# Bike vs HGV



## Twilkes (15 Dec 2011)

Does anyone know if this a genuine TfL film? If it is I'm surprised I've not seen it more widely circulated:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jhcz5qLm-c


----------



## MickL (15 Dec 2011)

if it isnt it should be, just shows why cyclist should not go up the inside of lorries.


----------



## upsidedown (15 Dec 2011)

That's just made my blood run cold. I don't even go up the inside on straight bits of road, terrifying.


----------



## Bigsharn (15 Dec 2011)

Bentmikey took part in the other part of the video, it might be worth asking if he can dig the other half up... I *think* it was used as a campaign, but I'm not 100%.


----------



## Ste T. (15 Dec 2011)

I think it was circlating last year.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Dec 2011)

MickL said:


> if it isnt it should be, just shows why cyclist should not go up the inside of lorries.


Really? It shows me that the cyclist was quite visible, IF the lorry driver had bothered to pay attention. The cyclist could be seen going into the "blind spot"* , so if they hadn't come out it it's obvious that they must still be there, IF the lorry driver bothered to look.


* An excuse for poor design , if you can't see to operate heavy machinery safely , then don't operate it! Works for every other sort of industry!


----------



## cyberknight (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Really? It shows me that the cyclist was quite visible, IF the lorry driver had bothered to pay attention. The cyclist could be seen going into the "blind spot"* , so if they hadn't come out it it's obvious that they must still be there, IF the lorry driver bothered to look.
> 
> 
> * An excuse for poor design , if you can't see to operate heavy machinery safely , then don't operate it! Works for every other sort of industry!


 
You cannot expect the driver of a hgv to be looking at that mirror 100 % of the time when there are other road users safety that the lorry driver has to consider without having to keep an eye out all the time for some numpty creeping up on the nearside .
No its not very nice if someone gets crushed by a lorry and some drivers are bad but if your willing to put yourself in danger that way then you must be aware of the risks involved.
As is said time and again all road users should treat each other with respect and be aware of the limitations and vulnerabilities of each other, just as you want the lorry driver to give you a wide berth so you are not knocked off your bike or sucked under the wheels the cyclist should be aware of the difficulties drivers face and not put themselves in a position where this could happen.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Dec 2011)

cyberknight said:


> You cannot expect the driver of a hgv to be looking at that mirror 100 % of the time when there are other road users safety that the lorry driver has to consider without having to keep an eye out all the time for some numpty creeping up on the nearside ..


The driver was stationary, where else did he need to look? If the machine is unsafe to use then it shoudn't be used.


----------



## Dan_h (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> The driver was stationary, where else did he need to look? If the machine is unsafe to use then it shoudn't be used.


 
He could have been looking at the traffic lights for example, or one of a number of other things. I am sure most people don't sit and watch their nearside mirror constantly when waiting for the lights to change. Say what you like about the design of the trucks, the message is still the same, don't try to pass heavy vehicles on their left.


----------



## mr_cellophane (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> The driver was stationary, where else did he need to look? If the machine is unsafe to use then it shoudn't be used.


30% in one mirror, 30% in the other side, 30% watching for pedestrians crossing close to the front and 10% watching for the lights to change. Not forgetting that there are 2 mirrors each side to look into.
Now watch it again looking away for 2 seconds in every 3 and see if you notice the cyclist.


----------



## BlackPanther (15 Dec 2011)

A few points.

1/ There is no blind spot on modern lorries _*if*_ the mirrors are adjusted properly. The large mirror/smaller convex mirror, and downward facing kerb mirror should cover all angles. The very latest lorries also have a downward facing mirror which covers the front of the lorry so you can spot pedestrians. Mine doesn't, and I think they should be made a legal retrograde requirement. I always lean forward to check, as some numpty pedestrians do cross within inches of your bumper! Suicide!

2/ Although it's not clear if the driver did check his n/s mirrors, he definitely did not do the required over shoulder check on his n/s......which when I took my LGV test was a certain test failure.

3/ Yes I'm sure this was a safety video. For Christs sake never ever filter on the n/s. It's suicide to assume that all (or any) drivers are competent.


----------



## cyberknight (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> The driver was stationary, where else did he need to look? If the machine is unsafe to use then it shoudn't be used.


I think the other posts have pretty much summed it up.


----------



## fossyant (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Really? It shows me that the cyclist was quite visible, IF the lorry driver had bothered to pay attention. The cyclist could be seen going into the "blind spot"* , so if they hadn't come out it it's obvious that they must still be there, IF the lorry driver bothered to look.
> 
> 
> * An excuse for poor design , if you can't see to operate heavy machinery safely , then don't operate it! Works for every other sort of industry!


 
You are taking the p1ss...... Sorry mate but cyclist moved up and went out of sight of a big truck within a couple of seconds. THIS IS HOW CYCLISTS GET KILLED.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> He could have been looking at the traffic lights for example, or one of a number of other things..


 Where did he NEED to look?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Dec 2011)

fossyant said:


> You are taking the p1ss...... Sorry mate but cyclist moved up and went out of sight of a big truck within a couple of seconds. THIS IS HOW CYCLISTS GET KILLED.


They get killed by HGV drivers moving off not knowing what is in their "blind spot" , how the pedstrian,cyclist, car, motorcyclist , barrier, bollard etc... arrives in the "blind spot" is irrelelvant. If the operator of the machinery is not certain that it is safe to operate the machinery then he shoudn't be operating it. It's a simple ethos that is accepted in every other industry, why is the haulage industry the only one with apologists?


----------



## col (15 Dec 2011)

None of us can look everywhere at the same time, but Im sure we all do our best.
An ex colleague was pulling away from a stop, he did his nearside check which was clear, he then did his offside to start moving away, and as he moved someone ran into the side of his bus and was dragged under the rear wheel on his nearside in the seconds it took while he was watching for oncoming vehicles as he moved away. Would you say he should have seen them? Or maybe others put themselves into dangerous places and then blame the driver? If you can invent a way of looking near and offside at the same time while also looking ahead, then these things might not happen. Or maybe the people that put themselves in these positions are to blame, just maybe?


----------



## col (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> They get killed by HGV drivers moving off not knowing what is in their "blind spot" , how the pedstrian,cyclist, car, motorcyclist , barrier, bollard etc... arrives in the "blind spot" is irrelelvant. If the operator of the machinery is not certain that it is safe to operate the machinery then he shoudn't be operating it. It's a simple ethos that is accepted in every other industry, why is the haulage industry the only one with apologists?


It takes just a second or two for something to appear then dissapear into a blindspot if there is one. In that time a driver can be looking where he is going, avoiding other vehicles or even other cyclists. The lights need to be looked at, the driver needs to be looking the way he is going. there could be any number of things to take the drivers attention from one area or any area. If he looks to his nearside, what about his offside or even in front, What do you suggest?


----------



## beastie (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> They get killed by HGV drivers moving off not knowing what is in their "blind spot" , how the pedstrian,cyclist, car, motorcyclist , barrier, bollard etc... arrives in the "blind spot" is irrelelvant. If the operator of the machinery is not certain that it is safe to operate the machinery then he shoudn't be operating it. It's a simple ethos that is accepted in every other industry, why is the haulage industry the only one with apologists?


 
It may be irrelevant to the principle of safe design and operation of the lorry how a cyclist etc arrives in the blind spot, but please consider the actual world of traffic and then answer the following question.

Do you / would you filter on the near side of HGV's and Busses?


----------



## col (15 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Where did he NEED to look?


He probaly needed to look where he was looking at the time, and the time before that and the time before ect ect. Do you really think drivers of large vehicles want to run over someone? Thats why drivers suffer from fatigue and stress, your constantly looking and concentrating to minimise accidents.


----------



## upsidedown (16 Dec 2011)

If you put yourself in a dangerous situation it is not fair to expect the driver to get you out if it. Keep well away, might cost you a minute or two on your journey but so what ?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

upsidedown said:


> If you put yourself in a dangerous situation it is not fair to expect the driver to get you out if it. Keep well away, might cost you a minute or two on your journey but so what ?


If you have a piece of equipment that you know is dangerous to others, it is not fair to expect everyone else in the world to allow you to use it. Get your equipment/operating practices changed, it might cost you a penny or two ( which you will pass on) but so what?


----------



## Bayerd (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> If you have a piece of equipment that you know is dangerous to others, it is not fair to expect everyone else in the world to allow you to use it. Get your equipment/operating practices changed, it might cost you a penny or two ( which you will pass on) but so what?


 
I would have thought it's simpler and more effective to change the behaviour of cyclists to stop them filtering up the nearside of large vehicles. The message should be that we should cycle defensively rather than aggressively, which is no different to how drivers are taught to drive.

If the cyclist in the video hadn't filtered, he wouldn't have been squished.


----------



## fossyant (16 Dec 2011)

beastie said:


> Do you / would you filter on the near side of HGV's and Busses?


 
No, for the exact reason they can't see you.


----------



## Origamist (16 Dec 2011)

This film was staged and Bentmikey was involved (he was filming as well, IIRC). It was made in two parts.

I believe the film was not "officially" released by TFL. It was posted anonymously online earlier this year, but both vids were made private soon after.

This is another re-uploading of half of the film.

It's worth remembering that cyclists who are involved in collisions with HGVs are not, by any means, always undertaking on the left.


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> If you have a piece of equipment that you know is dangerous to others, it is not fair to expect everyone else in the world to allow you to use it. Get your equipment/operating practices changed, it might cost you a penny or two ( which you will pass on) but so what?


 
Well, kind of. Plenty of equipment in engineering shops for example can be dangerous. I use this as an example because I used to work in one. That is why there were rules about using it or approaching people while they were using it in order to stay safe. The same with the roads. Motorised vehicles moving around are dangerous, that is why there are rules both for the people operating them and those in close proximity to them. Follow the rules and you will be pretty safe. Don't follow the rules (e.g the cyclist filtering to the left of the heavy truck) and you are at least as responsible for the accident (if not more so) then the driver who flattens you.

At the end of the day what would you rather do? Take responsibility for your own safety, or rely on an unknown driver in a heavy vehicle with limited visibility to notice you in a position that you should not be in to begin with?


----------



## upsidedown (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> At the end of the day what would you rather do? Take responsibility for your own safety, or rely on an unknown driver in a heavy vehicle with limited visibility to notice you in a position that you should not be in to begin with?


 
that


----------



## scouserinlondon (16 Dec 2011)

I think we all need to get real here. The vast majority of HGV drivers regard themselves as professionals and try to operate at the highest possible standard. However the statistics clearly show that one of the most likely things to kill you as a cyclist in London is a truck. The whys and wherefores about whether or not a driver should see you are pretty irrelevant; if you collide with a truck you are likely to die.

Based on these simple facts I have the working assumption that for the sake of self preservation i am extremely cautious around HGVs I never go up the inside and frankly try to avoid overtaking them at all.

Yes HGV drivers need to take responsbility to drive safely. Yes, operators need to equip and maintain vehicles to a high standard. And yes, very often they don't do these things. But regardless of right or wrong, the simple fact is this; if a trucker hits you he'll go home at the end of the day. You on the other hand, won't.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> Well, kind of. Plenty of equipment in engineering shops for example can be dangerous. I use this as an example because I used to work in one. That is why there were rules about using it or approaching people while they were using it in order to stay safe.


Right, and do you set it up and run it in the middle of a _public place_ with no barriers to stop people approaching and no effective observation of them when they do? If that's not acceptable in your industry, why do we think it's ok for haulage?

(None of this should be taken as advice to go up the inside of one anyway, which I happily agree is a stupid idea. But so is feeding your fingers to a table saw, and yet engineering companies are still required to have rules about their use instead of just saying "you get what you deserve" - why do we not hold road users to the same standard?)


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Right, and do you set it up and run it in the middle of a _public place_ with no barriers to stop people approaching and no effective observation of them when they do? If that's not acceptable in your industry, why do we think it's ok for haulage?
> 
> (None of this should be taken as advice to go up the inside of one anyway, which I happily agree is a stupid idea. But so is feeding your fingers to a table saw, and yet engineering companies are still required to have rules about their use instead of just saying "you get what you deserve" - why do we not hold road users to the same standard?)


 
Although the road is a public place by choosing to cycle on it we are also choosing to follow the rules that govern the use of that road (or at least we should be!). Now I know that not everybody follows the rules properly whatever their choice of vehicle, but if they did the road would be safer for all road users. 

I don't believe that anyone getting run over by a truck "get's what they deserve" all I mean is that by putting yourself in a dangerous position then expecting another road user to notice you in that position is not a sensible or responsible thing to do.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Bayerd said:


> I would have thought it's simpler and more effective to change the behaviour of cyclists to stop them filtering up the nearside of large vehicles. The message should be that we should cycle defensively rather than aggressively, which is no different to how drivers are taught to drive.
> 
> If the cyclist in the video hadn't filtered, he wouldn't have been squished.


 
Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Right, and do you set it up and run it in the middle of a _public place_ with no barriers to stop people approaching and no effective observation of them when they do? If that's not acceptable in your industry, why do we think it's ok for haulage?
> 
> (None of this should be taken as advice to go up the inside of one anyway, which I happily agree is a stupid idea. But so is feeding your fingers to a table saw, and yet engineering companies are still required to have rules about their use instead of just saying "you get what you deserve" - why do we not hold road users to the same standard?)


 

Wot'E said


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Simpler for who exactly?
> 
> Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?


 
So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible? them for not looking or you for bringing your cycle into that environment and not making sure that you could not possibly hit anyone?


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Simpler for who exactly?
> 
> Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?


True.

It is also true that anyone _choosing_ to be in the same environment has a responsibility for their own safety. The Health & Safety At Work Act (for example), makes it clear that employees have responsibilities (such as not to put themselves into dangerous situations) as well as that a duty of care exists for employers'.

Either way, it will be no comfort when lying in hospital or the morgue, to know that you were in the right.

Cyclist vs HGV only has one outcome and the smart money isn't on the cyclist.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible? them for not looking or you for bringing your cycle into that environment and not making sure that you could not possibly hit anyone?


 
You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?


"Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?"


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
> Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, I believe that they must take reasonable precautions to make it safe, however everyone else choosing to use the road must also take responsibility for their own safety. It is the reason that red light jumping, riding against the flow of traffic and ninja cycling are generally frowned upon. By indulging in these things we are offloading our responsibility onto someone else without their knowledge or agreement, which is basically a selfish act. Filtering inside a heavy vehicle and expecting them to see us is, in my opinion, in much the same category.

If we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion then all forms of road transport (including the bicycle) would have to be banned as they COULD cause injury to other road users. Given that this is clearly not the answer then we must accept that these vehicles can be dangerous if we do not behave properly and responsibly around them and act accordingly.


----------



## gaz (16 Dec 2011)

BlackPanther said:


> A few points.
> 
> 1/ There is no blind spot on modern lorries _*if*_ the mirrors are adjusted properly. The large mirror/smaller convex mirror, and downward facing kerb mirror should cover all angles. The very latest lorries also have a downward facing mirror which covers the front of the lorry so you can spot pedestrians. Mine doesn't, and I think they should be made a legal retrograde requirement. I always lean forward to check, as some numpty pedestrians do cross within inches of your bumper! Suicide!


Claiming there is no blind spot on a lorry is pretty bold. A lorry which has a separate cab unit will have huge blind spots when it is turning.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible?


The cyclist. Except in absurdly unlikely scenarios like where the pedestrian is hiding behind a bush and jumps straight in front of you when you're three feet away, perhaps, but in general: it's a place where pedestrians are to be expected, and the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> The cyclist. Except in absurdly unlikely scenarios like where the pedestrian is hiding behind a bush and jumps straight in front of you when you're three feet away, perhaps, but in general: it's a place where pedestrians are to be expected, and the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority


 
I am not convinced that the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority, which bit of the highway code mentions "squishy"?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> No, I believe that they must take reasonable precautions to make it safe, however everyone else choosing to use the road must also take responsibility for their own safety. It is the reason that red light jumping, riding against the flow of traffic and ninja cycling are generally frowned upon. By indulging in these things we are offloading our responsibility onto someone else without their knowledge or agreement, which is basically a selfish act. Filtering inside a heavy vehicle and expecting them to see us is, in my opinion, in much the same category.
> 
> If we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion then all forms of road transport (including the bicycle) would have to be banned as they COULD cause injury to other road users. Given that this is clearly not the answer then we must accept that these vehicles can be dangerous if we do not behave properly and responsibly around them and act accordingly.


 
Your argument (and it's extrapolation to the ridiculous) is the same one that has been used by engineering, mining,papermaking, contruction and myriad other industries for decades, if not centuries " Oh we can't make it safer it would be too expensive/hard/time consuming, etc etc, etc... And any way it's the victim's fault, they should have been more careful..."

Why is the haulage industry the only one to have apologists ?

Of the 15 or so cyclists killed this year, over half of them have been victims of lorries in London. Considering how many other vehicles there are in this country,that tells me that there is a problem with lorrys not cylists. The crushed barriers and toppled bollards that have been destroyed by lorrys ( where no cyclist is invloved) also reinforces this. The problem is not one that cyclists end up in a "blind spot" ( whether they get there themselves or are put there by ovetaking) , the root of the problem is that there is a "blind spot" and that the operators ( in both senses of the word) of the vehicle are quite sanguine about moving the vehicle without checkignn that it is safe to do so. Safe in this instance for anything in the so called "blind spot" whether that thing is a bollard, a railingor a cyclist.

Now you can go on blaming the victim ( especially as they may not be alive to speak up for themselves) or you can stand back and look at what causes the problem, and lay the onus upon that to resolve it. I prefer the go for the latter, the problem is HGVs being moved without the operator knowing 100% that it is safe to do so, and the problem is owned by the owners of the HGVs and their employees, any other interpritation is a retrograde step in hundreds of years of safety legislation.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> I am not convinced that the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority, which bit of the highway code mentions "squishy"?


You don't need a highway code to tell you that, a moral code will do fine.


----------



## subaqua (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Right, and do you set it up and run it in the middle of a _public place_ with no barriers to stop people approaching and no effective observation of them when they do? If that's not acceptable in your industry, why do we think it's ok for haulage?
> 
> (None of this should be taken as advice to go up the inside of one anyway, which I happily agree is a stupid idea. But so is feeding your fingers to a table saw, and yet engineering companies are still required to have rules about their use instead of just saying "you get what you deserve" - why do we not hold road users to the same standard?)


 
reasonably practicable taking into account time cost benefit and effort. thats why we don't in industry got to the nth degree to make something safe we asses the risks and control measures .

the control measure here is the warning signs and people not being twonks,thinking going up the inside of a HGV is in any way, shape or form a sensible course of action. even with the do not pass in the inside signs you still get idiots doing it who then have all ands sundry saying how dangerous it is that lorries are on the roads. its a really simple action to take DO NOT RIDE UP THE INSIDE OF THE HGV , regardless of what the cyle lane directs you to.
sadly as in industry there are those who think the rules do not apply to them and will do what they can to remove the control measure. people who defeat these mechanisms really do "get what they deserve".


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> reasonably practicable taking into account time cost benefit and effort. thats why we don't in industry got to the nth degree to make something safe we asses the risks and control measures .
> 
> the control measure here is the warning signs and people not being twonks,thinking going up the inside of a HGV is in any way, shape or form a sensible course of action. even with the do not pass in the inside signs you still get idiots doing it who then have all ands sundry saying how dangerous it is that lorries are on the roads. its a really simple action to take DO NOT RIDE UP THE INSIDE OF THE HGV , regardless of what the cyle lane directs you to.
> sadly as in industry there are those who think the rules do not apply to them and will do what they can to remove the control measure. people who defeat these mechanisms really do "get what they deserve".


 

its a really simple action to take DO NOT MOVE THE HGV UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO , regardless of what the employer/customer directs you to.

Why is your version any more valid?


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> You don't need a highway code to tell you that, a moral code will do fine.


 
No, however squishy you are there are situations where you DO NOT have priority. Pulling out onto a roundabout for example. Cars coming from your right have priority, you should stop regardless of which moral code you subscribe to. Failure to stop could lead to your injury or even death but if you are convinced that the fact that you are a vulnerable road user gives you priority then by all means keep right on going!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Dec 2011)

Easy answer - As of tomorrow morning, all HGV's are banned.
Reason being that the drivers don't have 360 degree vision.

Just gives us time to run to the shops before all deliveries are cancelled.


----------



## gaz (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Of the 15 or so cyclists killed this year, over half of them have been victims of lorries in London. Considering how many other vehicles there are in this country,that tells me that there is a problem with lorrys not cylists.


I'm not sure if this is just the way it reads or if it was a mistake.
But the deaths in London cyclists alone are at 16 mark. There have been many deaths of cyclists over the whole country.


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> its a really simple action to take DO NOT MOVE THE HGV UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO , regardless of what the employer/customer directs you to.
> 
> Why is your version any more valid?


 
I think it comes down to which is more realistic. very few drivers will move their vehicles if they believe it is safe to do so, but how can they be 100% sure? In the time it takes to check that are no sneaky pedestrians stepping off the kerb in front of you, and that all the traffic ahead has actually stopped at the lights (including RLJ cyclists) a cyclist could have sneaked up the left of the truck... in a utopian world the driver would know 100% that it is safe, but in the real world accidents DO happen. As cyclists if we can reduce the number of cycling deaths involving trucks through modifying our own behaviour slightly then I for one am all for that.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> I'm not sure if this is just the way it reads or if it was a mistake.
> But the deaths in London cyclists alone are at 16 mark. There have been many deaths of cyclists over the whole country.


 
Sorry it was a mistake , using two seperate resources and different timeframes.

I was using the avg no of deaths for the country ( from memory) of 14* and a recent newspaer report that mentioned 7 out of 8 lorry/cyclist deaths involving tippers/concrete lorries. Serves me right for rattling it off without checking my sources.



* HAs it really shot up to 16 in London alone????? That really is worrying.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Easy answer - As of tomorrow morning, all HGV's are banned.
> Reason being that the drivers don't have 360 degree vision.
> 
> Just gives us time to run to the shops before all deliveries are cancelled.


 
Easier answer, have a 2nd man in the cab.
Even easier answer, just blame the victims and continue on as usual.


----------



## Twilkes (16 Dec 2011)

Origamist said:


> This film was staged and Bentmikey was involved (he was filming as well, IIRC). It was made in two parts.
> 
> I believe the film was not "officially" released by TFL. It was posted anonymously online earlier this year, but both vids were made private soon after.
> 
> ...


 
That's what I was looking for, thank you. It's a pretty effective film for making you think, but the fact it was staged makes the initial caption a bit disingenuous - I think that would have reduced the film's impact, once it was known. It's almost a shame it's faked, as the fact that the driver/cyclist's family would have had to agreed for the footage to be shown was what made me pay more attention than other cycling videos I've seen.

I've read all the other comments too, and I guess everyone makes their own decisions when they're on their bikes about where to cycle, but I know which one I make when I'm in that situation. If I walked into a doctor's waiting room behind a fat man, I wouldn't jump into his chair just before he sat down.

Thanks,

Twilkes


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (16 Dec 2011)

As a driver I fully understand that not every driver (myself so very included) does not see all things at all times (same when Im on the bike). In my personal opinion its unrealistic to expect the same thing from eveyone else - though I do fully expect them to try and maintain a high level of concentration, I also except (esp on the roads) that other distractions on and around the road can direct their attention elsewhere which may result if missing the cyclest whos doing something they shouldnt.


----------



## MacB (16 Dec 2011)

there's no shortage of 'cycle facilities' that will lead, and via ASLs encourage, cyclists to scoot up the inside of vehicles at lights. I've caught myself doing it when following an on road cycle lane.

Either we stop that alltogether and ditch cycle lanes or we have them treated correctly as another lane of traffic. In the same way as if a vehicle turned left from the outside lane of a dual carriageway they would be at fault for hitting anything in the inside lane.


----------



## PK99 (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Really? It shows me that the cyclist was quite visible,


 
for about 3 seconds in a small section of the field of view the driver has to scan


----------



## subaqua (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> its a really simple action to take DO NOT MOVE THE HGV UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO , regardless of what the employer/customer directs you to.
> 
> Why is your version any more valid?


 
so thats static vehicles as nothing inm life is safe its just how big the risks are . riding up the inside is a fairly big risk. not to mention so stupid as to be Darwinian.


----------



## PK99 (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
> Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?
> 
> 
> ...


 
It is still possible even, if all appropriate guards and mirrors are fitted to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safe operation of the HGV, that some f***wit of a cyclist will deliberately place themselves at the point of maximum danger (which is what the cyclist in the video did).


----------



## PK99 (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
> Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?
> 
> 
> ...


 
It is still possible even, if all appropriate guards and mirrors are fitted to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safe operation of the HGV, that some f***wit of a cyclist will deliberately place themselves at the point of maximum danger (which is what the cyclist in the video did).


----------



## PK99 (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> , the problem is HGVs being moved without the operator knowing 100% that it is safe to do so,.


 
100% safety is impossible to achieve -


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> It is still possible even, if all appropriate guards and mirrors are fitted to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safe operation of the HGV, that some f***wit of a cyclist will deliberately place themselves at the point of maximum danger (which is what the cyclist in the video did).


 
"so far as is reasonably practicable" the newprint industry used to use the same sort of weasel words when dreaming up excuses, for why they coudn't stop killing/maiming people, so did construction, mining, engineering, steelmaking... why are there still so many apologists for the haulage industry? The next time you see a crushed bollard on a corner, ask yourself " Was it the bollards "fault" that it was crushed"? If you come to the conclusion that the bollard was not to blame , then you will then need to consider ( or just shrug and say "not my problem") what caused the problem, that will eventually lead you to the realsiation that it was the moving vehcile , not the bollard that was the cause. Now replace the bollard in your thought eperiment with a cyclist/pedestrian, if it was not the fault of the bollard for being there, and was the fault of the operator of the vehicle how does it sudden;y become the cyclis/pedestrain's fault?


Or if you want to reverse the though experment...


If the cyclist is a "farkwit" , is the bollard that woudl get crushed also a" farkwit", or again is the problem coming from somewhere else?


----------



## MacB (16 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> 100% safety is impossible to achieve -


 
Not true, ban HGVs from roads open to cyclists and vice versa and you have instant HGV/cyclist 100% safety.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> 100% safety is impossible to achieve -


 You are treading down a centuries old path of excuse hunting. "it can't be done" so we won' t bother trying! "It will be too expensive" so we won't bother trying! "No body else wants it" Apart from the dead people who can't speak!

All the same arguments were trotted out by other industries in the past, there is nothing new or suprising ; apart from that is cyclists making excuses for the haulage industry, if it was industry insiders making excuses I could understand it. You aren't involved in the haulage industry by any chance?


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You are treading down a centuries old path of excuse hunting. "it can't be done" so we won' t bother trying! "It will be too expensive" so we won't bother trying! "No body else wants it" Apart from the dead people who can't speak!
> 
> All the same arguments were trotted out by other industries in the past, there is nothing new or suprising ; apart from that is cyclists making excuses for the haulage industry, if it was industry insiders making excuses I could understand it. You aren't involved in the haulage industry by any chance?


 
but hes right...nothing on this is 100% safe, and nothing ever will be.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> but hes right...nothing on this is 100% safe, and nothing ever will be.


The fact that nothing is 100% safe is not an excuse not to attempt going from 50% to 80%


----------



## Dan_h (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> "so far as is reasonably practicable" the newprint industry used to use the same sort of weasel words when dreaming up excuses, for why they coudn't stop killing/maiming people, so did construction, mining, engineering, steelmaking... why are there still so many apologists for the haulage industry? The next time you see a crushed bollard on a corner, ask yourself " Was it the bollards "fault" that it was crushed"? If you come to the conclusion that the bollard was not to blame , then you will then need to consider ( or just shrug and say "not my problem") what caused the problem, that will eventually lead you to the realsiation that it was the moving vehcile , not the bollard that was the cause. Now replace the bollard in your thought eperiment with a cyclist/pedestrian, if it was not the fault of the bollard for being there, and was the fault of the operator of the vehicle how does it sudden;y become the cyclis/pedestrain's fault?
> 
> 
> Or if you want to reverse the though experment...
> ...


 
It is not a case of excuse hunting, and the crushed bollard is not the same thing at all. If the cyclist in the video were riding along properly as he should be and the truck went to overtake him and got it wrong and killed him I would agree with you 100% and I would welcome any changes that would make HGVs on the road safer.

The point of this thread though is that the cyclist did something dangerous and the video is trying to make the point that the cyclists actions were a contributing factor here. Had our hypothetical cyclist not chosen to scoot up the left of the HGV he would not have been killed.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> The fact that nothing is 100% safe is not an excuse to attempt going from 50% to 80%


 
Perhaps that can be achieved by cyclists not riding up the inside of artics?


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (16 Dec 2011)

If you agree that there can be situations where a driver can miss-read the road, or be distracted* than logic dictates that not all HGV driver that cause a death are not 100% resposible.

* An example of this might be that driver is stopped at juntion, looks 3 seconds to the left, looks 3 seconds to the right, in that time a cyclest has planted themselfs just under his left mirror, or maybe the hgv is at an angle in the road and his load is obscuring his view further - this can again cause problems is a cyclest is silly enough to be to close.

In this example I coould not blame the HGV driver. And this goes back to nothing being 100% safe, esp when you have factors that are totaly out of your control.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> No, however squishy you are there are situations where you DO NOT have priority. Pulling out onto a roundabout for example.


Let me know where the roundabouts are on shared-use paths, won't you?


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> reasonably practicable taking into account time cost benefit and effort. thats why we don't in industry got to the nth degree to make something safe we asses the risks and control measures .
> 
> the control measure here is the warning signs and people not being twonks,


16 deaths this year in London says the control measures are not effective. At least, in my view.

Buses are similarly sized and presumably have similar visibility problems (ok, the driver's not sitting as high up). And yet even the allegedly deathtrap bendy buses which were replaced at a cost of £20 million/year (plus the added cost of the "new routemaster") don't have this poor safety record. How many deaths will that £20 million save?


----------



## Bicycle (16 Dec 2011)

MacB said:


> Not true, ban HGVs from roads open to cyclists and vice versa and you have instant HGV/cyclist 100% safety.


 
Up to a point, Lord Copper.

But the cyclists will not be 100% safe in their environment, nor the lorries in theirs.

One element of the danger will have been eliminated, but that is not 100% sefety.

In driving an HGV, sailing a yacht and many other activities there is an element of judgement. That suggests there is a fairly good chance of human error. There is also a fairly good chance of mechanical failure of one kind or another.

I've been cycling around HGVs in urban traffic and on fast, open roads since childhood and I really don't have an issue with them. Where I think it appropriate to do so, I give them a wide berth. I have on occasion ridden rather closer to them than is prudent. Sometimes they've done the same to me.

We are all just road users.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> ...the root of the problem is that there is a "blind spot" and that the operators ( in both senses of the word) of the vehicle are quite sanguine about moving the vehicle without checkignn that it is safe to do so.


How do you check a "blind spot"?

Er... surely if it could be checked, it wouldn't be a "blind spot"?

Either way, the point which _you_ keep choosing to ignore, is that when it's "bike vs HGV" the bike will always come-off second best.

"Ma Brompton/Mrs Brompton/Brompton Jr, your Son/Husband/Father is dead/paralysed from the waist down/in a serious but stable conditon."

Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"However, he was in the right!"

Church bells ring, Champagne corks pop and there is unbridled joy throughout the land.


----------



## PK99 (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> The fact that nothing is 100% safe is not an excuse not to attempt going from 50% to 80%


 
*Straw man alert!*


----------



## MacB (16 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> *Straw man alert!*


 
I think you'll need to check your understanding again


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> *Straw man alert!*


If you want a debate free of rhetoric you could start by refraining from posting obvious truisms like the "nothing is 100% safe" statement that that was in response to.


----------



## doog (16 Dec 2011)

As someone said, HGV drivers don't intentionally go out to squish cyclists and I am struggling with some of the debate on here. The onus is on the cyclist not to go up the inside of a left turning HGV....end of argument, make it illegal. Trespassing on a railway line is illegal simply because you may DIE....the same should be said for filtering up the inside of lorries.


----------



## CopperCyclist (16 Dec 2011)

Not trying to get into the usual shouting match with LYB, as it's never fun and gets nowhere. Here's my summary.

All side of the argument have valid points. This is a cycling forum, so let's concentrate on educating the cyclists about what they can do to help here. There's little to be gained by deflecting onto what lorry drivers should have done on this forum.


----------



## col (16 Dec 2011)

Whats a straw man alert?


----------



## doog (16 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Not trying to get into the usual shouting match with LYB, *as it's never fun* and gets nowhere.


 
You can make it fun...just mention dog walkers .


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> How do you check a "blind spot"?
> 
> Er... surely if it could be checked, it wouldn't be a "blind spot"?
> 
> ...


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

col said:


> Whats a straw man alert?


 
A "strawman" is where someone can't "win" the argument that they are in, so invents one that they ( think they) can.


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Dec 2011)

I'd advise people not to undertake HGVs. I don't think that counts as victim-blaming, just common sense. Like advising people to lock their doors when they go to bed and not walk alone through a rough part of town at night wearing expensive jewellery.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I'd advise people not to undertake HGVs. I don't think that counts as victim-blaming, just common sense.


You're quite right, that's not victim blaming (and is sensible advice). Victim blaming would be if you said "they were stupid, they deserved it"


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Dec 2011)

Indeed. And if anyone did meet death or injury in this way, I'd have every sympathy. Many cyclists, particularly inexperienced ones, may be unaware of the risks. And as others have said, modern cycle lanes could be seen to encourage the undertaking of vehicles.


----------



## doog (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> You're quite right, that's not victim blaming (and is sensible advice). Victim blaming would be if you said "they were stupid, they deserved it"


 
Victim blaming would also be blaming the HGV driver because he didnt get out and do a 360 degree check that some numpty might have positioned themselves in a potential death zone.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> You're quite right, that's not victim blaming (and is sensible advice). Victim blaming would be if you said "they were stupid, they deserved it"


 

Would victim blaming also include calling them "Twonk" , "farkwit" or "numpty"?


----------



## doog (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Would victim blaming also include calling them "Twonk" , "****wit" or "numpty"?


 

the majority who make this error would probably, with hindsight, call themselves every one of those words... (.if they had the chance of course). Common sense and cyclists are three words that should never be confused .....judging by some views on this forum.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> Victim blaming would also be blaming the HGV driver because he didnt get out and do a 360 degree check that some numpty might have positioned themselves in a potential death zone.


I must have missed where anyone suggested that


----------



## col (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> A "strawman" is where someone can't "win" the argument that they are in, so invents one that they ( think they) can.


Cheers


----------



## doog (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> I must have missed where anyone suggested that


 

apologies I must have missed the assumption drawn in posts 15,22,40,43 and 49


----------



## doog (16 Dec 2011)

d/p


----------



## beastie (16 Dec 2011)

Well obviously, but LYB hasn't told us if he does.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> apologies I must have missed the assumption drawn in posts 15,22,40,43 and 49


Hard to see how you missed it as it's _your_ assumption in the first place, not that of the author of those posts. 49 most notably suggests putting a second man in the cab: how you infer from _that_ that he thinks the driver should get out each time he stops is beyond me.

Look, buses and coaches only have one driver. They're long vehicles. They don't have the same poor safety record, despite that there are loads of them on the road in city centres and they're often driven really rather badly. The driver doesn't get out and do a 360 check before moving off. So what's the difference? Perhaps there's something there the HGV companies could learn.


----------



## MacB (16 Dec 2011)

I'm not convinced either way here, yes you shouldn't place yourself in such a vulnerable position. But, like I said already, there are cycling facilities that encourage just such behaviour. Then there are the cyclists that are there first and a large vehicle pulls alongside. When that happens to me I look for eye contact, escape routes and have even scooted part way through a junction to make sure I'm safer.

On the flip side there is the huge problem of vehicles with limited visibility mixing with other road users, especially the more vulnerable. My gut instinct is that improvements can be made in that area as a priority. I definitely get a sense of 'acceptable losses' around traffic accidents that wouldn't be tolerated in other areas.


----------



## Dan B (16 Dec 2011)

MacB said:


> Either we stop that alltogether and ditch cycle lanes or we have them treated correctly as another lane of traffic. In the same way as if a vehicle turned left from the outside lane of a dual carriageway they would be at fault for hitting anything in the inside lane.


Difficult to see how the second alternative would work when the HGV is not allowed in the inside lane nor narrow enough to fit in it. I incline to the first: cycle lanes should not take cyclists into dangerous positions. You wouldn't have a straight-ahead lane for cars positioned the the left of a left filter lane, why is it ok for cyclists?


----------



## MacB (16 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Difficult to see how the second alternative would work when the HGV is not allowed in the inside lane nor narrow enough to fit in it. I incline to the first: cycle lanes should not take cyclists into dangerous positions. You wouldn't have a straight-ahead lane for cars positioned the the left of a left filter lane, why is it ok for cyclists?


 
Oh I agree, I started out thinking on road cycle lanes were great and gradually started to dislike them, depending on location and design though. There are some faster A/B roads that have excellent lanes on them though they tend to be too narrow. In traffic I feel safer mixing with the traffic and will wait in line rather than filter a lot of the time.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (16 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I think "might is right" was replaced a long time ago by decision making that was a bit more open.


No need to duck Strawman, it's gone right over your head!

I wasn't making a case for "right" or "wrong", but for "dead" or "alive".


----------



## Bayerd (17 Dec 2011)

MacB said:


> Then there are the cyclists that are there first and a large vehicle pulls alongside.


 
That's a different scenario as the HGV driver will know of your presence as he/she saw you on approach.


----------



## growingvegetables (17 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> This is a cycling forum, so let's concentrate on educating the cyclists about what they can do to help here. There's little to be gained by deflecting onto what lorry drivers should have done on this forum.


+1

OK - it was staged for the camera (thank goodness!); but I'm still struggling to understand some of the "blame-placing" going on in here. Lots and lots on the driver, truck operators, etc etc ......

But come on, guys. Go back to the video - don't watch this time, just *listen* ................. to the tick-tick-tick-tick-tick of the indicator flashing. It may have gone on late - but still before the cyclist came over the horizon!


----------



## Hip Priest (17 Dec 2011)

If I hadn't come on here when I started riding, I don't think I'd have known not to go up the inside of large vehicles. Therefore, you lot probably saved my life and I shall allow you all my daughter's hand in marriage.


----------



## cyberknight (17 Dec 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> If I hadn't come on here when I started riding, I don't think I'd have known not to go up the inside of large vehicles. Therefore, you lot probably saved my life and I shall allow you all my daughter's hand in marriage.


My wife might get a bit jealous , mind you it would save me having to do the housework at the weekend while she sits on her ass all week watching tv................yeah we nearly split up earlier this year .


----------



## Dan_h (17 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Let me know where the roundabouts are on shared-use paths, won't you?


 
Sorry that was in response to your blanket statement that squishier road users have priority, something that is not true, and frankly a slightly ridiculous statement. Priority is not and has never been based on the vulnerability of road users and if you believe that being more vulnerable gives you priority then quite frankly I am amazed you are still alive.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Not trying to get into the usual shouting match with LYB, as it's never fun and gets nowhere.
> .


I'm not quite sure what you count as a "shouting match" , to my knowledge I never "shout" here, and I don't think I have ever resorted to personal name calling or focused on any personality. I try to make my posts factual and if I make a mistake in my data recognise and apologise. As for getting nowhere, there are very many ideas which are taken as "obvious" or "common sense" if I disagree with them I may well decide to challenge those. Even if no one ever jumps up and says " Do you know , I never realised it before , but you are right!" by planting the seed there may be a chance that somone, eventually may, possibly start to think from more than the obvious perpsective that their present worldview restricts them to. Challenging thoughts might not be seen as "fun" , but then that's not their intent. Fun is to be found on the bile , or in the pub/cafe, or in telling/reading a ride story.


----------



## doog (17 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Hard to see how you missed it as it's _your_ assumption in the first place, not that of the author of those posts. 49 most notably suggests putting a second man in the cab: how you infer from _that_ that he thinks the driver should get out each time he stops is beyond me.


 

so you are the guy who takes every single post literally eh  ....this could be fun...

LYB suggests a second man in the cab...it wont happen, so whats the 'alternative' in the fantasy world of 'all HGV drivers are killers' ? perhaps you can enlighten us all


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

1647705 said:


> Always assuming they haven't forgotten about you in the intervening interval.


 
<troll bait acccepted> If you knew any truck drivers you'd know that driving is all they do and all they think about. They are professionals and these days even have certificates to prove it.

They haven't forgotten you.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> so you are the guy who takes every single post literally eh  ....this could be fun...
> 
> LYB suggests a second man in the cab...it wont happen, so whats the 'alternative' in the fantasy world of 'all HGV drivers are killers' ? perhaps you can enlighten us all


 

It won't happen? Really? I can remember when it used to...

Want to fill us in on the reasons why" it won't happen" again?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> <troll bait acccepted> If you knew any truck drivers you'd know that driving is all they do and all they think about. They are professionals and these days even have certificates to prove it.
> 
> They haven't forgotten you.


 How do they manage to forget those bollards and railings ?


----------



## MacB (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> <troll bait acccepted> If you knew any truck drivers you'd know that driving is all they do and all they think about. They are professionals and these days even have certificates to prove it.
> 
> They haven't forgotten you.


 
Ok, so when a vehicle, that has blind spots, approaches a stopping point every driver will memorise everything in that area that will no longer be visible once stopped? Then there will be no forgetfulness and nothing else will occur that will distract them?


----------



## MacB (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647805, member: 3143"]Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but approaching a stopping point there are no blind spots.[/quote]

It's fairly straight forward, example, lights ahead, cyclist already stopped at lights on the left, lorry approaching, if lorry stops at lights cyclist will no longer be visible.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647809, member: 3143"]They have not. Have you ever driven in an artic in an urban area?[/quote]
They haven't forgotten them? Does this mean that they drive over them knowing that they are there?


----------



## MacB (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647817, member: 3143"]<sighs> You sure?[/quote]

of course I'm sure but I'm not playing some childish guessing game with you Lee. Any vehicle that has a blind spot will constantly have what could be in the blind spot changing as a journey progresses.

If you have a point to make then I'll read it


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647823, member: 3143"]Dunno, it would appear you know about this then I do, or anyone else on this thread for that matter.[/quote]
I don't understand, you tell me ( and others) that lorry drivers don't forget what is in their blind spot if they see them before hand; yet the evidence of broken railings and bollards shows that lorries drive over them. If they don't forget them yet drive over them how do you sqaure the circle without suggesting that they do it deliberately?

So what is it, they forget that they are there or deliberately drive over them, or is there another possibility that I've missed?


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

LYB look at a truck. Look at the mirrors. Look at ALL of the mirrors, they have dozens. By law, forcibly retrofitted.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647829, member: 3143"]My point is that you clearly ignorant to the mirrors on a truck in the situation that you describe. I love how people comment on blind spots and lorries yet have never driven one and in most cases never ever been in one.[/quote]
Are you trying to say that the driver in the video that started this thread didn't have a blind spot? If that's the case , why do you think he "killed" the cyclist.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647829, member: 3143"]My point is that you clearly ignorant to the mirrors on a truck in the situation that you describe. I love how people comment on blind spots and lorries yet have never driven one and in most cases never ever been in one.[/quote]

Away you go then, educate us!


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

The cyclist is clearly visible in the top n/s mirror when the driver pulls off. Not blind but not paying attention.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647832, member: 3143"]My aplogies, from the above it is clear you don't know what you are going about. Come back when you do. If you are polite you can go down to your local haulage yard and be the '2nd man' that you've described - have fun[/quote]
2nd man! Odd that you use that term, it's a historical job description, one that you said "won't happen" Now if you think that I don't know what I am going on about, now is your chance to educate me. How do lorries manage to destroy bollards and railings when it seems that "professional" drivers don't forget what they see and lorries don't have blind spots .


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647844, member: 3143"]The cyclist is clearly visable in the n/s mirror and then again in the kerbside mirror. The reason the cyclist *died* is because thet choose to undetake a truck, howeer through poor judgement cannot complete the undertake before the driver pulls away and turns left.[/quote]
So you are trying to say that the cyclist WAS visible to the lorry driver?


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Furthermore, the truck would most likely have overtaken the cyclist before the lights and would normally be watching its progress quite keenly. Undertaking cyclists are a bane, NO driver is unaware of the risks. Street furniture has much less priority


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647854, member: 3143"]Don't confuse blind spots with careless driving in not checking one's mirrors before pulling away.[/quote]

Ahh so you agree with my intitial point, the lorry driver was at fault by not checking his mirrors? It's taken a while , but you got there.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Furthermore, the truck would most likely have overtaken the cyclist before the lights and would normally be watching its progress quite keenly. Undertaking cyclists are a bane, NO driver is unaware of the risks. Street furniture has much less priority


You are right, a terrible bane, they must hold up a busy busy driver by at least 2 seconds when they need to turn left , well worth saving that time by driving over them!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647860, member: 3143"]LOL, you are giving the game away Doom, those bastard Operators who send artics into areas where it's hard to get around a corner without taking out a bollard or two...you know the fucking thing is there but you've a delivery to make.[/quote]

Make your choice, you knew they were there and drove over them anyway, or they were in a blind spot and forget about them...

well?


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647862, member: 3143"]It's not the same as blind spots though is it Doris? You've played a blinder, going on about blind spots, I've corrected you, you've then taken what I've said and passed it off as your own saying that I now agree with you!!

What an idiot.[/quote]

It's a public safety advert. You the HMG puts out snuff movies?


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Sorry wrong quote


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647862, member: 3143"]It's not the same as blind spots though is it Doris? You've played a blinder, going on about blind spots, I've corrected you, you've then taken what I've said and passed it off as your own saying that I now agree with you!!

What an idiot.[/quote]


He deliberately "killed " cyclist knowing he was there, or he "killed" the cyclist because it was a blind spot, make up your mind how he was at fault... either way it shows the callous attitude of the haulage industry, "It's only a cyclist and it was his own fault" , you might even say that cyclists are the bane of the industry, never mind the industry is doing it's best to get rid of them.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647868, member: 3143"]You're an idiot who knows nothing. Stop it now before you humilate yourself furthur.[/quote]

So which was it "you knew they were there and drove over them anyway, or they were in a blind spot and forget about them..."


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Make your choice, you knew they were there and drove over them anyway, or they were in a blind spot and forget about them...
> 
> well?


 
A Keep Left sign can take its chances. People are more important. In reality the truck is stuck there until the cyclist moves off. When you get into that 'you go, no YOU go' routine, this may take a while. Perhaps until the lights change


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> A Keep Left sign can take its chances. People are more important. In reality the truck is stuck there until the cyclist moves off. When you get into that 'you go, no YOU go' routine, this may take a while. Perhaps until the lights change


 

Really? The 8 cyclist deaths, in London , this year, shows that you aren't correct. Unless of course you are trying to say that the whole raisondetre of the original post was incorrect? Maybe you had better let TfL know that their video was incorrect and "In reality the truck is stuck there until the cyclist moves off"


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647874, member: 3143"]The self humilation level has now gone from 7 to 8. We are at DEFCON 4. <Insert suspenseful music here>[/quote]
Nice body swerve, now "He deliberately "killed " cyclist knowing he was there, or he "killed" the cyclist because it was a blind spot, make up your mind how he was at fault..." 
Which will it be, or have you some other explanation, unless of course you want to try and rachet the mild abuse level up?


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

LYB the raison d'etre was entirely correct. We don't know the exact circumstances of the 8 deaths though, and the advert points more to inattention than 'blind spots'. It's just telling everyone to take care, which is exactly the sort of bleeding obvious we expect of these things.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1647888, member: 3143"]None of the above. DEFCON 5...[/quote]


Soo..... 


He didn't deliberatley "kill " the cyclist knowing he was there!
He didn't "kill" the cyclist because it was a "blind spot"!
You have no other explanation.


I take it that's what "None of the above" means?

BTW
Defence Conditions start at 5 and work their way up to 1


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (18 Dec 2011)

Jeez! I'm off to "Helmet Debates" for a little light relief...


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

LYB the cyclist was stupid. The driver was also stupid. Stupity is the root cause of 83.85% of all accidents. So don't be stupid and chances are you'll be here for decades yet ...


----------



## nwjgoode (18 Dec 2011)

Scary stuff..


----------



## nwjgoode (18 Dec 2011)

Scary stuff..


----------



## BlackPanther (18 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> So what is it, they forget that they are there or deliberately drive over them, or is there another possibility that I've missed?


 
Yes, it's all the bloody foreign drivers who don't have the concave mirrors on the n/s. (semi serious point)

I really really wouldn't want to drive a rhd spec lorry in France, and vice versa. Why oh why can't the manufacturers just fit them on both sides? Of course that's a rhetorical question as everyone knows the answer is that if it ain't a legal requirement, then they won't pay the extra 70 or 80 quid!

Another reason for bollard and railing destruction is that on tight roads, it only takes one numpty to park badly and you're forced into going through far tighter gaps than you'd like to. Unlike in a car, it's not easy to just reverse, turn around and find another route, especially if you've got half a dozen cars, 2 vans, a bus, a horse, a hearse and 2 artics behind you. I've not hit or scraped anything serious yet (idiotically parked cars mirrors aside, but they deserve it) but a week doesn't go by where I don't have to pass with an inch to spare on either side, or I have to get out and physically fold the car mirrors in. _*AND*_ (just getting in to full rant mode now) if you ever come across 2 Vectras parked side by side you're completely screwed 'cos their mirrors don't fold in. Scrapy scrapy time!

My final point (yes, I'm off to bed now) see below.


----------



## waggoner (18 Dec 2011)

BlackPanther said:


> Yes, it's all the bloody foreign drivers who don't have the concave mirrors on the n/s. (semi serious point)
> 
> I really really wouldn't want to drive a rhd spec lorry in France, and vice versa. Why oh why can't the manufacturers just fit them on both sides? Of course that's a rhetorical question as everyone knows the answer is that if it ain't a legal requirement, then they won't pay the extra 70 or 80 quid!


 
Some do, we got merc's that have the wide angle mirror on both sides,,but then maybe its up to the company if they want them fitted?? They do help on the drivers side.

Your right too about tight corners and obstrutions,, 55' long (62' for wagon and drags), 9' wide,,yes it takes a little more room to maneuver than your average family car.


----------



## Loop (18 Dec 2011)

I'll admit to having a degree of sympathy with LYB's arguments.

The things that can never be accounted for are human error and human misjudgement ... which is why, although not directly comparable, other sectors where 'humans' are in control of large machines having the potential to cause damage/injury/loss (... aircraft, trains as examples) have invested billions in removing the unreliable, 'human' element from the equation. More relevantly, even in the motoring sector, car manufacturers have invested in rear sensor technology to prevent people pranging the rear bumpers on their bog standard cars and a reversing truck will alert half the neighbourhood to the fact that it's reversing. Why can't HGV/bus companies invest in sensor technology that would alert in the event of vehicles turning across near-side traffic? Indeed, why can't a left turning HGV make a similar racket to a reversing truck? (... rhetorical questions incidentally because I think I know what the answers are and they are not 'technology' related).

The above said and more immediately ...

My brother drives professionally for a living. The one thing he stressed to me when I first started driving myself was that I should always assume that the other guy would screw up (... that 'human' error/misjudgment thing again) and that I should always drive defensively as a result. I adopt the same philosophy when I'm on a bike. So pragmatically & as things stand, the most pressing thing to be done is to educate cyclists as to what 'defensive cycling' consists of ... which makes it a pity, I suppose, that this particular video was never actually aired.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (18 Dec 2011)

Loop said:


> I'll admit to having a degree of sympathy with LYB's arguments.


Careful, you will get drummed out of the Brownies!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (18 Dec 2011)

Surely the point of the video isn't about blaming people (though IMHO it was 50/50 in the video), it's about warning cyclists of the possible danger undertaking a lorry can pose and how can you do anything other than commend it?

Do we know for certain that another video aimed at lorry drivers wasn't made?

Seriously, do we have to take offence at everything these days? Is it possible that everyone in the world who's not a cyclist isn't plotting to destroy us all?


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (18 Dec 2011)

I have been working for my local council on one of there kerbside recycling vehicles for the pasts 2 years and been in the haulage industry for 16 years, This means I have people working on the inside of the vehicle all the time and can never move the vehicle until I can clearly see the three loaders are away from the vehicle, some times they do disappear from view they may have bent down to pick something up or just be standing in just the wrong spot. As pointed out a modern HGV has 6 mirrors and then sometimes a rear facing camera buts it's impossible to look in all 6 mirrors a shoulder check the camera plus forwards at the same time as a moving object decides to jump in the way. At the end of the day if both road users got it right the accident would never of occurred. In 25+ years of cycling I have never had a problem with HGV's as I have never been stupid enough to go up the inside or attempt to over take one in any manner you would have to be a total idiot !!!!! Cyclists on the other hand I've had plenty of problems with on my bike ,motorbike car, HGV and even walking. There are a lot of untrained idiot cyclists who have never passed a road based test of any type so have no proven record of understanding the problems various road user have or even what it is they are supposed to be doing ! All that said I think the trixy ( not sure how this is spelt) mirror at junctions could help as would a major education of cyclists and regular reminders to HGV drivers. Here is a link to the Guardian's podcast on the same subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-bike-podcast


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (18 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1648133, member: 3143"]I do have an explaination, I've touched on briefly in this thread. Go and find it if you want to know as I can't be arsed with you no more.[/quote]
As it seems the sum total of your contributions has been to repeat " your an idiot" I don't think you will be missed too much.


----------



## Dan B (18 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> Sorry that was in response to your blanket statement that squishier road users have priority


Here's what I wrote:


> Dan_h said:
> 
> 
> > So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible?
> ...



I didn't mention roundabouts _or_ blankets, and the statement was in response to a question asking what would one do when one as a cyclist is the _less_ squishy party. Now please stop imputing positions to me that I do not hold.


----------



## Dan B (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> LYB suggests a second man in the cab...it wont happen, so whats the 'alternative' in the fantasy world of 'all HGV drivers are killers' ? perhaps you can enlighten us all


First, I have not suggested that 'all HGV drivers are killers', so please stop imputing to me opinions that I do not hold. I'm sure the vast majority of HGV drivers have never killed anybody.

Second, what is your basis for the assertion that "it won't happen"? It quite easily could be made to happen either if it were made law, or if the penalties for accidentally killing someone were made high enough that operators decided it was uneconomic not to put two men in the cab. Yes, it would make deliveries cost more, but that doesn't mean it could never happen: I'm sure that drivers hours legislation had the same effect and that people said the same about that before it was introduced.

Third, have a look at Loop's post #157 where he suggests a variety of technical measures - msot of them probably quite a lot cheaper than a second man - which could go some way to ameliorate the problem. An aftermarket reversing sensor for a passenger car can be had for £20 from Maplins and fitted in two hours by an amateur, so the technology really can't be that expensive.

In summary: stop looking for excuses, start looking for solutions. Cyclist education is a partial solution - I've never said otherwise - but it's clearly not the whole answer or else cyclists wouldn't still be getting killed. HGVs do clearly present unique risks or the death toll from buses would be comparatively high


----------



## User10571 (18 Dec 2011)

An interesting debate.
I’ve now watched the vid in the first post more than ten, but probably less than twenty times – each time looking at different things.
Each time, without fail, when the woman runs up screaming “Stop! Stop!” and the driver replies with “What?” a curious reaction is provoked in me. Firstly my palms leak copious amounts of water. They are then closely followed by my eyes doing the same. Also, the hairs on my arms stand up. But I digress.

The cyclist is visible for somewhere between five and six seconds between first appearing in the n/s mirrors and subsequently disappearing. I say disappearing because whoever it was who in an earlier post suggested the cyclist was still visible in the downward facing mirror when the truck pulls away, should try relying on such a mirror for crucial information. It’s a really unusual perspective for most of us (lorry drivers included) to be viewing things from – we generally tend to look ‘across’ rather than ‘down on’ and are far more familiar with visual information and clues from the former than the latter. The latter looks, well… a bit weird and unfamiliar.
Going back to the vid, I’m struggling to see the cyclist in the downward facing mirror when the lorry pulls away partly, because of what I’ve just written above, and partly because of the less than fantastic resolution of the vid.

The point of this post?
I’ve sat in that driver’s seat. Many, many times. I’ve held (and still do hold) a Class 1 LGV licence for 27 years a fair proportion of which were spent earning a living driving them in both urban and rural environments. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say the artic mileage I’ve clocked up is well into seven figures. I last drove one around six years ago – co-incidentally just before I returned to cycling. It had nine mirrors and a camera / LCD display for reversing. Some of those mirrors were more effective than others. Some were next to useless.

Why the sweaty palms and tears?
I’m a careful driver with a (thankfully) blemish free record. But I can so, so, see myself looking away from one mirror, because there are so many others to be looking at, in addition to other things to be looking out for, for longer than the five or six seconds it took the cyclist to materialise and subsequently (and crucially) vanish from my view. At which point the fate of the cyclist is sealed. I cannot help but feel for the driver in the vid when he shouts “What?” when things have gone really badly wrong.

The answer?
I dunno. This kind of scenario is no more helped by the @rsehole LGV driver who doesn’t look, than it is by the @rsehole cyclist who puts themselves in a position where it is really, really difficult to stand out and be seen. TBF, I think if the majority of LGV drivers out there could not be @rsed to look (and I don’t thing that’s the case for one moment) the casualty / death toll would be significantly higher than it already shockingly is.
Better education for both, is the best answer I can offer.

Additionally, I’m thankful I no longer drive an LGV – I think that today I’d find the experience too nerve wracking.


----------



## doog (18 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> First, I have not suggested that 'all HGV drivers are killers', so please stop imputing to me opinions that I do not hold. I'm sure the vast majority of HGV drivers have never killed anybody.
> 
> Second, what is your basis for the assertion that "it won't happen"? It quite easily could be made to happen either if it were made law, or if the penalties for accidentally killing someone were made high enough that operators decided it was uneconomic not to put two men in the cab. Yes, it would make deliveries cost more, but that doesn't mean it could never happen: I'm sure that drivers hours legislation had the same effect and that people said the same about that before it was introduced.
> 
> ...


 
excuses ? the solution is for cyclists not to cycle up the inside of HGV's....thats the solution . I live in a ferry port so feel qualified to post. You can add as many technical measures to a lorry as you want but as Badger and User10571 state above you cant counter for idiot cyclists.....there will always be "idiot cyclists"....why cant you get your head around this fact?


----------



## Dan B (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> excuses ? the solution is for cyclists not to cycle up the inside of HGV's....thats the solution . I live in a ferry port so feel qualified to post. You can add as many technical measures to a lorry as you want but as Badger and User10571 state above you cant counter for idiot cyclists.....there will always be "idiot cyclists"....why cant you get your head around this fact?


If 'there will always be "idiot cyclists"' then the solution of telling them not to ride up the inside of HGVs is no solution. Because they're idiots, they won't listen. Unless you're saying it's OK to run over a cyclist provided he's an idiot - and I don't think you really are - then we need to find a better solution


----------



## gaz (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> excuses ? the solution is for cyclists not to cycle up the inside of HGV's....thats the solution . I live in a ferry port so feel qualified to post. You can add as many technical measures to a lorry as you want but as Badger and User10571 state above you cant counter for idiot cyclists.....there will always be "idiot cyclists"....why cant you get your head around this fact?


Not all deaths of cyclists vs HGV's are because a cyclist went up the inside of the HGV.


----------



## MacB (18 Dec 2011)

Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?

As for the attitude of 'I have a job to do' to excuse barrier/bollard/wingmirror damage, I find that quite disconcerting. If something doesn't fit then go another way or use a different vehicle.


----------



## col (18 Dec 2011)

1648595 said:


> Whilst on one level stopping any cyclist passing an HGV will prevent the problem it does beg the question "why should cyclists be constrained by the speed of slow moving traffic?"


Oh dear


----------



## col (19 Dec 2011)

MacB said:


> Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?
> 
> As for the attitude of 'I have a job to do' to excuse barrier/bollard/wingmirror damage, I find that quite disconcerting. If something doesn't fit then go another way or use a different vehicle.


I wonder when you will click on to what has been mentioned?
Here is a little experiment for you, look in front of you and then tell us what you see directly behind you? no cheating now
Now try this, look over your left shoulder, and tell us what you see in front of you, and even in front and to the right, still looking over your left shoulder mind. 
If you realise the problem, do let us know wont you?


----------



## MacB (19 Dec 2011)

col said:


> I wonder when you will click on to what has been mentioned?
> Here is a little experiment for you, look in front of you and then tell us what you see directly behind you? no cheating now
> Now try this, look over your left shoulder, and tell us what you see in front of you, and even in front and to the right, still looking over your left shoulder mind.
> If you realise the problem, do let us know wont you?


 
So what part of 'I need this explaining further' don't you get? same as Lee, if you've got a point to make, or an explanation to give, then do so.

The rambling nonsense you've posted above is a crappy way of saying we all have the same visual equipment, ie a pair of eyes. No shoot Sherlock, but we don't all crush cyclists with our vehicles now do we?
It's not hard, lay out in clear and concise language, paint a picture, but stop belittling yourself in an attempt to belittle me, or others.


----------



## col (19 Dec 2011)

MacB said:


> So what part of 'I need this explaining further' don't you get? same as Lee, if you've got a point to make, or an explanation to give, then do so.
> 
> The rambling nonsense you've posted above is a crappy way of saying we all have the same visual equipment, ie a pair of eyes. No shoot Sherlock, but we don't all crush cyclists with our vehicles now do we?
> It's not hard, lay out in clear and concise language, paint a picture, but stop belittling yourself in an attempt to belittle me, or others.


Well if you cant grasp what Im saying with those very simple examples Ill try again.
Your statement of I quote so you dont get too mixed up.Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?
Whats the term you use? No shoot sherlock? 
Lets just say for example the driver is looking to his right, how would the said driver see to the left at the same time, my point is, which you call rambling nonsense, is really very simple to understand. we all have to look somewhere, and that means other directions cant be looked at at the same time. It couldnt really be more clear now could it? 
You say " we dont all crush cyclists with our vehicles now do we" yet again in your words, no shoot sherlock  
What you dont seem to grasp or understand is, it doesnt matter how many mirrors there are, they have to be looked at to be of use, are you with me so far? So if your looking at a mirror on one side you cant see the other side at the same time. Not going to quick for you am i? 

I hope you can understand this a little now, I know your having problems picking up on it, but persevere you will get there.


----------



## MacB (19 Dec 2011)

That's it, that's the entirety of the point you were trying to make, boy, I wouldn't worry about 'going too fast for someone to follow' if I were you...trust me that's never going to be an issue.

Of course we all have to look somewhere and the counter suggestion has been that it should include any points around a vehicle where someone could be crushed. The further point being made is that if that is not deemed practical with current equipment/personnel then changes would be advisable.

One of those changes is educating cyclists not to ride up the inside of large vehicles. As that's unlikely to be completely successful then what else could be done?

I quite liked the idea of automatic licence suspension until fault/reason is determined. Personally I would extend that to all drivers and all types of licence.

But you are, probably unwittingly, helping to make the counter case. As we can't look everywhere simultaneously then no amount of mirrors will have the desired effect. So that would leave a drivers mate or sensor technology that mimics, or improves upon, this.


----------



## PK99 (19 Dec 2011)

1648595 said:


> Whilst on one level stopping any cyclist passing an HGV will prevent the problem it does beg the question "why should cyclists be constrained by the speed of slow moving traffic?"


 
Oh, dear! by similar logic: Why should car drivers be constrained by the speed of slow moving traffic (ie cyclists)


----------



## col (19 Dec 2011)

MacB said:


> That's it, that's the entirety of the point you were trying to make, boy, I wouldn't worry about 'going too fast for someone to follow' if I were you...trust me that's never going to be an issue.
> 
> Of course we all have to look somewhere and the counter suggestion has been that it should include any points around a vehicle where someone could be crushed. The further point being made is that if that is not deemed practical with current equipment/personnel then changes would be advisable.
> 
> ...


It was for you , or so you claimed so you could have a sound off to impress your friends
Educating cyclists to not put themselves in danger isnt really a vehicle change, but the only really practical way forward to help lower the chances of death or injury. 
Your Liking of licence suspension until fault/ reason is determined is unreasonable. What about confiscating cycles from people until fault/reason is determined? Not really a sensible approach is it?
Other than sensors around the vehicle that sounds an alarm and flashes a light on a screen to show the point needing attention, no, more mirrors would make no difference in that sense, as you can only look when you can look. This is the reality of driving, and more people will be injured or killed. some will be the drivers fault, some the cyclist. But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen. the only way to minimise this is to seperate vehicles and cycles . But then some cyclists wont use cycling lanes for varying reasons, so should it be made law? if there is a cycle lane you must use it? it gets complicated and probably impractical. Lets just hope most see sense and just dont go too close to each other.


----------



## col (19 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> Not deaths of cyclists vs HGV
> Not all deaths of cyclists vs HGV's are because a cyclist went up the inside of the HGV.


Did they go up the outside too?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

col said:


> It was for you , or so you claimed so you could have a sound off to impress your friends
> Educating cyclists to not put themselves in danger isnt really a vehicle change, but the only really practical way forward to help lower the chances of death or injury.
> Your Liking of licence suspension until fault/ reason is determined is unreasonable. What about confiscating cycles from people until fault/reason is determined? Not really a sensible approach is it?
> Other than sensors around the vehicle that sounds an alarm and flashes a light on a screen to show the point needing attention, no, more mirrors would make no difference in that sense, as you can only look when you can look. This is the reality of driving, and more people will be injured or killed. some will be the drivers fault, some the cyclist. But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen. the only way to minimise this is to seperate vehicles and cycles . But then some cyclists wont use cycling lanes for varying reasons, so should it be made law? if there is a cycle lane you must use it? it gets complicated and probably impractical. Lets just hope most see sense and just dont go too close to each other.


 
Your prepackaged mentality of "Oh dear, but there is nothing that can be done!" shines through clearly in the above. Well done it's a very good bit of prose, I can almost see you shrugging your shoulders. I see that you use the technique of reversing a suggested situation and offereing that in exchange as a bargaining tool ( when you suggest confiscation of cycles) , it's a valid tool for seeing if the initial position is equitable , and you seem to think that confiscating cycles is not "sensible" . On the contrary I would suggest that it is a very sensible approach for the handful of times a decade that a cyclist kills someone.
As you are keen on the "reverse position bargain" lets also look at your suggestion of segregation of traffic, it's here that your closed mind shows through most clearly . You only mention segregation by moving the cyclist, not theHGV, you only mention restricting the cyclist not the driver, but the is a valid reason for this, you have already accepted that it's acceptable to kill cyclsits with "But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen" , at least Pilate got other people to make the decision before going Ho hum and washing his hands.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

col said:


> Well if you cant grasp what Im saying with those very simple examples Ill try again.
> Your statement of I quote so you dont get too mixed up.Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?
> Whats the term you use? No shoot sherlock?
> Lets just say for example the driver is looking to his right, how would the said driver see to the left at the same time, my point is, which you call rambling nonsense, is really very simple to understand. we all have to look somewhere, and that means other directions cant be looked at at the same time. It couldnt really be more clear now could it?
> ...


 
You're not a member of the IAM are you?


----------



## MacB (19 Dec 2011)

col said:


> It was for you , or so you claimed so you could have a sound off to impress your friends
> Educating cyclists to not put themselves in danger isnt really a vehicle change, but the only really practical way forward to help lower the chances of death or injury.
> Your Liking of licence suspension until fault/ reason is determined is unreasonable. What about confiscating cycles from people until fault/reason is determined? Not really a sensible approach is it?
> Other than sensors around the vehicle that sounds an alarm and flashes a light on a screen to show the point needing attention, no, more mirrors would make no difference in that sense, as you can only look when you can look. This is the reality of driving, and more people will be injured or killed. some will be the drivers fault, some the cyclist. But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen. the only way to minimise this is to seperate vehicles and cycles . But then some cyclists wont use cycling lanes for varying reasons, so should it be made law? if there is a cycle lane you must use it? it gets complicated and probably impractical. Lets just hope most see sense and just dont go too close to each other.


 
Not sounding off trying to have a genuine discussion which is never going to be furthered by snide jibes with no actual input.

Firstly I never claimed that all the onus had to be one sided, we were discussing what could be improved and road user awareness is always on the cards, hence cyclists education.

In the case of KSI then I think licence suspension, or vehicle confiscation, is perfectly reasonable, for all types of road user. As was pointed out already, we suspend all sorts of professionals pending results of investigations.

You can only look where you can look - this is the essence of the point that myself and LYB are making, we just feel it can be improved upon. If that means a drivers mate, masses of sensor technology, whatever, it's worth doing IMO. What I don't agree with is an acceptance along the lines of 'accidents will happen'. Yes they will but that's just a truism that means nothing on its own and should never preclude attempts to improve on a situation. When you cite things like practicality or costs I could just as easily say things like the families of the people killed would happily have paid a few hundred quid for sensor technology that would have saved their loved ones.

Seperation - I've already said that I see a role for this but it's not the be all and end all and is never going to be physically possible in towns. As LYB pointed out you don't flip this option round to suggest removing HGVs, whereas I consider that a valid option. I can see the HGV to depot then smaller van to end users as being an option. But I'd also see limits on private vehicle use being equally as valid. Improving town/city centre life and traffic for everyone, not just cyclists.

As for other attitudes on here directed at 'stupid' cyclists that cycle up the inside, that only looks at one part. If that was completely stopped do we believe there would be no further cyclists killed by HGVs?...of course not as that's not the only scenario it occurs in. So what are we saying? stopping cyclists going up the inside is as good as we can do? We'll just have to accept the other 'accidents' as part and parcel of the world we live in? Even though the same sort of technological measures that could be taken to help in one area could/would help in all the others?


----------



## gaz (19 Dec 2011)

col said:


> Did they go up the outside too?


Funnily enough, sometimes a HGV comes up from behind and overtakes a cyclist. In some cases failing to even move around them.


----------



## summerdays (19 Dec 2011)

I think technology used by used to help the driver (and cyclist - those audible warnings that I've seen on the internet but not in real life). In an urban situation at a junction there are a number of directions that even a cyclist needs to be looking and occasionally we get it wrong. 

I've had my own close call with a lorry where he pulled into my lane (a bus lane with double yellows) to park and came extremely close. When questioned he hadn't seen me - in the middle of the lane wearing hi-vis in daylight. Maybe if he had had sensors in his cab it would have alerted him that I might have been there.


----------



## fimm (19 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> Funnily enough, sometimes a HGV comes up from behind and overtakes a cyclist. In some cases failing to even move around them.


Cyclists in London have been killed by lorries driven by
a) a driver who was over the legal alcohol limit
b) a driver whose eyesight was lower than the legal minimum allowed for driving
c) a driver who was doing paperwork instead of looking at his mirrors


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> Funnily enough, sometimes a HGV comes up from behind and overtakes a cyclist. In some cases failing to even move around them.


Too true and too often:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os9EMcbeJUw


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


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


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K3cuCMfzn4


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj3qTL-7Yw0


----------



## subaqua (19 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Ahh so you agree with my intitial point, the lorry driver was at fault by not checking his mirrors? It's taken a while , but you got there.



in that video he would have to be looking in the left mirror constantly to see the cyclist who goes up the inside. which would mean he couldn't be checking all the other areas he needs to be. so the simplest thing to do is to get cyclists to use their brains and not cut up the inside of the lorry even if tthe cycle lane directs them too.

my 10 yr old daughter understands this and did so before her bikeabilty as she pulled the instructor up who said to use cycle lanes to approach traffic lights . not from my teaching eithe, r she can read a sign on the back of a lorry and has applied that logic across all lorries.

she also understands priority and knows that even though she has priority as she is the most vulnerable road user she knows when to get off the bike so she doesn't get hurt.

why don't you write to brompton and suggest they don't use HGVs to deliver their products


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> in that video he would have to be looking in the left mirror constantly to see the cyclist who goes up the inside. which would mean he couldn't be checking all the other areas he needs to be. so the simplest thing to do is to get cyclists to use their brains and not cut up the inside of the lorry even if tthe cycle lane directs them too.


 From memory, the lorry was stationary for 20 seconds, the cyclist was visible for 6 seconds of that twenty, nearly a third of the time the vehicle was stationary, and even that doesn't allow for the fact that the vehcile had only just overtaken the cycle. If the driver had been scanning left/front/right etc... the cyclist would have been visible.

You aren't the first person to mention the areas the driver "needs" to check , considering that he knows he is turning left, and that the mirrors cover 45 degrees that leaves 160 degrees to be scanned ( with the mirrors within that sweep) , what other areas does the driver "need" to check that doesn't allow him to check left ?


Again , as my very first post, I'm amazed at how many people will take so much trouble to generate so many spurious excuses for inattention.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> in that video he would have to be looking in the left mirror constantly to see the cyclist who goes up the inside. which would mean he couldn't be checking all the other areas he needs to be. so the simplest thing to do is to get cyclists to use their brains and not cut up the inside of the lorry even if tthe cycle lane directs them too.
> 
> my 10 yr old daughter understands this and did so before her bikeabilty as she pulled the instructor up who said to use cycle lanes to approach traffic lights . not from my teaching eithe, r she can read a sign on the back of a lorry and has applied that logic across all lorries.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure they do, mine arrived in a Transit.


----------



## BlackPanther (19 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> Second, what is your basis for the assertion that "it won't happen"? It quite easily could be made to happen either if it were made law, or if the penalties for accidentally killing someone were made high enough that operators decided it was uneconomic not to put two men in the cab. Yes, it would make deliveries cost more, but that doesn't mean it could never happen: I'm sure that drivers hours legislation had the same effect and that people said the same about that before it was introduced.


 
The only advantage of a drivers mate would be the odd reversing manoeuvre where a banksman could come in handy.
I've had a couple of jobs where we double manned. It's impossible not to be a little distracted when you've got someone talking to you most of the day. IMHO, the safest drivers on the road are solo.

I'd also like to bet that more accidents happen per mile where 2 are in the cab than when the driver's solo. I have no stats to back this up, it's just MHO.


----------



## Dan B (19 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> my 10 yr old daughter understands this and did so before her bikeabilty as she pulled the instructor up who said to use cycle lanes to approach traffic lights


If her _cycle instructor_ didn't know not to go up the inside of an HGV, that's a pretty compelling indication right there that fixing the problem is going to be more involved than calling people stupid on the Internet

She clearly isn't, though.


----------



## doog (19 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1649511, member: 3143"]Oh dear, the same ignorant contributions punctuated by the odd common sense post.

Nice post Sub, in theory you could say that your 10yr old daughter has more common sense then most of the pople that have contributed to this thread - and you would not be wrong.[/quote]



Agree. The weird thing is I doubt if any of the protagonists on here would ever dream of cycling up the inside of a lorry.. you can stick an army of people in the cab and rig it out with every electronic device under the sun but not one poster on here would cycle up its inside...would they


----------



## Dan B (19 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> Agree. The weird thing is I doubt if any of the protagonists on here would ever dream of cycling up the inside of a lorry..


That's not weird, that's sensible. Nor would I dream of sticking my arm through a table saw, but that doesn't have to mean I don't think a guard on the machine wouldn't also be a jolly good idea


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1649511, member: 3143"]Oh dear, the same ignorant contributions punctuated by the odd common sense post.

Nice post Sub, in theory you could say that your 10yr old daughter has more common sense then most of the pople that have contributed to this thread - and you would not be wrong.[/quote]
Let's see if I guess this right!

The "common sense " posts are the one you agree with, and the "ignorant contributions" are the ones that challenge your perspective?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1649572, member: 3143"]LOL come again, what logic? Correct me if I'm wrong but the last 'time' you banged on about some blind spot that does not exist, and then could not figure out how cyclists get killed if there is no blind spot, and needed a little help - from me - to show you the way.[/quote]
I don't think any of your posts were ever meant to be( or were actually) of any help. Instead they seemed to consist of you trying to find ways of explaining that whilst the cyclsist could be seen for X seconds the driver coudn't be expected to be able to avoid hitting them. Then you spat your dummy out...


----------



## Dan B (19 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1649580, member: 3143"]Really, all I read was blind spot this and blind spot that. Tried telling people that there are no blind spots[/quote]
If the driver can't be expected to steer clear of a cyclist going up his inside that he _can_ see, it really makes no difference worth of note to anybody whether there are blind spots or not. Forget about the blind spots already.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (19 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> If the driver can't be expected to steer clear of a cyclist going up his inside that he _can_ see, it really makes no difference worth of note to anybody whether there are blind spots or not. Forget about the blind spots already.


I'm really at a lose as to why anyone would want to claim that the cyclist could be seen and yet still accept the "death" as just one of those things that happen. To my mind it simply makes the case for change even more.


----------



## Dan B (19 Dec 2011)

#42 came pretty close


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> #42 came pretty close


That's not how the game is played. What has to happen now is that I have to admit "defeat" that it wasn't said and then a "point" can be claimed as a trophy. Silly I know, but it's easier than trying to think about the issues.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2011)

Good posts, User10571. They are the light of truth on this topic.

I must admit I've always felt a bit ambivalent about this video and taking part in it. I know there are cyclists that do stupid stuff around HGVs, and have filmed some of that myself, in real life. On the other hand, I feel desperately sad for those cyclists that HGV drivers killed through their bad driving. Dennis Putz, drunk, on the phone, and left hooking a cyclist for one example, and there are far too many other cases. Rightly or wrongly, I can't help feeling that the video to some degree excuses what is to my mind murder by lorry, and blames cyclists.


----------



## subaqua (20 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> If her _cycle instructor_ didn't know not to go up the inside of an HGV, that's a pretty compelling indication right there that fixing the problem is going to be more involved than calling people stupid on the Internet
> 
> She clearly isn't, though.


 

oh the instructor knew, she just reminded him that cycle lanes put you in a bad place going to traffic lights. Her words not mine.

fixing the problem involves those who think its SAFE to do dangerous things such as ride up the inside of a large vehicle, having a mindset change and taking responsibility for THEIR OWN actions rather than bleating that somebody else should do something so thay can do what they like.


----------



## Dan B (20 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> fixing the problem involves those who think its SAFE to do dangerous things such as ride up the inside of a large vehicle, having a mindset change


How do you propose to do this?


----------



## Dan_h (20 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> How do you propose to do this?


 
Someone could make a video showing the dangers of riding up the inside of large vehicles...


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2011)

...and what are you going to do about those who drive like Dennis Putz did?


----------



## Dan B (20 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> Someone could make a video showing the dangers of riding up the inside of large vehicles...


Heh


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Good posts, User10571. They are the light of truth on this topic.
> 
> I must admit I've always felt a bit ambivalent about this video and taking part in it. I know there are cyclists that do stupid stuff around HGVs, and have filmed some of that myself, in real life. On the other hand, I feel desperately sad for those cyclists that HGV drivers killed through their bad driving. Dennis Putz, drunk, on the phone, and left hooking a cyclist for one example, and there are far too many other cases. Rightly or wrongly, I can't help feeling that the video to some degree excuses what is to my mind murder by lorry, and blames cyclists.


 Wot E said!


----------



## Shaun (20 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1650194, member: 3143"]I'm truly tired of debating with morons with the IQ of a plank of wood. (You're excused Dan B).[/quote]

Maybe you and a few others should just stop then. You've all made your points and the tit-for-tat jockeying for the "win" on threads can get a bit tiresome.

As a cyclist you _should be aware_ that drivers of HGVs _may not_ see you on the inside, so to stay safe - just don't go up their inside. Stay behind them and _remove the risk_.

Drivers of HGVs should equally be aware that some cyclists go up their inside regardless and should look out for them where it is possible and practical. Drivers who don't take due care should be prosecuted within the current laws, and if the laws need changing then you need to campaign for that.

Telling a cyclist not to go up the inside of a HGV is not being an apologist for HGV manufacture or use - it's plain, simply, common bloody sense. Who gives a toss if you shouldn't _have_ to tell people that (_in an ideal world_) the fact is that this simple bit of advice can save their life.

If you want to campaign for improving the visibility of cyclists on the inside track of HGVs or to educate drivers or cyclists - work together and use the campaigning forum to discuss, positively, ways that this could be achieved.

Rant over.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1650194, member: 3143"]Coming close to something is not the same as actually saying it thoughn is it. And the poster refered to 'industry' and not the pacifics of HGV driving.

I'm truly tired of debating with morons with the IQ of a plank of wood. (You're excused Dan B).[/quote]

No one is forcing you to debate* and you have already announced once that you had given up.


* Where debate seems to consist of saying nothing can be done and then calling variuos people names


----------



## Shaun (20 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No one is forcing you to debate* and you have already announced once that you had given up. * Where debate seems to consist of saying nothing can be done and then calling variuos people names



You're not exactly a saint either - and certainly shouldn't be finger pointing!!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> You're not exactly a saint either - and certainly shouldn't be finger pointing!!


 

I've never claimed to be a saint, but at the risk of angering the admin gods I don't think there has been an occasion in this thread where I have called anyone an idiot, twonk , moron or anythign else that could be classed as name calling. Or have I?


----------



## subaqua (20 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> How do you propose to do this?


 
haven't a clue. I know whats sensible and whats not in that situation so don't need to change my mindset. how would you solve the problem ??


----------



## Bayerd (20 Dec 2011)

1650241 said:


> That's what we need, more HGV drivers with a pacific attitude.


 
Really? I thought there was oceans of them....


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> haven't a clue. I know whats sensible and whats not in that situation so don't need to change my mindset. how would you solve the problem ??


 
Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?


----------



## Dan_h (20 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?


 
Are there not two slightly different things being argued here?

The first being the cyclist does something dangerous and puts themselves at risk because of it (passing the HGV on the left for example).

The second point being argued seems to be that the safety of trucks in general on the road needs to be improved as there are many situations where the cyclist is doing everything right but can still be knocked down.

As individual cyclists the first point is one we can do something about (Don't pass the HGV on the left!). The second would require a change to the training of drivers or their equipment or something. This is not something that can be done by individual cyclists.


----------



## Dan B (20 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> Are there not two slightly different things being argued here?
> 
> The first being the cyclist does something dangerous and puts themselves at risk because of it (passing the HGV on the left for example).
> 
> The second point being argued seems to be that the safety of trucks in general on the road needs to be improved as there are many situations where the cyclist is doing everything right but can still be knocked down.



I don't really think it's a matter of deciding who's at fault. Whoever makes the first mistake, it usually still takes two parties to cause an accident. If I am driving a car and a cyclist does something foolish such as pull out in front of me when I have priority, I have the option - in fact, I am pretty much obliged - to take avoiding action: to stop, or change direction. In the same way when cycling and a pedestrian steps out in front of me, it is not my fault that they've placed themselves in a dangerous situation, but regardless, it then becomes incumbent on me to do my best to avoid them. And for that matter, I would be a crap driver (or cyclist) if I hadn't already anticipated that they _might_ do that.

The problem with HGVs seems to be that there is no margin for error in these situations. I agree completely that if you go up the inside of an HGV you are putting yourself at risk, but (1) I don't see why it's apparently impossible for them to do anything which offsets that risk, and (2) _if_ it really is impossible, should we really be allowing such unforgiving vehicles on the road? It's not about who's in the wrong, it's about what the options are for getting _out_ of the wrong. Proximity sensors, mirrors, training, trixie mirrors, side bars or panels, cameras, cab design, bike lane/asl design, road layout - any or all these things might help, and will be just as likely to help no matter who farked up first.


----------



## Dan_h (20 Dec 2011)

Dan B said:


> I don't really think it's a matter of deciding who's at fault. Whoever makes the first mistake, it usually still takes two parties to cause an accident. If I am driving a car and a cyclist does something foolish such as pull out in front of me when I have priority, I have the option - in fact, I am pretty much obliged - to take avoiding action: to stop, or change direction. In the same way when cycling and a pedestrian steps out in front of me, it is not my fault that they've placed themselves in a dangerous situation, but regardless, it then becomes incumbent on me to do my best to avoid them. And for that matter, I would be a crap driver (or cyclist) if I hadn't already anticipated that they _might_ do that.
> 
> The problem with HGVs seems to be that there is no margin for error in these situations. I agree completely that if you go up the inside of an HGV you are putting yourself at risk, but (1) I don't see why it's apparently impossible for them to do anything which offsets that risk, and (2) _if_ it really is impossible, should we really be allowing such unforgiving vehicles on the road? It's not about who's in the wrong, it's about what the options are for getting _out_ of the wrong. Proximity sensors, mirrors, training, trixie mirrors, side bars or panels, cameras, cab design, bike lane/asl design, road layout - any or all these things might help, and will be just as likely to help no matter who ****ed up first.


 
I am not trying to say it is about who is at fault and who is to blame. I agree that when someone does something foolish (or even just makes a mistake) you are obliged to try and avoid the accident and I can't imagine there are many people on the road who would NOT try and avoid an accident.

I also agree that the design and operation of HGVs could, or infact should, be improved for the safety of all concerned. I have never driven an HGV so don't really feel that I can comment on what can or cannot be seen from inside the cab. From the point of view of the camera in the original video I thought that the cyclist was hard to spot, whether the driver can see into the place the cyclist ended up by twisting his head around I cannot say.

Still having said all of that if there is a way that as cyclists we can do something to reduce the risk to ourselves in certain situations is it not worth us doing it? In one of bentmikey's you tube clips a cyclist tries to go up the left of a truck in a most alarming manner (infact I think he does it twice!) so there are cyclists out there who do not know this danger exists (it is possible that they know but don't care!).

In my mind it is much like the anti RLJ campaign, if I am driving along and a cyclist jumps the lights just ahead of me I will of course try and avoid them if at all possible. However this does not mean it is not a dangerous thing to do. I am sure there are very few HGV drivers who would run over a cyclist on purpose, but this does not mean that it is not dangerous to pass them on the left and it would be better not to.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (20 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> The cyclist is clearly visible in the top n/s mirror when the driver pulls off. Not blind but not paying attention.


Ummm... I've had a look at the vid and I can't see the cyclist in either of those mirrors at 24 secs when the driver pulls away. Looks to me like there's a blind spot there, whether there *should* be or not.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (20 Dec 2011)

An interesting point, IMO, was raised earlier about buses not having nearly the same accident statistics as HGvs and yet they are similarly challenging to drive in terms of size and manouverability (sp?). Is part of the problem, and I'm just "spiffballing" here, that they have such large expanses of openness between the wheels on HGV's whereas Buses are more encased so don't tend to 'drag' cyclists underneath them but rather they bounce off them and probably suffer injuries rather than death? Isn't there any way of 'encasing' the sides of HGVs further to limit this 'drag under' effect?


----------



## subaqua (20 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?


 
as other people have posted , thats not what is being discussed here. that is an entirely different problem to solve. and a van or car doing that would likely have caused the same outcome.

in reply to sharkybloke-more trailers are getting the sides enclosed. maybe some retrospective legislation like the emmision zone rules.


----------



## cyberknight (20 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> oh the instructor knew, she just reminded him that cycle lanes put you in a bad place going to traffic lights. Her words not mine.
> 
> fixing the problem involves those who think its SAFE to do dangerous things such as ride up the inside of a large vehicle, having a mindset change and taking responsibility for THEIR OWN actions rather than bleating that somebody else should do something so thay can do what they like.


 Pretty much what i said at the start , it amazes me how many pages this thread has gone on for with much mud slinging and we all wish that it could be made safer but putting yourself into a known danger zone and shouting "no fair " will not save your life.


----------



## Origamist (20 Dec 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> An interesting point, IMO, was raised earlier about buses not having nearly the same accident statistics as HGvs and yet they are similarly challenging to drive in terms of size and manouverability (sp?). Is part of the problem, and I'm just "spiffballing" here, that they have such large expanses of openness between the wheels on HGV's whereas Buses are more encased so don't tend to 'drag' cyclists underneath them but rather they bounce off them and probably suffer injuries rather than death? Isn't there any way of 'encasing' the sides of HGVs further to limit this 'drag under' effect?


 
Buses are different to HGVs (or LGVs if you prefer) as the cab is higher and set back further (although this varies from cab to cab) and bus drivers have better visibility on the front left due to the amount of glass surrounding the driver. However, "side and underrun protection" is something that has been mooted and might help mitigate the seriousness of collisions involving cyclists and HGVs.


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (20 Dec 2011)

I think this video is much more productive than the first one shown here, have a look , 3 minites in showns how blind a driver can become in an articulated vehicle whilst manovering. The first video shows the results of not watching this video. One coment I would make is it tells cyclist to not undertake a vehicle indicating left I'd rather go for not undertking at all ! see what you think .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_Uf5WVfY_RY


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> An interesting point, IMO, was raised earlier about buses not having nearly the same accident statistics as HGvs and yet they are similarly challenging to drive in terms of size and manouverability (sp?). Is part of the problem, and I'm just "spiffballing" here, that they have such large expanses of openness between the wheels on HGV's whereas Buses are more encased so don't tend to 'drag' cyclists underneath them but rather they bounce off them and probably suffer injuries rather than death? Isn't there any way of 'encasing' the sides of HGVs further to limit this 'drag under' effect?


 

There's a number points here, and I'm not au fait enough with the software to be able to thread them.

Buses may be challenging to drive, but they are not the same as HGVs ( or at least not Artics) in that the mirrors stay at the same angle relative to the body when cornering ( once an artic starts turning the mirrors both sides don't show much of any use)
The flat sides has some mileage in it and many HGVs( I can never remember the new TLA for them) do have that space filled in, however tippers, mixers and skip lorry operators scream like stuck pigs every time the idea is mooted because they don't want to get stuck on constructions sites.
I'm not sure the breakdown of KSI within HGV/Cyclist collisions but I'm willing to bet that tippers, mixers and skip lorries are as over represented within HGVs as HGVs are within the general population. This I would ascribe to two factors, one being the abscence of underriding bars on these vehicles and the other is the way that they are operated on a pay per load basis.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

cyberknight said:


> Pretty much what i said at the start , it amazes me how many pages this thread has gone on for with much mud slinging and we all wish that it could be made safer but putting yourself into a known danger zone and shouting "no fair " will not save your life.


Sighh! :-(

It's only a "known danger zone" if you know...

The cyclist may or may not know, the driver is paid to know


----------



## Origamist (20 Dec 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Ummm... I've had a look at the vid and I can't see the cyclist in either of those mirrors at 24 secs when the driver pulls away. Looks to me like there's a blind spot there, whether there *should* be or not.


 
The problem with trying to glean what the driver could and couldn't see in the video is that the camera is not located in the same postion as the driver *and* has a different field of view. This is critical. For example, when there are reconstructions of collisions involving cyclists and HGVs the "eye height" of the collision investigator and the driver are matched (although in the Eilidh Cairns case this was not the case) in order to establish/extrapolate what would have been visible from the cab.


----------



## Origamist (20 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> as other people have posted , thats not what is being discussed here. that is an entirely different problem to solve. *and a van or car doing that would likely have caused the same outcome.*
> 
> in reply to sharkybloke-more trailers are getting the sides enclosed. maybe some retrospective legislation like the emmision zone rules.


 
There might still have been a collision, but the consequences are likely to be far less serious if a car or (to a lesser extent) a van are involved. HGVs that collide with cyclists at very slow speeds are nearly always KSIs. What's more, due to the length of HGVs it is harder to outrun or outbrake the vehicle when it is turning left.


----------



## Shaun (20 Dec 2011)

How you approach the issue, causes, and solutions makes a difference though. Rather than looking for who is to "blame" why can't we look at solving or alleviating the causes:

*Problem:* Cyclists are being injured and killed by left-turning HGVs/LGVs

*Cause/s*: Drivers are not paying attention and/or not observing the cyclists on their nearside; drivers do not have the equipment to easily detect cyclists who travel-up and sit-at their nearside; cyclists are not aware of the risks and are travelling up the nearside and putting themselves in potential danger; cyclists are aware of the risks and don't care anyway; road designers are creating pathways to encourage cyclists to travel up the nearside by laying cycle lanes on the approach to lights/junctions; some of the vehicles/trailers are not designed to deflect (or protect) the cyclist when caught by a turning lorry; etc. etc.

*Responsibility:* Cyclists, drivers, haulage/vehicle operators, vehicle manufacturers, road designers, cycling educators/trainers, legislators, prosecutors, judges, etc.

*Solution/s:* ... now _that_ would make for an intersting discussion ...


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Ummm... I've had a look at the vid and I can't see the cyclist in either of those mirrors at 24 secs when the driver pulls away. Looks to me like there's a blind spot there, whether there *should* be or not.


 
This is because when we were filming, the cyclist nips to the front of the truck, and then off to the right where he "hides" out of field of view of my camera on the traffic island in the middle of the road at the traffic lights.

Of course that begs the question as to why trucks where the driver can't see in the metre or two directly in front of their vehicles are allowed to be driven in busy urban environments. I don't see why ultrasonic sensors and mirrors can't be made mandatory so that there are no blind spots, and there are driver aids to help reduce the workload in avoiding those who make the mistake of getting in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> as other people have posted , thats not what is being discussed here. that is an entirely different problem to solve. and a van or car doing that would likely have caused the same outcome.
> 
> in reply to sharkybloke-more trailers are getting the sides enclosed. maybe some retrospective legislation like the emmision zone rules.


 
It is what I'm asking you, and it is the same problem of cyclists being killed by lorries.

_Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?_


----------



## doog (20 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> It is what I'm asking you, and it is the same problem of cyclists being killed by lorries.
> 
> _Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?_


 
What has a pissed up lorry driver on the phone got to do with the thread? Are you saying that if some safety device was in place despite being pissed and on the phone he wouldnt have killed that lady? Or are you just anti- lorry driver? 

For the benefit of the thread can we safely assume that all left turning lorry drivers are sober and not on their phone or does that complicate things?


----------



## cyberknight (20 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Sighh! :-(
> 
> It's only a "known danger zone" if you know...
> 
> The cyclist may or may not know, the driver is paid to know


 

As others have pointed out the lorry is indicating before the cyclist decides to cycle up the inside so common sense would tell anyone that it is a danger zone,stop trying to pass the buck and accept the that your actions can have repercussions.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> This is because when we were filming, the cyclist nips to the front of the truck, and then off to the right where he "hides" out of field of view of my camera on the traffic island in the middle of the road at the traffic lights..


 

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those experts who managed to spot the cyclists didn't? How embarrasing


----------



## Origamist (20 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> How you approach the issue, causes, and solutions makes a difference though. Rather than looking for who is to "blame" why can't we look at solving or alleviating the causes:
> 
> *Problem:* Cyclists are being injured and killed by left-turning HGVs/LGVs
> 
> ...


 
Interventions that attempt to ameliorate the situation vis a vis cyclists and HGVs are usually based around the three "Es": education, enforcement and engineering.

For example, a video aimed at highlighting the dangers of left turning HGVs and cyclists would come under "education" as would cycle training. HGV sensors, cctv and an improved mirror configuration would come under "engineering" (as would changes to junction layouts etc). Checking tachographs, roadworthiness, excessive loads on HGVs would be covered by "enforcement". These are only examples of dozens of interventions/approaches that have been discussed over the years to tackle this longstanding and seemingly intractable problem.

In Campaigning there are links to numerous reports, cycle safety plans, petitions and videos that propose many different approaches to reducing road danger from HGVs.


----------



## col (20 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those experts who managed to spot the cyclists didn't? How embarrasing


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> What has a pissed up lorry driver on the phone got to do with the thread? Are you saying that if some safety device was in place despite being pissed and on the phone he wouldnt have killed that lady? Or are you just anti- lorry driver?
> 
> For the benefit of the thread can we safely assume that all left turning lorry drivers are sober and not on their phone or does that complicate things?


 
What has it got to do with a thread on "Bike vs HGV", that's about cyclists dying under the wheels of lorries? Do you really need me to explain that to you, or have you just destroyed all credibility on your posts in this topic?

A pissed lorry driver is just as relevant as the lorry safety unit that found that 100% of the HGVs it examined had one or more serious safety defects. Not minor issues, SERIOUS issues. BoJo wanted to disband it, but the correct action would be to significantly increase the quantity of inspections made and the number of prosecutions brought. There is a lot of scope for enforcement in this area, and for traffic enforcement of the many aggressively driven lorries I see on a daily basis in London.

It's just as appropriate to discuss this, as it is to discuss further education of cyclists and lorry drivers both.


----------



## doog (20 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> What has it got to do with a thread on "Bike vs HGV", that's about cyclists dying under the wheels of lorries? Do you really need me to explain that to you, or have you just destroyed all credibility on your posts in this topic?
> 
> A pissed lorry driver is just as relevant as the lorry safety unit that found that 100% of the HGVs it examined had one or more serious safety defects. Not minor issues, SERIOUS issues. BoJo wanted to disband it, but the correct action would be to significantly increase the quantity of inspections made and the number of prosecutions brought. There is a lot of scope for enforcement in this area, and for traffic enforcement of the many aggressively driven lorries I see on a daily basis in London.
> 
> It's just as appropriate to discuss this, as it is to discuss further education of cyclists and lorry drivers both.


 

Credibility? I am debating an HGV turning left at a junction like everyone else. You are throwing drink driving, mobile phone using and vehicle defects into the mix. Are they relevant for the thread thats all I am asking?

You show me one HGV with a defect , a drink driver, and a phone using driver and I will show you 100 of the same in vans or 1000 in cars. I'm struggling to see your point.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> How you approach the issue, causes, and solutions makes a difference though. Rather than looking for who is to "blame" why can't we look at solving or alleviating the causes:
> 
> *Problem:* Cyclists are being injured and killed by left-turning HGVs/LGVs
> 
> ...


 
I would suggest that the first way to start on a solution would be to use the standard form of risk assessment matrix used by every other industry. On reflection I just snipped the rest...


----------



## Shaun (20 Dec 2011)

I, and possibly others, don't know what a risk assessment matrix is - sounds interesting; is it something you could explain to us?

And how would it help in the context of reducing accidents and deaths from left turning lorries?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (20 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> I, and possibly others, don't know what a risk assessment matrix is - sounds interesting; is it something you could explain to us?
> 
> And how would it help in the context of reducing accidents and deaths from left turning lorries?


 
I doubt if I could explain it well enough that you woudn't be better googling for one.
How would using one help? To start from the basics, it would show that cycling in and of itself is safe, so the over emphasis on helmets, RLJ, HI ViZ etc... should be reduced and the resources, time, money and effort wasted on promoting and enforcing them re directed towards to where it they would be more effective.
It would also force the haulage industry to regard their equipment as what it is, the threat; and then for them to try and control the threat in the way that every other industry is required to do. Somone earlier pointed out that a saw bench ( not a good example) is required to be guarded , and the employer to have a risk assessment for use of the saw, it's not just good enough to say " It's dangerous keep clear of it" , the haulage industry is not obliged to do that once it's equipment leaves the yard ( Go read the HSEs webpage on risk assements for haulage) . A risk matrix would show that the same activity ( using a cycle lane) has a different loading from " low risk" to "Extreme risk" simply by changin the equipment that the activity is near, as the activty is shown to be "safe", it's the equipment that makes it unsafe, so you look at the equipment and change that ( stop using it, introduce control measures, manual operation, double manning...) until you can reduce the risk to acceptable levels.


Of course this is where I came in and we have reached a full circle. It's lorries that are the problem, they are the things that should alter, their operators should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and operate their machinery to the same standard as the rest of the country. Haulage is the dangerous activity , not cycling.


----------



## DresdenDoom (21 Dec 2011)

Sorry LYB but haulage is an integral part of every country's economy, and cycling is, well, a passtime. At sea, the rules relate mostly to maneuverability, so should it be on the road. Hang-gliding is also dangerous, but the practitioners accept the risk and try to minimise it as much as possible. So should cyclists, WE are the mote in the Roads eye.


----------



## Canrider (21 Dec 2011)

How many people hang-glide to work each day?


----------



## subaqua (21 Dec 2011)

cyberknight said:


> Pretty much what i said at the start , it amazes me how many pages this thread has gone on for with much mud slinging and we all wish that it could be made safer but putting yourself into a known danger zone and shouting "no fair " will not save your life.


 
yup but there do seem to be protagonists who think the riding safe doesn't apply to them and all other road users should move for them. if you ignore control measures then you are very likely to get hurt or at worst killed.



origamist said:


> There might still have been a collision, but the consequences are likely to be far less serious if a car or (to a lesser extent) a van are involved. HGVs that collide with cyclists at very slow speeds are nearly always KSIs. What's more, due to the length of HGVs it is harder to outrun or outbrake the vehicle when it is turning left.


 
so don't ride up the inside then , take a primary position and ride properly, shoulder checking regularly.
I don't always ride primary but if theres lots of traffic i most certainly do, but i always check over both shoulders regularly. Even before reading what it was called i used to try and keep to the middle of the lane to avoid being overtaken dangerously. I am not a super rider and would class myself as average /slightly below average and if i can do it then its a fairly simple for others to do it.

the sad thing is that we can never eliminate all risks, only reduce them as far as is reasonably practicable. 50 deaths in construction this year so far , thats 1 a week. we have reduced and eliminated risks as far as we ca. its the changing of mindsets that we are now focussing on . this is what needs to happen for all road users. from lorry drivers to pedestrians.

last night i counted 12 perdestrians who walked out without looking , they may have been listening but a cycle is silent, i am glad i have applied the anticipate what people do mantra taught to me after i passed my test and strted to learn to drive not just learn to pass a test.


----------



## subaqua (21 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those experts who managed to spot the cyclists didn't? How embarrasing


 

suggest you look at 19 to 23 seconds . top mirror. cyclist cleary visible. the driver checks mirror at about 17 seconds when no cyclist is visible then looks forward again, possibly checking right mirror. checks mirror again at 24/25 seconds when cyclist has disappeared from view.

mikkey says he nips up to the front of the truck then hides on the right which fits with what the video shows . not even Boris would actually squish a cyclist

maybe a trip to specsavers for you LYB


----------



## fimm (21 Dec 2011)

So if no cyclist ever went up the left hand side of a HGV ever again, the number of KSIs due to HGV vs cyclists would drop to zero? Some people on this thread appear to be saying this... please note that I agree that cyclists should be educated not to...


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Sorry LYB but haulage is an integral part of every country's economy, *and cycling is, well, a passtime*. At sea, the rules relate mostly to maneuverability, so should it be on the road. Hang-gliding is also dangerous, but the practitioners accept the risk and try to minimise it as much as possible. So should cyclists, WE are the mote in the Roads eye.


 
Cycling is mode of transport for many hundreds of thousdands of people, not merely a pastime.


----------



## Shaun (21 Dec 2011)

Taking the view that lorries are the _whole_ of the problem isn't going to lead to anywhere useful - you can equally remove the cyclist from the equation to solve the problem.

Operating a bicycle with no HGVs or other vehicles nearby isn't particularly risky.

Operating a HGV away from cyclists and other vehicles isn't particularly risky.

It's when you mix them together in close proximity, such as town traffic (and in particular at left turns) that the risk is amplified.

You can't remove either from the situation or separate them in a practical way - unless you create exclusive routes for either or both and that's not going to happen - so you've really got to look at ways of reducing the risk within the boundaries of having them mixed together in traffic.


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2011)

subaqua said:


> yup but there do seem to be protagonists who think the riding safe doesn't apply to them and all other road users should move for them. if you ignore control measures then you are very likely to get hurt or at worst killed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As I understand it, part of the reason the video that the OP posted was pulled was because it could give the impression that the majority of cyclist/HGV collisions were the result of a cyclist undertaking a left turning HGV at a junction (not to mention the upset this could cause the families of bereaved cyclists who died in different, but broadly similar circumstances).

I'll explain. In many of the cases the circumstances leading up to the collision were not known. It could be that the cyclist was overtaken and hooked by the HGV when they were both moving, it could be that the HGV pulled up behind a cyclist and ran them down when turning left, it could be that the cyclist overtook the HGV on the right and then went into an ASL in the driver's frontal blindspot and was then hit when they pulled away etc. There are *many* scenarios that fall under the "left turning HGV/cyclist collision" type and where the cyclists undertakes the HGV is a *subset* of this type - it is only one contributory factor in a critical combination of circumstances.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (21 Dec 2011)

I know of one collision where a skip truck shunted a Renault Clio 30 yards out from a junction because he was too busy howling and hooting at the girl with the surgically enhanced assets on his right.
When questioned he stated that he could not see the Clio and although knowing it had been there had assumed it had gone. He also didn't notice he was pushing it until he heard the driver's hooter and was wondering why the wagon was a bit sluggish.

There's a hell of a lot of factors to think about, some are predictable. Then there's human nature.


----------



## subaqua (21 Dec 2011)

Origamist said:


> As I understand it, part of the reason the video that the OP posted was pulled was because it could give the impression that the majority of cyclist/HGV collisions were the result of a cyclist undertaking a left turning HGV at a junction (not to mention the upset this could cause the families of bereaved cyclists who died in different, but broadly similar circumstances).
> 
> I'll explain. In many of the cases the circumstances leading up to the collision were not known. It could be that the cyclist was overtaken and hooked by the HGV when they were both moving, it could be that the HGV pulled up behind a cyclist and ran them down when turning left, it could be that the cyclist overtook the HGV on the right and then went into an ASL in the driver's frontal blindspot and was then hit when they pulled away etc. There are *many* scenarios that fall under the "left turning HGV/cyclist collision" type and where the cyclists undertakes the HGV is a *subset* of this type - it is only one contributory factor in a critical combination of circumstances.


 totally agree but in THIS THREAD we are discussing this video and how the incident reenacted for the video happened. . I am fully aware that drunk drivers be they in cars van or lorries cause deaths , that SOME drivers do not look properly , that SOME lorry drivers should not be on the road . the underlying theme from a lot of the posters ids that ALL lorries and Lorry drivers are bad wghich is patently not the case. just as SOME cyclists are RLJers SOME ride on the pavement, SOME put themselves in danger because they think they are in the right does not mean ALL cyclists do the above.


there are now more control measures in place than ever before on drivers and still accidents happen, that suggests there is something beyond the control of the driver that can cause SOME accidents. this is what needs to be looked at not knee jerk even stricter regulations.

maybe better cyclelane provision /location could help who knows.


----------



## PK99 (21 Dec 2011)

Origamist said:


> As I understand it, part of the reason the video that the OP posted was pulled was because it could give the impression that the majority of cyclist/HGV collisions were the result of a cyclist undertaking a left turning HGV at a junction (not to mention the upset this could cause the families of bereaved cyclists who died in different, but broadly similar circumstances).
> 
> I'll explain.s.


 

it is not just undertaking that is the problem. Stopping hard left against the kerb and allowing a lorry to share the lane alongside you is equally foolish.
Arrive first : Stop centrally / in primary position in the lane.
Arrive later: Do not undertake, wait in line.


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2011)

I'm not really interested in trying to piece together what happended in the video as it's a fruitless exercise. As I've already said, the camera in the cab is not in the same position as the driver and a camera lens has a different field of view to the human eye.

What interests me is how to better to understand why these collisions occur and what can be done to prevent them.

A lot of people on this thread have (righty) highlighted the danger of undertaking HGVs when they are stopped and indicating left. I'd go one step further and strongly advise against overtaking them on the right and using an ASL zone as you are just as likely not to be seen if you position yourself in front of the cab (without a class VI mirror) in an ASL zone.

Fundamentally though, if you wanted to drastically reduce cyclist and pedestrian fatalities you would have to look at redesigning cabs, changing HGV delivery schedules to avoid the rush hours, HGV bans in town and cities etc. None of which are likely as there is a complex cost benefit analysis that is used when considering safety interventions.


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> it is not just undertaking that is the problem. Stopping hard left against the kerb and allowing a lorry to share the lane alongside you is equally foolish.
> Arrive first : Stop centrally / in primary position in the lane.
> Arrive later: Do not undertake, wait in line.


 
I would add that if you arrive first and a HGV approaches from behind, get eye contact, wave etc (move forward if necessary).
I would also add that if you arrive after a HGV and wait in line, make sure you stop at least 2 metres behind the HGV, preferably further back. In this position you are still out of sight, but relatively safe. If you adopt a position to the right or left of the lane (either in an attempt to block undertaking or to make yourself visible in the driver's mirrors) you are vulnerable to other vehicles coming alongside.


----------



## Mad at urage (21 Dec 2011)

PK99 said:


> it is not just undertaking that is the problem. Stopping hard left against the kerb and allowing a lorry to share the lane alongside you is equally foolish.
> Arrive first : Stop centrally / in primary position in the lane.
> Arrive later: Do not undertake, wait in line.


Then have a bus drive into the back of you, sending you flying past the pedestrian using the Toucan crossing (I was on a motor-bike at the time, which gave some protection and was bigger, with bigger lights)... Some drivers yo just can't win against.


----------

