factor in some rain on the mirror glass and it's impossible to see anything that isn't properly illuminated.
> The basic design of lorries isn't going to change any time soon. The attitude of some cyclists who think it's ok to come up their nearside is the main thing that needs to change. What about cyclists who end up on the nearside because a lorry has overtaken them? In that case the driver will surely know they are there as he has seen them as he passed them.


I don't disagree with you, I do get a similar impression myself sometimes. I posted on a thread recently that I don't especially like being next to large HGVs in the car, never mind on the bike! I've also posted in this thread that i think road safety is the responsibility of all users.
Whilst I'm sure that basic design could change relatively easily if the will of the industry was there, what do you think could be done about cyclists coming up the inside?

Edit: just to add that I've made a number of suggestions in this thread and only one of them concerned basic HGV design.


----------



## classic33 (21 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> If the lorry is indicating left, you have to assume it's turning left! Sometimes they have to do that from the right lane if the turn is particularly tight. They should really cover both lanes to try and make that intention clear.


By which time you're on the left-hand side, in the correct lane.
Even assuming you know where they're going, where do you go when they start turning?


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> what do you think could be done about cyclists coming up the inside?


Sorry, no idea other than educating cyclists. Stickers along the lines of ones already used, advising cycles not to pass up the nearside, didn't go down well with some on here because it's a transfer of responsibility apparently.


----------



## Brandane (21 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> By which time you're on the left-hand side, in the correct lane.
> Even assuming you know where they're going, where do you go when they start turning?


You jump off your bike and leg it! Seriously; if the situation is that bad, that's exactly what I would be doing/trying to do.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (22 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Bill haulage insurers for the economic costs of road KSIs.


Won't the haulage companies then do what someone's already mentioned on this thread? In other words, when their insurance premiums rise, they'll simply pass the cost on to their customers, instead of making an attempt to fix any safety issue. Fixing any safety issue will just be considered too difficult. Oh yes, they'll no doubt go through the motions of analysing and 'fixing' any safety issues, but will they really do anything about it, given that it costs money to do so?

(Apologies for my cynicism)


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> This might not go down well, but what I see time and time again on similar threads on this site is the outright poo pooing of any idea that perhaps cyclists could do more to help themselves. There are a vociferous element who keep batting the ball back into the haulage industry court. The same ones who see no problem with cycling in the dark on public roads with no lights



The reason truck drivers are concentrated on are because:

1/

Unlit cyclists feature in just 2% of ksi rtcs

2/

It's lorry drivers who are doing the killing.

Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on where the danger comes from.


----------



## Leodis (22 Feb 2015)

I honestly think the boris bike is and was a bad idea. Having people with no cycling experience on the worlds worst roads on bikes was asking for trouble, its tough enough for experienced cyclists to stay alive on UK roads. In Leeds I have seen a cyclist on a Uni loan bike all over the place, I pulled up along side and asked him to use the path as he was going to get himself killed (he was carrying shopping on the handlebars as well with no lights).


----------



## Markymark (22 Feb 2015)

Leodis said:


> I honestly think the boris bike is and was a bad idea. Having people with no cycling experience on the worlds worst roads on bikes was asking for trouble, its tough enough for experienced cyclists to stay alive on UK roads. In Leeds I have seen a cyclist on a Uni loan bike all over the place, I pulled up along side and asked him to use the path as he was going to get himself killed (he was carrying shopping on the handlebars as well with no lights).


Nope. Tourists in London often killed I'm afraid. Saw one right outside my office. Looked left and crossed road. Lorry came from right. Stood no chance. Boris bikes seem to have a pretty good track record. Health Benefits are worth it.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

Leodis said:


> I honestly think the boris bike is and was a bad idea. Having people with no cycling experience on the worlds worst roads on bikes was asking for trouble



Not true, ksi collisions involving Boris bikes are incredibly rare. In fact, counter-intuitively, Boris bikes have a LOWER ksi collision rate than "normal" riders. This bears out the idea that more cyclists = safer roads, encourage cycling and the collision rate goes down. Riders on Boris bikes are safer than the rest of us!


----------



## Leodis (22 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Nope. Tourists in London often killed I'm afraid. Saw one right outside my office. Looked left and crossed road. Lorry came from right. Stood no chance. Boris bikes seem to have a pretty good track record. Health Benefits are worth it.



A quick Google search says now two deaths, 365 accidents & 12 serious (as of Feb 2013 so much higher now). I think hire bikes have a place, just not on city roads.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

Leodis said:


> A quick Google search says now two deaths, 365 accidents & 12 serious (as of Feb 2013 so much higher now). I think hire bikes have a place, just not on city roads.



This is the single most common mistake when debating the safety of cycling. "The accident rate tells us!" But it doesn't, otherwise Amsterdam would be considered "dangerous".


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Feb 2015)

victor said:


> Won't the haulage companies then do what someone's already mentioned on this thread? In other words, when their insurance premiums rise, they'll simply pass the cost on to their customers, instead of making an attempt to fix any safety issue. Fixing any safety issue will just be considered too difficult. Oh yes, they'll no doubt go through the motions of analysing and 'fixing' any safety issues, but will they really do anything about it, given that it costs money to do so?
> 
> (Apologies for my cynicisim)


If it were done crudely, yes, I believe you're right. There would have to be incentives to make safe vehicles, and vehicles fully equipped with all effective safety devices, cheaper. A safe vehicle should be cheaper to run than an unsafe one, and I was thinking of using insurance as a means of applying the different costs - costs which reflect more realistically the social price paid - to operators. 

Another idea might be to make the Health and Safety at work laws apply to the road, as this is in effect the truck's place of work. Under HS laws, as I understand it, you have an equal responsibility towards self and others. This responsibility is all very well as trucks crawl around the ''considerate constructors''' work site with banksmen ensuring that they're safely navigated past hurdles but to then unleash them on the roads, at higher speeds, with lower surveillance, amidst a public not usually equipped with hard hats and safety boots.....? That's the current madness.

In the end, I suppose, the aim is simply to find effective ways of getting the social cost to be reflected in the operators' costs. Along the lines of the ''polluter pays'' principle. Reduce the risk, reduce the cost.


----------



## Markymark (22 Feb 2015)

Leodis said:


> A quick Google search says now two deaths, 365 accidents & 12 serious (as of Feb 2013 so much higher now). I think hire bikes have a place, just not on city roads.


As opposed to the other rates for cyclists? Is there a place for us in london too?


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3549087, member: 9609"]It is illegal to pay less than the minimum, and there is a very good likely hood that the driver is on the minimum. If you can get 8 or 9 an hour for class one you're on a goodun[/QUOTE]
Mnimum wage and a significant material cost of haulage. 

Sorry but something isn't right there. 

I can't believe hgv drivers get paid minimum wage on average. It's a semi skilled job.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It's lorry drivers who are doing the killing.
> 
> Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on where the danger comes from.


It's cyclists who are being killed. 

Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on preventing them becoming victims. Self preservation tactics would be a good starting point.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

Youvee="glenn forger, post: 3549617, member: 27978"]Not true, ksi collisions involving Boris bikes are incredibly rare. In fact, counter-intuitively, Boris bikes have a LOWER ksi collision rate than "normal" riders. This bears out the idea that more cyclists = safer roads, encourage cycling and the collision rate goes down. Riders on Boris bikes are safer than the rest of us![/QUOTE]y
Youve used the word "rate" which implies a relative measurement, say per km travelled. Are these stats available split between Boris and non Boris?


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

So at the risk of over simplifying;
How do we prevent cyclists getting killed by HGVs?
We stop them riding up the inside.
How do we do that?
We can't.

Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> So at the risk of over simplifying;
> How do we prevent cyclists getting killed by HGVs?
> We stop them riding up the inside.
> How do we do that?
> ...



They can only do it for themselves. Personal responsibility, I believe it is called.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Feb 2015)

I am sure rather than wait for all the design, alteration, amendments to vehicle, rules and regulations to take place, we the cycling community can be more forthright, aggressive in educating our very own not be anywhere on the nearside of a HGV. You either are in front or back and its is matter of pacing oneself. I see it so many times and I shudder. 

Its is not matter of right of way but saving lives.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> They can only do it for themselves. Personal responsibility, I believe it is called.


And the ones that would ride up the inside even if someone was waving a red warning flag, a Darwin award maybe?
I'd rather see the responsibility shared somewhat.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (22 Feb 2015)

400bhp said:


> Mnimum wage and a significant material cost of haulage.
> 
> Sorry but something isn't right there.
> 
> I can't believe hgv drivers get paid minimum wage on average. It's a semi skilled job.


A quick google shows that they don't get min wage, in fact they seem to get paid more than nurses - which seems wrong.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> It's cyclists who are being killed.
> 
> Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on preventing them becoming victims. Self preservation tactics would be a good starting point.


It makes sense to use prevention
But not to concentrate on it. In doing so it implies there's a social acceptance that trucks have more of a right to be on the roads than cyclists and they have less responsibility to be safe.

Think serial killer on the loose in London. The public is warned to be extra vigilant but we expect the powers that be to be doing what they can to reduce the risk of another death ie by catching the killer. We wouldn't accept the powers that be shrugging their shoulders and simply saying serial killers are a fact of life.

Both trucks and cyclists have responsibilities to assess the risks and mitigate the dangers.

Unless as a society we
have come to accept the consequences of transporting things in big cities is trumped by the demands for those goods being transported?


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> It's cyclists who are being killed.
> 
> Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on preventing them becoming victims. Self preservation tactics would be a good starting point.



Why, if it's not a significant causal factor? Why start there if lack of experience is nowhere near a significant factor?



> The Department of Transport reports that in 2011 there were 22 cyclist deaths per billion km (620,000,000 miles), which works out as one cycling fatality expected every 620,000,000/22 = 28,000,000 miles [see page 234 of this report, eventually found through the shambolic chaos of the government statistics web-links]. Of course Boris-bike users are not average: they are probably somewhat higher risk since in London and include inexperienced tourists, compensated by being lower risk by not being very old or young, and cycling extremely heavy and slow bikes. They also rarely wear cycle helmets, but I am not getting into that tricky area .
> 
> If we very crudely assume these factors cancel out and Boris bike trips are of average risk, then to have a fatal accident after 34,000,000 miles is, unfortunately, not surprising. In fact, very roughly, there is perhaps less than 30% chance that it would have taken this long.



http://understandinguncertainty.org/fatality-risk-boris-bikes


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

400bhp said:


> Mnimum wage and a significant material cost of haulage.
> 
> Sorry but something isn't right there.
> 
> I can't believe hgv drivers get paid minimum wage on average. It's a semi skilled job.


I'll post my pay slip if you want. A typical shift for me last week:
Out of bed 0415 to be out the house for 0500. Drive 35 miles to Glasgow to start shift at 0600 (petrol cost approx £5).
Class 1 (artic) shift, drive to Aberdeen and back. Finish shift at 1545. Lose 45 minutes pay for unpaid break, despite it being a legal requirement. Drive 35 miles home, another £5 in petrol.

Pay = 9 hours at £8.50 per hour (quite a generous company, usually it's 8.00, or 7.00 if non artic, i.e. tipper!). 
Gross pay = 76.50
20% tax = 15.30 (basic rate as second income).
NI = 4.20 approx
Net pay = £57
Petrol = £10

So my efforts for the day made me £47 better off, and I worked a 9hr 45min shift for that.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> So two man crewing would not be a significant additional cost then.


You better ask the haulage company that, their view may differ by the time they pay holiday pay and employers NI contribution, and whatever other hidden costs there might be in taking on another employee. They won't even employ enough *drivers* to cover the work, hence why agency drivers like myself fill the gaps!


----------



## summerdays (22 Feb 2015)

He recent discussion on this thread has been about cyclists going up the side of a lorry near junctions which is really stupid and needs an ad campaign on TV to get to more people. However that isn't the only way lorries have killed cyclists, there are deaths where the cyclist was in front of the lorry. It is not the cyclists at fault in a number of those occasions so what should be done to prevent those deaths.

I've had a couple of close misses myself and each time the lorry was behind me before they made a stupid manoeuvre.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> So two man crewing would not be a significant additional cost then.


Filshill cash and carry in Glasgow no longer employ "van boys" on cost grounds, so I'm guessing that the two man crew thing is a non starter.

Van boys were there to assist drivers with the heavy manual work involved in unloading lorries when doing shop deliveries, as their clients are usually corner shops without proper loading bays. "Hand ball" it is known as, and bloody hard graft it is! High value loads involving fags and booze too, so they helped with security. Now it's all down to the driver, with inevitable results. Robberies have sky-rocketed.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

summerdays said:


> He recent discussion on this thread has been about cyclists going up the side of a lorry near junctions which is really stupid and needs an ad campaign on TV to get to more people. However that isn't the only way lorries have killed cyclists, there are deaths where the cyclist was in front of the lorry. It is not the cyclists at fault in a number of those occasions so what should be done to prevent those deaths.
> 
> I've had a couple of close misses myself and each time the lorry was behind me before they made a stupid manoeuvre.


Exactly, it's all shared responsibility until it comes to the sharing part, then it's not my problem guv.


----------



## gavintc (22 Feb 2015)

All this talk about a 2nd crewman, misses the point that the second seat in an LGV is not optimised to give good visibility. The mirrors are aligned for the driver. The seat is typically inward from the window, a 2nd man is not going to be able to see much, certainly not in the important zone, below and to the rear of the cab. And, as someone has already pointed out; legally the passenger is just a passenger - no authority to give direction.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

gavintc said:


> All this talk about a 2nd crewman, misses the point that the second seat in an LGV is not optimised to give good visibility. The mirrors are aligned for the driver. The seat is typically inward from the window, a 2nd man is not going to be able to see much, certainly not in the important zone, below and to the rear of the cab. And, as someone has already pointed out; legally the passenger is just a passenger - no authority to give direction.


Maybe they could lean out of the window?


----------



## gavintc (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Maybe they could lean out of the window?




Are you for real?


----------



## Profpointy (22 Feb 2015)

summerdays said:


> He recent discussion on this thread has been about cyclists going up the side of a lorry near junctions which is really stupid and needs an ad campaign on TV to get to more people. However that isn't the only way lorries have killed cyclists, there are deaths where the cyclist was in front of the lorry. It is not the cyclists at fault in a number of those occasions so what should be done to prevent those deaths.
> 
> I've had a couple of close misses myself and each time the lorry was behind me before they made a stupid manoeuvre.



quite !

I've had a big van & digger-on trailer half overtake me then pull in beside me. I only just managed to stop in the 18" of space left. This is the closest call I've had in 40+ years cycling. Left hookings & incidents like i mentioned are far more hazardous with trucks and larger vehicles than cars - partly because the driver, albeit better trained, is less able to see, and partly because evasive action by the cyclist is so much harder - and being biffed off by a car, is likely not as bad as going under the wheels of a truck. 

That said, I have also seen a goodly number of cyclists cycling up the inside of trucks, even obviously left turning ones - which is just nuts.

Suggestions for improvements - I must admit I'm skeptical about all the extra mirrors and cameras - but my suggestion is get rid of cycle lanes. Yes, really ! These encourage cyclists to be in totally the wrong place on the road , and encourage drivers, of all types of vehicle, to see cyclists as not part of the traffic - or not see them at all. At the very least it encourages drivers to pass very very close - after all they're inside their white line - never mind that the poor cyclist then has about of thou' of clearance.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

gavintc said:


> Are you for real?


It was a simplistic answer to a rather simplistic non problem.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Maybe they could lean out of the window?


And obstruct the drivers view in the mirror? I know what I'd be saying to the passenger!!!


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane: 3549731 said:


> I'll post my pay slip if you want. A typical shift for me last week:
> Out of bed 0415 to be out the house for 0500. Drive 35 miles to Glasgow to start shift at 0600 (petrol cost approx £5).
> Class 1 (artic) shift, drive to Aberdeen and back. Finish shift at 1545. Lose 45 minutes pay for unpaid break, despite it being a legal requirement. Drive 35 miles home, another £5 in petrol.
> 
> ...


Im not sure of your point as you get paid more than minimum wage


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

gavintc said:


> All this talk about a 2nd crewman, misses the point that the second seat in an LGV is not optimised to give good visibility. The mirrors are aligned for the driver. The seat is typically inward from the window, a 2nd man is not going to be able to see much, certainly not in the important zone, below and to the rear of the cab. And, as someone has already pointed out; legally the passenger is just a passenger - no authority to give direction.


Perhaps you're correct. None of us are experts here or have thought about it long and hard enough. We are just interested enough to think of solotions to a problem. 

But perhaps in the future lgvs could be designed differently and perhaps the law could be changed no?


----------



## summerdays (22 Feb 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Suggestions for improvements - I must admit I'm skeptical about all the extra mirrors and cameras - but my suggestion is get rid of cycle lanes. Yes, really ! These encourage cyclists to be in totally the wrong place on the road , and encourage drivers, of all types of vehicle, to see cyclists as not part of the traffic - or not see them at all. At the very least it encourages drivers to pass very very close - after all they're inside their white line - never mind that the poor cyclist then has about of thou' of clearance.


Problem is even if you got rid of the cycle lanes that's where many of the same cyclists who would go up the side of a lorry would cycle on the road anyway.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Once again, the way things are now is not the way they have to remain. The second person could have their own mirrors, they could monitor a set of CCTV images.


Are you deliberately ignoring the posts regarding cost factors? 
Is it too much to ask that the likes of you, a self confessed MGIF cyclist and nearside of truck gambler, just refrains from such stupidity?


----------



## Profpointy (22 Feb 2015)

summerdays said:


> Problem is even if you got rid of the cycle lanes that's where many of the same cyclists who would go up the side of a lorry would cycle on the road anyway.



it would be a start though, and would reduce, albeit not prevent some of the other problems. At least it wouldn't actively encourage the more naive amongst us to be in a totally stupid place, and maybe even reduce the vehicle-caused risks a bit.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Are you deliberately ignoring the posts regarding cost factors?
> Is it too much to ask that the likes of you, a self confessed MGIF cyclist and nearside of truck gambler, just refrains from such stupidity?


Pretty harsh. You have guessed at the cost hinderance yourself as you have openly stated.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

400bhp said:


> Pretty harsh. You have guessed at the cost hinderance yourself as you have openly stated.


And given a known example of where two man crews were stopped on cost grounds.
Of course it's going to be a significant cost! Just because my actual take home pay is the sum total of fark all, doesn't mean to say that I am not actually costing the haulage operator a fair bit of cash. Multiply that across the number of lorries operated by some of these companies and it mounts up. It's a cut throat industry and margins are tight. Fuel costs have dropped, and all that means is that customers have demanded a drop in price of transporting goods. It's not going into Eddie Stobart's pocket!


----------



## Markymark (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3549773, member: 9609"]that is just purely and simply bad driving and it is about time the police and courts stamped it out. There was a video earlier on in this thread of such a pass and that driver should just loose his licence.
@0-markymark-0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfQbWNw3jY[/QUOTE]
Police involved with that one. Letter to tropifruit threatening their license. My mistake was contacting the company as plice said they couldn't persue driver after that. Hopefully driver got bollocked.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> You did, and then contradicted it with the remainder of the post where you illustrated the downside of the decision.


Contradicted?
I was merely trying to demonstrate what you are up against if you think haulage companies will employ extra staff unless absolutely forced to do so. They don't care about the downside; they aren't the driver who is having to do the job of van boy as well, and they aren't the driver being robbed at knife point in some Glaswegian ghetto.
Given that, do you really think they will employ someone to sit and watch for people who should know better, coming into close quarters with a lorry? Especially when it really IS NOT the answer to the problem! 

So much for not getting drawn into this ..... it's Sunday and I need to get things done.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3549830, member: 9609"]fuel costs is immediately swallowed up by the customer paying lower rate to have his goods shifted

Hauliers only pay the drivers with the greatest of reluctance, they won't be paying for a second man any time soon - it would need to be a law change and that is never going to happen.[/QUOTE]
Nope. It entirely depends upon many factors, and doesn't necessarily end up in the consumers pocket.

no different to a price rise in petrol.


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Contradicted?
> I was merely trying to demonstrate what you are up against if you think haulage companies will employ extra staff unless absolutely forced to do so.


What you've demonstrated quite successfully is that haulage companies don't give a shoot about anything except the bottom line, not even the safety of their own employees, much less the road-using public. On which basis, why do we allow them to operate?


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3549886, member: 9609"]you seem to have accidentally snipped out the first few words of what I said, and changed its meaning, should have started with "The reduction in"[/QUOTE]

No? You said the reduction fuel costs is immediately swallowed up by the consumer.

it simply isnt true. Goods prices are not perfectly correlated to the price of fuel.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Especially when it really IS NOT the answer to the problem!


So what is, and if it's to stop cyclists going up the inside how is that acheived?

[QUOTE 3549878, member: 9609"]its a waste of time trying to explain anything from the other side.[/QUOTE]

I don't see a lot of explaining, I see a lot of it won't work, but not explaining. The most honest answer I've seen for not having a two man crew is that it would be seen as an invasion of your personal space.
There have been a number of suggestions put forward for discussion, the majority of which have been ignored. Of those that haven't been we've been told that lorry design isn't going to change and that two man crews aren't going to happen, the explaining why bit is passing me by I'm sorry.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3549802, member: 9609"]yeah - that will be right - got a link

take a look at @Brandane post link- he is not making this sh!t up - no pay during breaks, £15 for overnighting in cab, all par for the course.[/QUOTE]
Www.indeed.co.uk

Then type in HGV driver £25000 and it fetched up over 100 jobs in a 25 mile radius.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Feb 2015)

just_fixed said:


> Www.indeed.co.uk
> 
> Then type in HGV driver £25000 and it fetched up over 100 jobs in a 25 mile radius.



ONS 2014 stats. £25k

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc205/index.html


----------



## w00hoo_kent (22 Feb 2015)

I realise that this is pretty much a TMN, but having read this thread through would it be possible to acknowledge that some of the deaths caused were not because some arse overtook the lorry up the inside while it was already turning?

And then maybe try and fix those? Only the opinion seems to be 'this only happens because nobbers are putting themselves in danger' and that really isn't the case. Can we show some respect to the cyclists that have been killed by no fault of their own and stop pretending the problem would disappear if cyclists just took a bit more care.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

just_fixed said:


> Www.indeed.co.uk
> 
> Then type in HGV driver £25000 and it fetched up over 100 jobs in a 25 mile radius.


Look into it in further detail and you will find that salaried drivers will most likely be working 11 days out of 14, and be away from home "tramping" in the truck, working up to 15 hours per day (the legal limit).
Doesn't sound quite so good now, does it?


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I realise that this is pretty much a TMN, but having read this thread through would it be possible to acknowledge that some of the deaths caused were not because some arse overtook the lorry up the inside while it was already turning?
> 
> And then maybe try and fix those? Only the opinion seems to be 'this only happens because nobbers are putting themselves in danger' and that really isn't the case. Can we show some respect to the cyclists that have been killed by no fault of their own and stop pretending the problem would disappear if cyclists just took a bit more care.


Fair point, but the OP was in reference to one particular incident in London which DID involve a left hook - a fatal accident where the degree of fault attributable to either party is as yet not known.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Look into it in further detail and you will find that salaried drivers will most likely be working 11 days out of 14, and be away from home "tramping" in the truck, working up to 15 hours per day (the legal limit).
> Doesn't sound quite so good now, does it?


They were hourly rates shown on the site not salaried.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

just_fixed said:


> They were hourly rates shown on the site not salaried.


£25000 per hour? I'm on my way!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Feb 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I realise that this is pretty much a TMN, but having read this thread through would it be possible to acknowledge that some of the deaths caused were not because some arse overtook the lorry up the inside while it was already turning?
> 
> And then maybe try and fix those? Only the opinion seems to be 'this only happens because nobbers are putting themselves in danger' and that really isn't the case. Can we show some respect to the cyclists that have been killed by no fault of their own and stop pretending the problem would disappear if cyclists just took a bit more care.


Regardless of the fault in any particular case, the fact remains that for every road mile travelled tippers, skippers and, to a lesser extent, artics will come out top of the kill list for cyclists. Now what is it about these vehicles that make cyclists suddenly behave like suicides? It happens far less often with cars, so what is it about car drivers that make them more able to avoid these suicides? Could it be that car drivers are better able to see what's going on around them? In addition, as they're smaller, they will become more accustomed to filtering bikes, particularly in cities. 

The individual responsibility for the latest fatality does not affect the fact that those really big things kill cyclists far more often than the averagely big things do. Which is why we should look at them first.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Fair point, but the OP was in reference to one particular incident in London which DID involve a left hook - a fatal accident where the degree of fault attributable to either party is as yet not known.



The op was a link to lorry drivers almost unanimously saying "it's all cyclists' fault" together with appeals for stickers that would absolve lorry drivers of any responsibility whatsoever. Not a single poster on that thread has even mentioned the LCC recommended training for lorry drivers. The rank prejudice and ignorance on that thread is depressing, these are so called professional drivers and they don't know what they're talking about. Most of them apparently believe injudiciously filtering is a main cause of death.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

400bhp said:


> ONS 2014 stats. £25k
> 
> http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc205/index.html


The same site says nurses are on £32k, for the sake of consistency:


just_fixed said:


> A quick google shows that they don't get min wage, in fact they seem to get paid more than nurses - which seems wrong.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> The same site says nurses are on £32k, for the sake of consistency:



Still a lot more than what you have said.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

just_fixed said:


> Still a lot more than what you have said.


If you won't take my word for it, with regards to what I take home on a typical shift, then there isn't a lot of point in continuing to debate the point. @User9609 has backed me up on this. There might be regional variations; I am only concerned with what I get paid.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3550081, member: 9609"]Back to the real world, Brandane sums it up in this post - he does however forget to mention he will need to fund his holiday pay, sick pay and pension contributions out of this.

I see from your link there is a class 1 in my area suggesting 850 - £1100 per week - I must go and do my cpc and start driving again lol[/QUOTE]
Hey, no need for the sarcasm, I'm only putting a link up that shows that there are jobs for drivers that pay a lot more than min wage.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> If you won't take my word for it, with regards to what I take home on a typical shift, then there isn't a lot of point in continuing to debate the point. @User9609 has backed me up on this. There might be regional variations; I am only concerned with what I get paid.


I only disagreed with your sweeping statement that all drivers earn min wage - quite clearly untrue. Both jobs available and the office statistics show it to be untrue.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> I can understand why you do not want to accept that you are the problem but you are. When you drive a lorry you are responsible for a large, heavy object that goes about the place at sped with restricted visibility. If they didn't exist already and you invented one from scratch today, do you think it would be allowed on our roads?


Part of the problem. The other part being the cyclist, in this case.

With one gone from the roads, the other would no longer have a problem. Thing is, which is easier to remove from the road?

We have Volvo and Renault now including equipment, in some of their car range, that can warn the driver about things they cannot see. Both also happen to make trucks and tractor units.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

just_fixed said:


> I only disagreed with your *sweeping statement that all drivers earn min wage *- quite clearly untrue. Both jobs available and the office statistics show it to be untrue.


Really? You'll need to point me towards that post, as I can't remember making that claim. Here is what I DID post though:


Brandane said:


> and all this for the princely sum of between £8.00 and £9.00 per hour plus maybe £15 "night out" money


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3550092, member: 9609"]and as Brandane pointed out in his post it was with a generous company, it really is a brutal industry and it's getting worse. And as I pointed out in an earlier post there are jobs that you may get[B[ 25K per year [/B]but they are few and far between.[/QUOTE]
Per year! What happened to the per hour jobs?


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> Quicktemp could and have done in the past.
> Out of that you're responsible for paying your own tax, NI & providing your own PPE(legally required) and meet the cost of getting to the vehichle pick-up point.


Which is in Bagdhad, and you have to bring it back to the UK via Syria. This will be your trailer, driver:


----------



## theclaud (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> Part of the problem. The other part being the cyclist, in this case.


Er, no. Cyclists being on the road are not a 'problem'. Like pedestrians (but unlike lorries) they are there by right.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Feb 2015)

None of this talk about the haulage industry is at all encouraging. And I'd wager conditions are worse for construction hauliers.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> Er, no. Cyclists being on the road are not a 'problem'. Like pedestrians (but unlike lorries) they are there by right.


For the purpose of this thread they are both on the opposite side of the same coin.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Which is in Bagdhad, and you have to bring it back to the UK via Syria. This will be your trailer, driver:


Which might not be as bad as the Saints (Heathrow air freight company) trailer which I once had to take from Glasgow to Aberdeen and back. It was to commemorate some football tournament from years ago, and featured a giant sized version of this photo:





There were people hanging out of car windows giving me all sorts of hand signals that aren't part of the highway code!
They scrapped that particular get-up soon after realising they couldn't leave the trailer unattended anywhere outside England. Last I saw it had been replaced with a nice Concorde theme.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean here.


Simple enough.
Pick a coin and lay it on a flat, solid surface. You'll only ever see one side, until you look at the other.


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> Simple enough.
> Pick a coin and lay it on a flat, solid surface. You'll only ever see one side, until you look at the other.


I tried this on my glass coffee table. But I can still see both sides just fine


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

One for both sides to answer.
You are in primary at a five junction crossroad.
Right hand lane is a right turn only lane. Left lane is left turn, straight on and for the first right-hand exit(which just happens to be almost straight on).

Vehicle to your right is indicating left, as is the car behind you. Due to the pedestrian crossing in front of you, you can't see what's to the left of you.

Where do you go, given your intention is to stay on the same road, when the lights change?

Its not made up the junction exists and I went through it every day.


----------



## MarkF (22 Feb 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> None of this talk about the haulage industry is at all encouraging. And I'd wager conditions are worse for construction hauliers.



Agree and I am with Brandane on this issue. Hauliers collect from my unit every day, they are stressed out people, many looking to leave the industry, they are poorly paid, very, considering the skills and responsibility that are required to drive their vehicles safely. They are under enormous time pressure, not to lose money, not to lose their jobs........ all the extra safety gear mentioned in this thread won't have a significant impact until the underlying real reason (impossible drop targets with penalties) for the high % large vehicle/bike deaths is addressed.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> I tried this on my glass coffee table. But I can still see both sides just fine


Which is why I said a solid surface.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Yeah fine but, are you saying cyclists are one side and pedestrians the other on this score?


No, but you are.


----------



## theclaud (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> Which is why I said a solid surface.


Yeah it's amazing how Dan's coffee doesn't just sink straight through to the floor...


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> Yeah it's amazing how Dan's coffee doesn't just sink straight through to the floor...



That's a pretty opaque remark


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> Yeah it's amazing how Dan's coffee doesn't just sink straight through to the floor...


Probably because its in another container(cup).


----------



## Twinks (22 Feb 2015)

Profpointy said:


> It's a bit like the bollocks argument hauliers made for cheaper fuel. They are competing with other hauliers who have to buy the same fuel after all.



I believe the argument was to do with the number of trucks coming in from Europe where the tax and fuel situation allowed them an advantage




Brandane said:


> I don't intend to get drawn into yet another long drawn out debate about lorries on the road. When I am driving a lorry, I give cyclist as much space as is practical. When I am on my bike, I keep the feck out of the way of lorries. If others choose to do things differently, then they have to face the consequences.



Yep!



400bhp said:


> I can't believe hgv drivers get paid minimum wage on average. It's a semi skilled job.



It's a semi skilled job with a huge amount of responsibility but you can believe it. The figures look better when you factor in the hours that the average truck driver will actually put in. 65+ is common for my husband. And no he doesn't need to fiddle his tacho for this to happen and he does comply with the works time directive!!!! The tacho laws are an ass, they make for stressed, tired drivers without being fiddled.



gavintc said:


> All this talk about a 2nd crewman, misses the point that the second seat in an LGV is not optimised to give good visibility. The mirrors are aligned for the driver. The seat is typically inward from the window, a 2nd man is not going to be able to see much, certainly not in the important zone, below and to the rear of the cab. And, as someone has already pointed out; legally the passenger is just a passenger - no authority to give direction.



Many companies no longer allow a passenger in the cab at all anyway due to compliance with their insurance restrictions and the risk of driver distraction.



Brandane said:


> And obstruct the drivers view in the mirror? I know what I'd be saying to the passenger!!!


The man at the wheel needs to respond instantly to what he sees, not have it relayed to him with the chance of misinterpretation.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Feb 2015)

Having a second person is not going to make it on anyone's agenda including the experts. Expecting someone to watch over all the times for a one off event is poor planning as the success outlook is not robust enough. More likely that a ban on the heavier HGV or modification of the cab spec to lower the view. So lets not belabour something that will never make the cut.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Having a second person is not going to make it on anyone's agenda including the experts. Expecting someone to watch over all the times for a one off event is poor planning as the success outlook is not robust enough. More likely that a ban on the heavier HGV or modification of the cab spec to lower the view. So lets not belabour something that will never make the cut.


No you're right, let's not, and we've already been told in this thread that lorry design isn't going to change either, so that's that then, all sorted


----------



## gavintc (22 Feb 2015)

IMO, this thread has headed down a cul-de-sac with the 2nd person. However, the issue still remains that large trucks and most worryingly, the tipper trucks have safety issues on urban roads. Cracking that problem is going to take a challenge. Part of the solution is cyclist education - don't cycle up the inside of trucks. But, the FTA and RHA need to improve their safety record. IMO, part of this is that Cat C vehs (tippers) are driven by less experienced and less well qualified drivers than C+E (artics). We have heard from Bradane on his salary levels for a C+E driver. One can expect that the Cat C trucks are definitely on min wage - the wage level of a Tesco checkout person! 

The Traffic Commissioners need to take more action. The Operator's licence is an important licence which can be revoked by the Commissioner. Having been through my CPC a few years ago, I know how transport operators worry about the VOSA inspections and the impact on their business. I therefore suggest that this angle is most likely to get their attention. Perhaps a need for an HSE examination for any injury as a result of poordriving, demanding a need to review the operators licences.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> One for both sides to answer.
> You are in primary at a five junction crossroad.
> Right hand lane is a right turn only lane. Left lane is left turn, straight on and for the first right-hand exit(which just happens to be almost straight on).
> 
> ...


If you're in primary in the left lane waiting to go straight ahead, why is there a vehicle to your right indicating left?
Is it an HGV about to make a tight left turn and needs to use both lanes? Whatever; I would get far enough in front of it so that I could make sure the driver had seen me, by making eye contact. If that meant crossing the stop line at a red light then so be it, I'd take my chance with the law rather than risk not being seen by the driver.


----------



## gavintc (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> If you're in primary in the left lane waiting to go straight ahead, why is there a vehicle to your right indicating left?
> Is it an HGV about to make a tight left turn and needs to use both lanes? Whatever; I would get far enough in front of it so that I could make sure the driver had seen me, by making eye contact. If that meant crossing the stop line at a red light then so be it, I'd take my chance with the law rather than risk not being seen by the driver.


I agree completely. A car/van driver is typically at similar level, but in an LGV the driver can be obscured from someone to his left - just outside the mirror range.


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> No you're right, let's not, and we've already been told in this thread that lorry design isn't going to change either, so that's that then, all sorted


Also, any change in the law would require a change in the law.

You're right, let's just carry on pretending that more stickers will fix everything


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> Also, any change in the law would require a change in the law.


Errm; yes!


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> No you're right, let's not, and we've already been told in this thread that lorry design isn't going to change either, so that's that then, all sorted


Nice bit of selective reading there. I think what is being said is that the design of lorries currently on the road isn't going to change any time soon. The design will no doubt evolve as needs change, and if the designers/law makers identify a need for extra glass panels or whatever to improve a drivers field of vision, then it will happen. 
That's a long way off though. The current new lorries will be on the roads for years to come.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Feb 2015)

I think we all can agree without exception that more has been done and the current situation is not acceptable. Cycling by all accounts is growing and needs to be accommodated like it or not as a mainstream transport means.


----------



## psmiffy (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Is it an HGV about to make a tight left turn and needs to use both lanes?



The other question - Is it a vehicle of an inappropriate size for a tight urban environment - somewhere upthread someone suggested £1M as the average cost of a fatality - more like the bottom end - seriously injured are more and that is just the monetary aspects - social/family costs are difficult to put a number on - we have only been talking about the cyclist fatalities - for every fatality there are at many times more seriously injured - Ive never seen the stats wrt lorry versus pedestrians and private cars but I suspect they are not insignificant.

If haulage firms cannot come up with voluntary solutions then banning large vehicles from the center of our cities during peak or maybe even daytime hours (as in Dublin and Paris) must be considered


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

psmiffy said:


> The other question - Is it a vehicle of an inappropriate size for a tight urban environment


That's a whole new thread. As long as the vehicle is within any height/weight/width restrictions, then there shouldn't be a problem. Taking both lanes at smaller roundabouts and other tight turns is necessary, it's not possible to do otherwise.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

psmiffy said:


> If haulage firms cannot come up with voluntary solutions then banning large vehicles from the center of our cities during peak or maybe even daytime hours (as in Dublin and Paris) must be considered


I look forward to this happening. No more having to manouevre gingerly around parked cars, traffic jams and all the other chaos of city centres that we have to put up with on a daily basis. 
Not so sure that the various small businesses where we routinely collect and deliver to will welcome the news that they're going to have to employ a night shift though.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> Nice bit of selective reading there. I think what is being said is that the design of lorries currently on the road isn't going to change any time soon. The design will no doubt evolve as needs change, and if the designers/law makers identify a need for extra glass panels or whatever to improve a drivers field of vision, then it will happen.
> That's a long way off though. The current new lorries will be on the roads for years to come.


Unfortunately I think much of this thread has been a lesson in selective reading.
I'll ask again, what's a possible solution? If it's cyclist education, what does that involve? TV, newspaper and magazine adverts, how about big signs warning road users on the approach to historically bad junctions, maybe the signs could list the KSIs, redesign the worst junctions? Of course all this has a cost, so who pays? From what you've been saying it doesn't sound as though the haulage industry are going to be too keen on contributing.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> You glibly say "shouldn't be a problem" and then immediately describe one.


What's the problem? You cover the lanes you need on approach so that it's obvious what your intentions are.
If there IS a problem, it is with road design, where roundabouts have been made too small. I'm not talking cities either; trunk roads throughout the country have them.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I'll ask again, what's a possible solution?


How many times? As far as I'm concerned the solution is two pronged. Drivers give cyclists space; and cyclists return the favour and give lorries space. That means not going up their nearside.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> How many times? As far as I'm concerned the solution is two pronged. Drivers give cyclists space; and cyclists return the favour and give lorries space. That means not going up their nearside.


How many times? How do you tackle the education you believe both parties need?


----------



## theclaud (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> What's the problem? You cover the lanes you need on approach so that it's obvious what your intentions are.
> If there IS a problem, it is with road design, where roundabouts have been made too small. I'm not talking cities either; trunk roads throughout the country have them.


In other situations where vehicles are too big to use the infrastructure as designed, they are obliged to have flashing lights, additional signs, escorts, additional speed restrictions etc, in recognition of the additional danger they present. With urban lorries, on the other hand, we are simply expected to get out of their way as they swing dangerously across multiple lanes.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> In other situations where vehicles are too big to use the infrastructure as designed, they are obliged to have flashing lights, additional signs, escorts, additional speed restrictions etc, in recognition of the additional danger they present. With urban lorries, on the other hand, we are simply expected to get out of their way as they swing dangerously across multiple lanes.


Those additional restrictions apply whenever vehicles exceed a specified weight/height/width/length.
If a vehicle is within those limits then the infrastructure has been deemed to be sufficient unless there are signs to indicate otherwise.
If they "swing dangerously across multiple lanes" then that is bad driving rather than any design fault. I can take multiple lanes at junctions and make my intentions obvious to any road user who has been cycling/driving for more than 5 minutes.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> When you as a lorry driver come up to a red traffic light with a cyclist stopped at it, how far back do you stop?


Same as I would a car, i.e. I can see the whole bike plus a few feet of tarmac.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> If they "swing dangerously across multiple lanes" then that is bad driving rather than any design fault.



That's exactly what the driver did in the Bloomsbury cyclist fatality. He face no charges. He swung right over into the right lane before turning left, killing the cyclist.



> newmercman wrote used to run along the gutter in traffic to stop the suicidal self propelled gang from putting themselves into danger, it used to piss them off, but pissed off is better than squashed I reckon.



That's the same driver who wants a sticker saying he's not responsible for any cyclist who overtakes the lorry and gets killed. He's admitted using his vehicle to block filtering riders.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> How many times? How do you tackle the education you believe both parties need?


To be honest I have far greater concerns with the haulage industry than the cyclist problem. I don't drive in London, where the problem seems to be concentrated. Cyclists in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland are generally not an issue. We are a rare breed and tend to avoid cities anyway. 
My priorities and therefore solution searches are to do with other matters.


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

User said:


> So how come all the others pull up alongside?


Ask them, and see my last post.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> I don't drive in London, where the problem seems to be concentrated. Cyclists in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland are generally not an issue.


Now I find that interesting, do you think it's the cyclists or the drivers that make the difference?


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> ???? If cyclists are not an issue to drivers in my (outside London) experience; what is it you are asking?


Do the cyclists you encounter act differently around HGVs or do the HGV drivers act differently around cyclists? I think you've said in this thread that you do have experience of driving in London, and you also feel that London is where the problems are concentrated, so is it London cyclists or London drivers that are creating the problem?


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Now I find that interesting, do you think it's the cyclists or the drivers that make the difference?


I think it's the LACK of cyclists that makes the difference! There simply aren't enough of them in Glasgow or Scotland in general for it to be an issue.
Makes the cycling more pleasant too; drivers don't seem so wound up about cyclists. Or maybe I'm reading too much on here about conflict in other parts of the country, which IME isn't so bad. I've even survived cycling in London!


----------



## Mugshot (22 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> I think it's the LACK of cyclists that makes the difference! There simply aren't enough of them in Glasgow or Scotland in general for it to be an issue.
> Makes the cycling more pleasant too; drivers don't seem so wound up about cyclists. Or maybe I'm reading too much on here about conflict in other parts of the country, which IME isn't so bad. I've even survived cycling in London!


Gotcha


----------



## Brandane (22 Feb 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Do the cyclists you encounter act differently around HGVs or do the HGV drivers act differently around cyclists? I think you've said in this thread that you do have experience of driving in London, and you also feel that London is where the problems are concentrated, so is it London cyclists or London drivers that are creating the problem?


See updated reply above as I wasn't quick enough to delete.
I haven't driven a lorry in London, and hopefully never will. I detest the place even driving in a car, which I have done in the distant past. Cycling wasn't too bad but not something I would make a habit of. I just don't like London TBH, a depressing rat race of a place.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

theclaud said:


> In other situations where vehicles are too big to use the infrastructure as designed, they are obliged to have flashing lights, additional signs, escorts, additional speed restrictions etc, in recognition of the additional danger they present. With urban lorries, on the other hand, we are simply expected to get out of their way as they swing dangerously across multiple lanes.


And if this swinging dangerously across multiple lanes is due to the fact that the trailer will not bend, and the fact that you've failed to take this simple fact into consideration? Even when taking a right-hand turn, they may have to move to the left in order to be able to make the turn.

The junction described earlier isn't in a town/city centre. Its a junction of two "A" roads. Three spurs of which see heavy usage by all vehicle types.

@Brandane, since you're the only one to have offerred an answer. The crossroad design includes a pedestrian crossing at each set of lights, after which you'd be in the flow of traffic on the other "A" road. Its also what limits your view to the left.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Feb 2015)

I’m up for good quality cycle training, but frankly, “Exchanging Places” is not going to do any significant good: You have a bout a million occasional cyclists in London, half a million fairly frequent, and about quarter of a million on a given day. Getting through to them to change their behaviour is very difficult, and a lot of manoeuvres have to be made where the cyclist cannot avoid an HGV coming up from behind and/or coming along and overtaking and swinging to the left. Also, even experienced vehicular cyclists like myself who are fully aware of the issue make mistakes near lorries – we don’t deserve to die because of this.

After all, motorists have the vehicle and highway environment designed for their carelessness – why can’t cyclists and pedestrians?

https://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpre...ted-bike-lanes-prevent-lorry-deaths/#comments

Jenny Jones: Could you confirm the number of HGVs stopped by police in London for each year since 2000, the proportion that were found to be driving illegally, any breakdown of offences and the proportion that were stopped by specialist traffic police?

Answer from the Mayor: The MPS did not, until 2008, keep a record of the number of HGVs that were stopped. In 2008/09 3,000 vehicles were stopped (all types including lightweight vans). Of these 1329 were ‘trucks’ over 7.5 tonnes [note: vehicles over 7.5 tonnes are defined as HGVs]. Proportion found to be driving illegally: Offences were found in an average 80% of these vehicles.


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> And if this swinging dangerously across multiple lanes is due to the fact that the trailer will not bend


Then that would imply that the danger is intrinsic to the vehicle used rather than being due to the acts of its driver

But I don't see how that makes things any better.


----------



## classic33 (22 Feb 2015)

Dan B said:


> Then that would imply that the danger is intrinsic to the vehicle used rather than being due to the acts of its driver
> 
> But I don't see how that makes things any better.


A bike has a tighter turning circle, why?


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2015)

classic33 said:


> A bike has a tighter turning circle, why?


Because it's a legal requirement it be able to pull a wheelie outside the Savoy Hotel.

Or is that taxis? I always get them confused.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Feb 2015)

Until better truck design comes along, how about all the construction & haulage companies fitting these RFID receivers to their vehicles and supplying the cycle tags free or at, say, £5 each to all cyclists? (Apparently they're free to cyclists attending any of the Met's Exchanging Places events.)

This isn't to say that drivers should be relying on tech rather than their eyes and mirrors, however a bit of electronics could make all the difference.

• works on all HGVs, LGVs and PSVs, and also works through glass which means it can work on buses and coaches
• wireless sensors (10 year life)
• quick and easy to install (20 mins for a bus, 40 mins for HGV)
• cycle tag is motion activated to prolong battery life
• cycle tag battery life approximately 12-18 months
• Stormproof​

GC


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

Looks like a solution, 50m is a serious range for RFID. See, I'd happily shell out a fiver for the sender if the number of trucks equipped with them was sufficient. If I was being pessimistic then I'd have to pick up @User 's point and say I wonder if it would stop left hooks because of difficulties between differentiating between a bike already in the side street, and the bike right next to them. I guess it depends how sensitive it is. Also the cynic in me says 'when will it be standard fitment to Boris Bikes?

Having explored RFID for a different hobby, 50m really is a long way.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Feb 2015)

User said:


> With a stated 50m range, the thing would beep continuously in London.



I think that's just its operative range._ " If the signal strength reports from the side sensors received by the Cab Unit pass a certain threshold level, then an audible alert is sounded and the cab display shows the approximate location of the bicycle. "_ 

I imagine it's much like reverse parking sensors where the alert is stronger the closer the obstacle.

GC


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Feb 2015)

Seems useful - would need to be mandatory on foreign trucks wouldn't it? How feasible is that?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Take a car to France and you have to have spare bulbs, hi-viz waistcoats, warning triangle. I don't see why we can't impose similarly.



AND two breathalyser kits!

GC


----------



## vickster (24 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Take a car to France and you have to have spare bulbs, hi-viz waistcoats, warning triangle. I don't see why we can't impose similarly.


On cyclists? The rear triangle flashes?


----------



## Dan B (24 Feb 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Until better truck design comes along, how about all the construction & haulage companies fitting these RFID receivers to their vehicles and supplying the cycle tags free or at, say, £5 each to all cyclists?


"Look, I'm sorry the cyclist got crushed against my lorry, but they were extremely foolish to not have fitted an RFID tag to their bike. Also, not wearing a helmet"

Can't they use lasers or mm radar or something down the side of the bus to detect cyclists even when they aren't carrying RFID tags? Volvos have automatic kangaroo avoidance radar in their radiator grilles, maybe we could use that technology (though I guess the fursuits would get a bit hot)


----------



## snorri (24 Feb 2015)

Brandane said:


> It's cyclists who are being killed.
> Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on preventing them becoming victims. Self preservation tactics would be a good starting point.


On construction sites where site staff are all responsible adults and generally fit and able they have to go through rigorous training and safety awareness courses, but still potentially dangerous equipment is guarded so that even when a site employee does something daft, he/she is protected.
Why should we _not_ take steps to guard potentially dangerous equipment (lorries)operating in public areas(roads) shared by people of all ages with a wide range of mental and physical capabilities?


----------



## Profpointy (24 Feb 2015)

[QUOTE 3549773, member: 9609"]that is just purely and simply bad driving and it is about time the police and courts stamped it out. There was a video earlier on in this thread of such a pass and that driver should just loose his licence.
@0-markymark-0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfQbWNw3jY[/QUOTE]

'kinell !


----------



## PK99 (24 Feb 2015)

snorri said:


> On construction sites where site staff are all responsible adults and generally fit and able they have to go through rigorous training and safety awareness courses, but still potentially dangerous equipment is guarded so that even when a site employee does something daft, he/she is protected.
> *Why should we not take steps to guard potentially dangerous equipment (lorries)operating in public areas(roads) shared by people of all ages with a wide range of mental and physical capabilities?*




It would appear that the lorry in question was fully CrossRail approved, with all the required guards, mirrors etc. the driver would have been fully trained.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> All the warning devices known to man are of no use if the driver of a large vehicle simply isn't concentrating, or doesn't care what happens.



Should that stop us from implementing features that will alert drivers to a hazard? Lapses in concentration can affect any driver, even the good ones, and I don't see it as a bad thing to have a device that warns them of something they might otherwise have missed.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (25 Feb 2015)

LCC approved training? Worth remembering that Crossrail refused to name lorries turned away from site for being non-compliant with safety rules because "it wouldn't be fair"

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3327435.ece


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> I haven't said that. I was countering all the posts from people who drive lorries, or their relatives, saying (in some cases SHOUTING) 'Don't cycle up the inside of lorries' as if that alone would cure this problem.
> 
> A driver of an HGV who has a 'lapse of concentration' is in danger of crushing someone and killing them - the one in that clip didn't even see a car on a clear day. A cyclist who has a lapse of concentration is generally in danger of killing no one but themselves. When a cyclist is killed, some people like to talk about 'stupid people doing stupid things'. When a lorry driver kills a cyclist, people like to talk about 'a lapse of concentration'. The imbalance is not only in terms of damage inflicted, but also in terms of where we lay the blame, and it horrifies me.



Apologies for misunderstanding your statement, thanks for clarifying.

GC


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Feb 2015)

Here's the LCC's take on safer urban lorries: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-chal...er-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths


----------

