# What an HGV sees of you



## BigonaBianchi (19 Nov 2013)

View: http://youtu.be/wzL0Kyk4m-8


Given the recent cull of cyclists I thought I'd share this video in here, not to scare anyone new to cycling or put you off but to highlight the need to be VERY careful around HGV's and not to undertake them, especially at junctions.

This is apparently what they see in their mirrors. 

Personally I feel if they cant design better visability into these things they shouldnt be on the roads, but they are so we must live with it....or...erm...not


----------



## smokeysmoo (19 Nov 2013)




----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Nov 2013)

There is technology that permits 360 degree visibility, but that would be too much like hard work to spend some cash to save lives - so it boils down to being the cyclists fault for being killed.


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2013)

Marmion said:


> There is technology that permits 360 degree visibility, but that would be too much like hard work to spend some cash to save lives - so it boils down to being the cyclists fault for being killed.


 can you tell me how to look all the way round a vehicle at all times without taking your eyes off whats in front of you ?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Nov 2013)

subaqua said:


> can you tell me how to look all the way round a vehicle at all times without taking your eyes off whats in front of you ?


 
Seriously? You mean to say you look straight ahead all the time?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Nov 2013)

Here's an example of technology
http://www.asl360.co.uk/


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2013)

Marmion said:


> Seriously? You mean to say you look straight ahead all the time?


no I look around, but that wasn't what you said in your post was it? its impossible to see all things at all times in or on ANY vehicle .


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> if they cant design better visability into these things they shouldnt be on the roads



Quite.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Nov 2013)

What this misses is that in many cases the cyclist is totally and unequivocally visible before the "HGV" overtakes and turns across the cyclist


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Nov 2013)

subaqua said:


> no I look around, but that wasn't what you said in your post was it? its impossible to see all things at all times in or on ANY vehicle .


 
If you read my post properly you'd see what I said.


----------



## Kies (19 Nov 2013)

interesting to see HGV's and cyclist in London today - heard a few bip their horns before starting the left hand manoeuvre. really got every road user to take note, as we don't hear HGV fog horns in these there parts


----------



## subaqua (20 Nov 2013)

Marmion said:


> If you read my post properly you'd see what I said.


 yes I read what you said and for 360 degree monitoring to work then you must be able to see all things at all times otherwise its not 360 degree monitoring.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

Surely it has to be better than the current pair of mirrors though?


----------



## theclaud (20 Nov 2013)

*Gordon Seabright* ‏@*GSeabright*  23h
Example of HGV with full height glazed doors for visibility: http://trucks.autotrader.co.uk/used-trucks/type/tipper/mercedes-benz/econic… Hauliers could be safer now if they chose @*CTC_Cyclists*


----------



## BigonaBianchi (20 Nov 2013)

The discussion.about hgv design is highly.valid and hopefully things will change. 
My motive for posting in the begginer section was reall just to.highlight the dangers to any.New to road riding. Last thing anybody wants is more carnage.

I just thought it may.be helpful for peeps to see the view from the cab so to speak.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

Its a totally fair discussion topic. Would be better if there was a HGV driver involved too, to get a balanced view. I have nothing to do with HGV driving now or in the past, so no bias, but these guys do a tough job and amazes me how they manouevre them so well around the country.

I love cycling, and am gutted that these poor people have lost their lives, but we should not blame each and every HGV driver as a result. I don't know who was to blame in the current spate of accidents, so can't comment there.

Personally, I think something major needs to be done to our infrastructure rather than solely relying on upgrades to the vehicles themselves. Better visibility on them would be great, but having a separate cycle lane which has a pavement between it and the main road would surely be a far better solution?

Much the same can be said for shared cycle and foot paths? The more popular ones are a nightmare for all concerned. Cyclists can't safely go as fast as they would like. Walkers can't be sure that some cyclist might not come along and wipe out their wayward child. Two sides to this, the same as a shared road.

Somehow doubt its going to get resolved anytime soon mind you!


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> Why should cyclists be able to go 'as fast as they like'? And who is blaming 'each and every' HGV driver?


Why shouldn't they?

Not trying to sound harsh above, in any way, just trying to contrast the requirements of different users. In an ideal world...cyclists should be able to go fast if they choose...parents should be able to stroll along with their kids and dogs roaming freely...cyclists should be safe on the main roads...HGV drivers, and other vehicle drivers too, should be able to drive safe in the knowledge that they are aware of every other vehicle and person around them...

None of us are naive enough to think any of this is reality! Whilst we share usage, I am NOT suggesting that each of the above uses should carry on. Its a trade off that we all adhere to and we should all take care of others. That's my point really. Not saying anyone on here blames every HGV driver, but have heard conversations at work to the contrary.


----------



## Cuchilo (20 Nov 2013)

an interesting thought from another place is that cyclists have a transmitter on the bike that HGVs can pick up . Given that most people have a sat nav wouldn't an ANT+ transmitter be picked up on it with some kind of app ? Just an idea that's getting bounced about .


----------



## BigonaBianchi (20 Nov 2013)

I have a friend I ride with, he is a HGV driver. He has set up the critical mass ride down here.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (20 Nov 2013)

Why people can't just drive safely (and ride safely) so we can all go about our business without all this rubbish I don't know. It's actually very simple, we stay away from HGV's and they stay away from us. The problem seems to be with the rush rush rush, me first culture we have allowed to prevail. Everybody is on a deadline....quite literally in this case.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Nov 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> ...
> The problem seems to be with the rush rush rush, me first culture we have allowed to prevail. Everybody is on a deadline....quite literally in this case.



nail on head BOAB.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2778537, member: 30090"]LOL that vid....the unit and trailer are incorrectly positioned for the sake of rather blatant scaremongering...[/quote]
yeah yeah yeah... it's a bit inaccurate... but blatant scaremongering it isn't.


----------



## SquareDaff (20 Nov 2013)

You'd be able to see some of those cyclists if the cab had been straight on and not simulating the start of a left turn. Personally I think any cyclist who'd shoot up the inside of a lorry positioned like that on a road has a death wish and deserves everything they get. The cab and trailer are only going to go one way and everyone knows it.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> Why people can't just drive safely (and ride safely) so we can all go about our business without all this rubbish I don't know. It's actually very simple, we stay away from HGV's and they stay away from us. The problem seems to be with the rush rush rush, me first culture we have allowed to prevail. Everybody is on a deadline....quite literally in this case.


And, much though I wish it weren't the case, ideas about sharing road space are naive. When traffic gets to a critical level, it's about competing for road space and quickly plugging up the space when it opens in front of you. And when it comes to competing for road space, bigger is better. There are commercial advantages to having bigger freight vehicles, there are status advantages (apparently) to driving a bigger car. The effect of this, of course, is to leave less space for the smaller road users. Big squeezes out small.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Nov 2013)

SquareDaff said:


> You'd be able to see some of those cyclists if the cab had been straight on and not simulating the start of a left turn. *Personally I think any cyclist who'd shoot up the inside of a lorry positioned like that on a road has a death wish and deserves everything they get*. The cab and trailer are only going to go one way and everyone knows it.



I suspect you'd quickly change your opinion if it was your mother, brother, sister, son, cousin, or friend.... I can't see you standing at their wake saying "they deserved it".


----------



## BigonaBianchi (20 Nov 2013)

> Big squeezes out small



so I've been told


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Nov 2013)

Talking to someone at work who is a novice and they came up with something I hadn't thought of.......

There is a roundabout at Portchester on the A27 with an onroad cycle track around it, All the kerbs are then fenced off to prevent pedeatrian access, a common feature on many junctions.

I take the primary, but they feel obliged to used the cycle path, and are amazed atthe number of vehicles who "cut" the corner at the exit usingthe cycle lane.

Their fear is being squished betweenthe vehicle and the fence

That started me thinking...... what part do these fances play in these injuries and deaths

Had the fences not been there would the cylist have been "bounced clear" by the impact and survived, or would there have been an escape route to again assist survival.

Do we need to look atthese fences as a safety issue?


----------



## BigonaBianchi (20 Nov 2013)

fences arnt the answer...they just give the morons even more power and free reign to drive like the pathetic bunch of spolit brats many are. The best answer imho is change the law. hit a cyclist for any reason and the driver gets a lifetime driving ban, end of story.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Nov 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> ...
> The best answer imho is change the law. *hit a cyclist for any reason* and the driver gets a lifetime driving ban, end of story.



whilst i don't entirely agree with your statement... the sooner a driving license is seen as a privilege rather than a human right, the better. 

Dangerous driving should result in a lifetime ban. Drink/drug driving should result in a lifetime ban... none of this six month or two year suspension and a handful of points on your licence malarkey.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Nov 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> fences arnt the answer...they just give the morons even more power and free reign to drive like the pathetic bunch of spolit brats many are. The best answer imho is change the law. hit a cyclist for any reason and the driver gets a lifetime driving ban, end of story.



My point is that fences are possibly a major hazard and cause of injury - certainly not the answer to anything


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

2779561 said:


> That is why they are mostly all gone.


Yes, many have gone. However, a couple of the persisting ones around here have ghost bikes attached....


----------



## gaz (20 Nov 2013)

It's worth noting that one of the mirrors in the cab was missed. It's at the top of the passenger window and shows you what is to the side of the cab and has a convected mirror to show a large area. The mirror is present on this cab, but obviously, showing how correctly fitted and used mirrors show things would ruin the point of the video.

An example, Although I think this one is set up for the driver and not the photographer, as such you see quite a bit of the cab and not as much of the side.
Some cyclists in the video would be missed with this mirror but the majority at the front should be visible.


----------



## Judderz (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2778537, member: 30090"]LOL that vid....the unit and trailer are incorrectly positioned for the sake of rather blatant scaremongering...[/quote]
No it's not.

The simulation is set up for the vehicle doing a left turn (see indicator on cab unit), whereas the vehicle would have to take the corner wide due to its length as to avoid hitting the kerb, which is how the vehicle is positioned. This is when the simulation switches to the camera video shots to show what the driver can and can't see.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> It's worth noting that one of the mirrors in the cab was missed. It's at the top of the passenger window and shows you what is to the side of the cab and has a convected mirror to show a large area. The mirror is present on this cab, but obviously, showing how correctly fitted and used mirrors show things would ruin the point of the video.
> 
> An example, Although I think this one is set up for the driver and not the photographer, as such you see quite a bit of the cab and not as much of the side.
> Some cyclists in the video would be missed with this mirror but the majority at the front should be visible.



It's worth noting that the point of the video, and the image in my avatar is to get the message across to cyclists that it's not a good idea to ride down the inside of long vehicles.... nit picking about the height of the camera in the cab, the mirror they don't show, or the specific position of the HGV at the junction is of no benefit. In fact, it's counter productive.


----------



## gaz (20 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> It's worth noting that the point of the video, and the image in my avatar is to get the message across to cyclists that it's not a good idea to ride down the inside of long vehicles.... nit picking about the height of the camera in the cab, the mirror they don't show, or the specific position of the HGV at the junction is of no benefit. In fact, it's counter productive.


I only said it's worth noting because some people are not aware of the missing mirror and what it can do.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Nov 2013)

bpsmith said:


> Why shouldn't they?
> 
> Not trying to sound harsh above, in any way, just trying to contrast the requirements of different users. In an ideal world...cyclists should be able to go fast if they choose...parents should be able to stroll along with their kids and dogs roaming freely...cyclists should be safe on the main roads...HGV drivers, and other vehicle drivers too,* should be able to drive safe in the knowledge that they are aware of every other vehicle and person around them...*
> 
> None of us are naive enough to think any of this is reality! Whilst we share usage, I am NOT suggesting that each of the above uses should carry on. Its a trade off that we all adhere to and we should all take care of others. That's my point really. Not saying anyone on here blames every HGV driver, but have heard conversations at work to the contrary.


This is what it is about awareness, I drove a truck for many years and never came into contact with a cyclist, it really is about knowing where you are in relationship to others on the road, however I have seen cyclists (as a cyclist) put themselves at risk, it doesn't matter what others do, you as a road user have to think, where is safe for you, and if that means waiting 5 seconds to be safe than that is what you have to do, I have been at junctions waiting and thinking I could have gone there but not one motorist has pip me for waiting, because I am in the right place for the monever I about to make


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> I only said it's worth noting because some people are not aware of the missing mirror and what it can do.


Mirrors get broken whilst in the course of a day, you as a driver need to make sure everything is safe, so I got a broken mirror outside King Cross, what do you want me to do block the lane till its fixed, (car drivers would love that as a moaning point, especially as they don't realise that most infrastructure is delivered by trucks ), I did make it safe by having an observer watch my left side. however not everone can do that, which is why as a cyclist you have to be aware of the dangerous that are out there, not moan about it but learn and be safe


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> I only said it's worth noting because some *people are not aware of the missing mirror and what it can do*.


that's my issue... by stating that there's another mirror that will give the driver a view of the near side of their cab* might lead some readers to think _"They have a mirror that shows the nearside of their cab, so it's OK for me to ride down their nearside."_ ... Which is why i feel the 'nit picking' is counter productive to the point of the video and image.

*assuming it's fitted, positioned correctly and the driver is looking at it.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Nov 2013)

subaqua said:


> yes I read what you said and for 360 degree monitoring to work then you must be able to see all things at all times otherwise its not 360 degree monitoring.


 
OK. You seem to have attached some strange interpretation to a relatively easy to understand concept, which I am taking as you being deliberately stupid to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> You're backing down now. You were using the 'go as fast as they like' point as an argument for segregated cycle paths. To extend that same argument would be to let cars and lorries have exclusive use of the roads so that they too can 'go as fast as they like'.
> 
> Your original post said 'We should not blame each and every HGV driver', not 'Someone at work has blamed an HGV driver'. In fact no one on here is doing what you suggest.


Not backing down at all...you're just spoiling for an argument!

The way you put it, is exactly what I meant though. IF there were separate cycling lanes then it would mean cyclists could go as fast as legally allowed. The same would then hold true for motorised vehicles on the road. That is correctly what I meant, hence not backing down.

On the other point, I didn't suggest for a moment that anybody on here had blamed the HGV driver. Read the posts...


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

Nigelnaturist said:


> This is what it is about awareness, I drove a truck for many years and never came into contact with a cyclist, it really is about knowing where you are in relationship to others on the road, however I have seen cyclists (as a cyclist) put themselves at risk, it doesn't matter what others do, you as a road user have to think, where is safe for you, and if that means waiting 5 seconds to be safe than that is what you have to do, I have been at junctions waiting and thinking I could have gone there but not one motorist has pip me for waiting, because I am in the right place for the monever I about to make


Totally agree. In a perfect world there would be no accidents. I was alluding to the fact that you just can't see EVERY other vehicle and/or person, when people are so unpredictable. You can be the best driver out there and somebody does something stupid to cause an accident at the last moment.

I am sticking up for HGV drivers, not rubbishing them.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

The animosity in this thread is amazing! Not to mention that it's posted in the Beginners section and some causing arguments have been members for a number of years...Beginners?


----------



## bpsmith (20 Nov 2013)

I enjoy a good discussion, but your previous posts were just having a pop. The above is more discussion than pointing the finger, thanks.

There's plenty of room for valid arguments without the animosity seen above, and I don't point the finger solely at you btw.

Can we move on now?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> that's my issue... by stating that there's another mirror that will give the driver a view of the near side of their cab* might lead some readers to think _"They have a mirror that shows the nearside of their cab, so it's OK for me to ride down their nearside."_ ... Which is why i feel the 'nit picking' is counter productive to the point of the video and image.
> 
> *assuming it's fitted, positioned correctly and the driver is looking at it.


It is never safe to be on the inside of a truck, so dont ever do it, it is that simple, most truck drivers do try and be aware, but things happen, I have had trucks over take me and really well plenty of room ect.. but I have also seen fast oncoming cars make the choice they made to be jeopardy and whilst they had to bring the cab in quickly they had enough experience to to keep the trailer away from me simple because when they overtook me they were on the other carriage way, plus because I observed what was happening I could also slow, this is awareness of riding conditions which we should all do what ever we are riding or driving


----------



## subaqua (20 Nov 2013)

bpsmith said:


> Surely it has to be better than the current pair of mirrors though?


theres more than a pair legally


----------



## subaqua (20 Nov 2013)

Marmion said:


> OK. You seem to have attached some strange interpretation to a relatively easy to understand concept, which I am taking as you being deliberately stupid to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong.


no I know what 360 degree monitoring means as I understand the basics of physics english and mathematics and biology , something which you yourself do seem to be struggling with. I don't seem to be the only one who understands what i am saying judging by the comments i have recieved


----------



## PeteXXX (20 Nov 2013)

As a general rule, articulated trucks have 4 indicators on each side. One at the front, one on the wing, one on the rear of the tracfor unit and one on the rear of the trailer.
Truck drivers, as oposed to car drivers, tend to use their indicators. 
Keep an eye out for them before riding up the inside of a truck as they are a clue what the driver wishes to do, ie, turn. Also bear in mind the extra road space needed to get round a corner.


----------



## mark st1 (20 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> *Gordon Seabright* ‏@*GSeabright*  23h
> Example of HGV with full height glazed doors for visibility: http://trucks.autotrader.co.uk/used-trucks/type/tipper/mercedes-benz/econic… Hauliers could be safer now if they chose @*CTC_Cyclists*



Thats a good idea. Dont know if it has a ram to tip as it isnt shown in the pics but sure looks safer with a better field of vision than what i currently drive.


----------



## buggi (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2778537, member: 30090"]LOL that vid....the unit and trailer are incorrectly positioned for the sake of rather blatant scaremongering...[/quote]
no it's not, its positioned correctly as if its in a right hand lane, cab slightly angled ready to commence a left hand turn.
I'm sick of seeing "lorry should have...", "driver should do..." and "victim blaming" everytime someone talks a bit of sense. 
today i even saw a car driver hang back and wait for the lorry in the next lane to make its turn!! If someone in a car can act with caution then it only makes sense to me a cyclist can also. its not a crime to suggest something that may save a cyclist in case a lorry doesn't have or a driver doesn't do! It would be all very nice if the lorry did have.. And the driver did do... but they're not gonna do it by tomorrow are they?


----------



## buggi (20 Nov 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Talking to someone at work who is a novice and they came up with something I hadn't thought of.......
> 
> There is a roundabout at Portchester on the A27 with an onroad cycle track around it, All the kerbs are then fenced off to prevent pedeatrian access, a common feature on many junctions.
> 
> ...


 no the cyclist doesn't bounce, it makes it worse when there are pedestrian railings... Its the cheese grater effect


----------



## buggi (20 Nov 2013)

2780540 said:


> So what we need is a prohibition on trucks putting cyclists on their inside by passing?


 no the issue isn't whether the cyclist is there... It's how he got there. if the driver comes up behind the cyclist then he knows the cyclist is there and is clearly at fault if he then runs him over. But if the cyclist rides up the inside chances are the driver may not see him due to blind spot. But you already know that's what was meant. Clearly tho, if the cyclist was in primary he wouldn't be on the left either way.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

2780540 said:


> So what we need is a prohibition on trucks putting cyclists on their inside by passing?


I know this is black humour but, just off the top of my head, has anybody ever installed a no-overtaking box before junctions? Or a strip clearly marked, denoting ''no overtaking cyclists in this lane'' before junctions? A sort of bike clearway? (Not that I believe there's any one solution. And it wouldn't deal with ''must filter in the inside at all costs'' cyclists.) With unbroken ''do not cross this line'' markings on the outside to reinforce the lane protection. It is the classic danger point. You can kill yourself in many other ways, and you can get killed in many other ways too but it is where most of the deaths occur.

(Admittedly, it's off the top of my head, but why not a limited zone where there is cycle priority and no parking? Shoot me down if you like.)


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> no the cyclist doesn't bounce, it makes it worse when there are pedestrian railings... Its the cheese grater effect



Which is my point made twice above .....Had the fences _*not been there*_ would the cyclist have been "bounced clear" by the impact and survived

The presence of these barriers and their danger is the issue


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Nov 2013)

2780540 said:


> So what we need is a prohibition on trucks putting cyclists on their inside by passing?





Nigelnaturist said:


> Grow the f up you now what I meant. The guide lines are in the highway code ride it, its pretty simple and if all road users followed it no problem.




Except in most of these fatalities this is the exact opposite of this scenario.

It is the HGV overtaking and putting the cyclist on the inside with absolutely nowhere to go!


----------



## theclaud (20 Nov 2013)

Nigelnaturist said:


> *Grow the f up you now what I meant*. The guide lines are in the highway code ride it, its pretty simple and if all road users followed it no problem.



Oooooooooooh! Keep your hair on!


----------



## Origamist (20 Nov 2013)

Here's a few other tips for dealing with HGVs, if you're on a bike:

If a HGV approaches from behind and you are stationary at the lights, try and get eye contact with the driver. Persist with this tactic until you get confirmation that the driver has acknowledged your presence. Sometimes this can take time as the driver might be checking his mirrors, Sat-Nav, phone, or paperwork etc
If you are approaching a junction on your left and a HGV is close behind or alongside, try to get eye contact, but assume the driver might choose to turn left as he's misjudged your speed. Brake and let them pass before the junction, if possible (consider a kerb escape if the situation is time critical). Depending on lane width, primary position might be a reasonable position to adopt.
If you are on a country lane and a HGV is behind you, look for a place to let the vehicle past. Attempt eye contact, Indicate and slow. If there is not a suitable passing spot for a while, be prepared for an overtake (sometimes these will be ill-timed) . If this happens, wipe off speed to let the vehicle overtake as even professional drivers misjudge the length of their trailer when pulling in. Therefore try to give yourself a safety buffer to the left.
If you see a HGV approaching a RaB and you are already circulating, assume their vision will be obscured by their mirror array and be prepared to take evasive action, if at all possible.
Try not to ride alongside a HGV for any length of time - preferably hang back, as it's always better to have these vehicles in front of you.
If a HGV driver is cautious and courteous - most are IME - thank them with a wave or thumbs up.
However, all of the above are merely safety tactics and do nothing to address the danger at source.


----------



## buggi (20 Nov 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Which is my point made twice above .....Had the fences _*not been there*_ would the cyclist have been "bounced clear" by the impact and survived
> 
> The presence of these barriers and their danger is the issue


 OK NO NEED TO SHOUT i misread your post


----------



## buggi (20 Nov 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Except in most of these fatalities this is the exact opposite of this scenario.
> 
> It is the HGV overtaking and putting the cyclist on the inside with absolutely nowhere to go!


in most of these fatalities recently the exact circumstance is unknown. And no one is making presumptions about the cyclist, they are just saying try not to put yourself in this scenario if you have a choice.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> Here's a few other tips for dealing with HGVs, if you're on a bike:
> 
> If a HGV approaches from behind and you are stationary at the lights, try and get eye contact with the driver. Persist with this tactic until you get confirmation that the driver has acknowledged your presence. Sometimes this can take time as the driver might be checking his mirrors, Sat-Nav, phone, or paperwork etc
> If you are approaching a junction on your left and a HGV is close behind, try to get eye contact, but assume the driver might choose to turn left as he's misjudged your speed. Brake and let them pass before the junction, if possible. Depending on lane width, primary position might be a reasonable position to adopt.
> ...


Good points but more psych-ability than bikeability, perhaps?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> in most of these fatalities recently the exact circumstance is unknown. And no one is making presumptions about the cyclist, they are just saying try not to put yourself in this scenario if you have a choice.


But we do know the exact locations. Predominantly at junctions, though not always. That is part of the reason why I haven't yet discounted my ''Bike Priority Zones'' suggestion back in post #60.


----------



## gaz (20 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> that's my issue... by stating that there's another mirror that will give the driver a view of the near side of their cab* might lead some readers to think _"They have a mirror that shows the nearside of their cab, so it's OK for me to ride down their nearside."_ ... Which is why i feel the 'nit picking' is counter productive to the point of the video and image.
> 
> *assuming it's fitted, positioned correctly and the driver is looking at it.


Which of course is not a good message. Really you should treat all vehicles as if they don't have a mirror and as if they haven't seen you.

As they may well have them to see you with but they may not look in them


----------



## Origamist (20 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Good points but more psych-ability than bikeability, perhaps?



Yes, to a degree. Second guessing the errant behaviour of other road users is a cognitive skill that can be improved (some cues are easier to pick up on, others are harder to discern and process), but there's only so much you can preempt and reasonably respond too.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Nov 2013)

subaqua said:


> no I know what 360 degree monitoring means as *I understand the basics* of physics *english* and mathematics and biology , something which you yourself do seem to be struggling with. I don't seem to be the only one who understands what i am saying judging by the comments i have *recieved*


 
Here's a basic for you: i before e except after c

Are these private messages of support? Unseen to everyone else.


----------



## ttcycle (20 Nov 2013)

Removed a couple of posts, let's not get into mudslinging territory please. As you were.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> To a degree, yes. Second guessing the errant behaviour of other road users is a cognitive skill that can be improved (some cues are easier to pick up on, others are harder to discern and process), but there's only so much you can preempt and reasonably respond too.


Yes, I suppose that it's the kind of thing you pick up on the way to surviving but is so hard to teach, and that level of learning how to survive should never have to be learnt. It's road wisdom, learned on the road in interactions over a period of years , not something you can teach in the playground.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> in most of these fatalities recently the exact circumstance is unknown. And no one is making presumptions about the cyclist, they are just saying try not to put yourself in this scenario if you have a choice.



... but the point is that the HGV is removing that choice.....


----------



## Wobblers (21 Nov 2013)

bpsmith said:


> Not backing down at all...you're just spoiling for an argument!
> 
> The way you put it, is exactly what I meant though. I*F there were separate cycling lanes then it would mean cyclists could go as fast as legally allowed. The same would then hold true for motorised vehicles on the road.* That is correctly what I meant, hence not backing down.
> 
> On the other point, I didn't suggest for a moment that anybody on here had blamed the HGV driver. Read the posts...



"As fast as legally allowed" is not the same as "as fast as is _safe_". Shared paths are simply not designed for fast cyclists. Even segregated paths are still likely to have pedestrian traffic on them, will not get gritted in winter and are unlikely to be maintained to the same standard as roads, so fast cycling on those facilities is unlikely to be advisable. The same applies to road speed limits: they aren't targets, there is a requirement for motorists to reduce speed in reduced visibility or poor grip. The fact that this is widely ignored along with the "you should drive at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear" does not make it acceptable - or legal.

Most cyclist injuries are _not _as a result of collisions with other vehicles, but due to things like ice, diesel, leaves, potholes, etc. Segregation will do nothing to solve this, in fact as a result of the usually poor standard of construction (it's amazing how many designers seem to think that high kerbs and sharp 90 degree bends are perfectly fine) and poor upkeep is likely to worsen matters.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2780803, member: 30090"]To yours and the others members posts regarding the positioning of the cab:-

It is not correct, I have my class 1 license so feel qualified to give an opinion on the matter, if that vehicle was to continue the turn then the n/s trailer wheels would be a good 5-6 feet on the kerb.[/quote]
yawn.


----------



## buggi (21 Nov 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> ... but the point is that the HGV is removing that choice.....


 Which is why i said " And no one is making presumptions about the cyclist, they are just saying try not to put yourself in this scenario IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE"


----------



## buggi (21 Nov 2013)

2780788 said:


> I don't know about you but much of my commute has two lanes each way with bus lanes on the left and an all comers lane. Cyclists ride in the bus lane,lorries in the other lane. Covering primary doesn't always cover everything.


its a difficult scenario i admit but there are 3 ways you can handle it.

i would treat the bus lane as a massive wide cycle lane. If the lights were on red as i approached, i wouldn't proceed to the front if there was a lorry at the front of the other lane. Instead I'd sit in primary in the bus lane adjacent to at the back end of the lorry. The only person you're "holding up" is the bus driver and he should be savvy enough to understand why.

Or i would use the same lane as the lorry but just join the back of the queue of traffic in primary (or nip in at a convenient gap anywhere behind the lorry, and take primary), and proceed through with the traffic returning to the bus lane when it was safe.
Or if was at the front of the bus lane (in primary of course) and the lorry came up behind and sat in the next lane, he should have seen me but in case he hadn't i would move as far forward as the road would allow so i got a head start.


----------



## buggi (21 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> But we do know the exact locations. Predominantly at junctions, though not always. That is part of the reason why I haven't yet discounted my ''Bike Priority Zones'' suggestion back in post #60.


from what i saw of bow roundabout lights, they allow the cars to go, then stop them, then allows the cycles to move forward into a priority zone (although not marked as such, but they are a few yards in front) and holds them there. Then after allowing the traffic on the RAB to go round, the sequence then returns to allow the cars AND the cycles already in that zone to proceed at the same time. Cars catch up cycles very quick and they get squished. This RAB should just have a seperate sequence for cyclists (why bring them out of a protected zone and stop them in another unprotected zone? I think a pre-green light for cycles would work better than a priority zone. It gives the cyclist more time to get across the junction


----------



## Nigelnaturist (21 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Oooooooooooh! Keep your hair on!


Sorry I have had what must be the worst 3 or 4 days in my life, and I shouldn't have taken it out on here.


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2013)

Arghhh, not this video again!
OK, it might be useful in highlighting the fact that visibility can be restricted from an artic cab, BUT that particular video is nonsense.

1. Mirrors are not properly adjusted, showing far too much of the side of the cab, and therefore less of the angle away from the vehicle.

2. It is parked with the cab and trailer at an angle, which it wouldn't be if sitting stationary at lights. Drivers would hopefully keep cab and trailer aligned for best visibility, and only start to turn when moving off, having checked that there are no cyclists.

3. As others have pointed out, it fails to show the other mirror at the top of the nearside window which points down to the ground, the purpose of which is to erradicate that blind spot not covered by rear view mirrors.

4. Worst of all, the camera is being held at somewhere slightly above a drivers waist level! The tops of some of those cyclists would be visible from eye level, simply by turning your head and looking out of the nearside window.

Yes I am talking from experience. HGV class 1 licence holder for about 8 years now, with 6 years full time driving an artic. Now where's the bookmark facility so I can cut and paste this for next time this clip appears!


----------



## SquareDaff (21 Nov 2013)

2779597 said:


> Personally I think that anyone who writes this sort of stuff needs to have a good long think about their humanity.


Then teach your kids to cycle up the nearside of a left turning HGV instead of staying a) behind it or b) filtering up the offside if safe to do so and we'll see how long your family line lasts! The point of that statement was that cyclists are in general hideously exposed. Only an idiot would risk almost certain death by filtering up the near side of a HGV in the process of a left hand turn. But please explain to me why I'm wrong!!!


----------



## SquareDaff (21 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> It's the 'deserving death' bit that is unacceptable.


Read back and point out to me where I said anyone deserved to die. I didn't! We've all had moments where we've done stupid things and sufferred the consequences be that, shocks when a drivers blasted you with a horn, coming off, having clothing torn, getting the bike damaged etc... My statement just said that if you perform an idiotic maneuovere like that then you can expect the consequences. You added the death part.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> Arghhh, not this video again!
> OK, it might be useful in highlighting the fact that visibility can be restricted from an artic cab, BUT that particular video is nonsense.


you didn't bother reading the thread before posting did you.


Brandane said:


> 1. Mirrors are not properly adjusted, showing far too much of the side of the cab, and therefore less of the angle away from the vehicle.


yawn


Brandane said:


> 2. It is parked with the cab and trailer at an angle, which it wouldn't be if sitting stationary at lights. Drivers would hopefully keep cab and trailer aligned for best visibility, and only start to turn when moving off, having checked that there are no cyclists.


it's not sitting stationary at the lights, it's making a makeover... and do you really assume the driver would have checked for cyclists?


Brandane said:


> 3. As others have pointed out, it fails to show the other mirror at the top of the nearside window which points down to the ground, the purpose of which is to erradicate that blind spot not covered by rear view mirrors.


only if it's fitted, positioned correctly and the driver is looking in it.


Brandane said:


> 4. Worst of all, the camera is being held at somewhere slightly above a drivers waist level! The tops of some of those cyclists would be visible from eye level, simply by turning your head and looking out of the nearside window.


it's only trying to show that it's dangerous to cycle up the inside of a long vehicle... it's not a scientifically designed experiment... even an idoit can work that out.


Brandane said:


> Yes I am talking from experience. HGV class 1 licence holder for about 8 years now, with 6 years full time driving an artic. Now where's the bookmark facility so I can cut and paste this for next time this clip appears!


blah blah blah I know every thing blah blah I'll tell em blah blah... cut and paste your yawnfest by all means.


----------



## subaqua (21 Nov 2013)

Marmion said:


> Here's a basic for you: i before e except after c
> 
> Are these private messages of support? Unseen to everyone else.


 
not always , chiefly I look around before manouvering but i cannot see all the way round at all times. if you must resort to incorrect pedantry then i believe you have lost that argument .


----------



## Judderz (21 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> Arghhh, not this video again!
> OK, it might be useful in highlighting the fact that visibility can be restricted from an artic cab, BUT that particular video is nonsense.
> 
> 2. It is parked with the cab and trailer at an angle, which it wouldn't be if sitting stationary at lights. Drivers would hopefully keep cab and trailer aligned for best visibility, and only start to turn when moving off, having checked that there are no cyclists.
> ...



He also wouldn't be indicating left if he was going straight on, he would have his vehicle at an angle....which he has. Check the video again, look at his left indicator, then correct your post, then bookmark it.

Loving your experience of driving vehicle of this size!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2013)

subaqua said:


> not always , chiefly I look around before manouvering but i cannot see all the way round at all times. if you must resort to incorrect pedantry then i believe you have lost that argument .


 
I think you'll find that my pedantry was correct. If you are going to assert something it is always best to make sure you evidence that assertion within the post being made. Nothing to do with winning or losing - as far as I am concerned there is no argument. A point of fact.


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2013)

Judderz said:


> He also wouldn't be indicating left if he was going straight on, he would have his vehicle at an angle....which he has. Check the video again, look at his left indicator, then correct your post, then bookmark it.
> 
> Loving your experience of driving vehicle of this size!



I was assuming that everyone knows that the set was staged for a left turn, given that yes, the left indicator is on, and the cab is starting to make a left turn, and there are cyclists along its nearside.
What I meant was: An artic driver waiting at a junction to turn left will hopefully keep the tractor unit and trailer in a straight line BEFORE making sure it is clear to begin making the turn, as once the turn commences, blind spots are created (the mirrors show what's down the side of the tractor unit. Once the turn starts, the view in the mirrors progressively becomes more and more of the trailer to whatever direction the turn is going - the mirrors can't possibly show what is happening beyond the trailer once certain angles of turn are reached). 

My original post was somewhat simplified. HTH.


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> you didn't bother reading the thread before posting did you.
> 
> yawn
> 
> ...



I did qualify it at the start of the post by conceding that "it might be useful in highlighting the fact that visibility can be restricted from an artic cab".

If you choose to believe the nonsense that is the video clip, then that is up to you. Interesting to note that you consider an artic with badly adjusted mirrors to be something to yawn about; that tells me all I need to know .

I don't know everything, but I DID actually drive one of them for 6 years. I reckon that probably makes me better qualified to comment about the video than you. I think we may have had this discussion before, since you are the guy with the scaremongering avatar. YAAAAAWN.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Nov 2013)

@Brandane, just a question about artics. You know those old Citroëns (DSs, I think) where the headlights changed direction as the steering wheel changed direction. What I'm wondering is whether having mirrors calibrated to turn with the angle of tractor to trailer could possibly improve visibility while turning? (And of course, whether you know of examples where it's been tried. I'm not talking about something I know anything about. I'm simply trying to think of anything that might help.) So that, as the cab turns, the mirror pivots to reduce the blind spot. 

If a 60s (?) car could do it mechanically, surely a similar system, probably electrical, could be designed by a good engineering undergraduate. The question is whether it could help for blind spots?


----------



## SWSteve (21 Nov 2013)

Marmion said:


> I think you'll find that my pedantry was correct.



to play devil's advocate: science, efficient, seize, weird and caffeine


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> @Brandane, just a question about artics. You know those old Citroëns (DSs, I think) where the headlights changed direction as the steering wheel changed direction. What I'm wondering is whether having mirrors calibrated to turn with the angle of tractor to trailer could possibly improve visibility while turning? (And of course, whether you know of examples where it's been tried. I'm not talking about something I know anything about. I'm simply trying to think of anything that might help.) So that, as the cab turns, the mirror pivots to reduce the blind spot.
> 
> If a 60s (?) car could do it mechanically, surely a similar system, probably electrical, could be designed by a good engineering undergraduate. The question is whether it could help for blind spots?



In theory, yes I suppose it could help to eradicate blind spots (but might create others!). If for example you were turning left, and as you did so the mirror rotated outwards (and then inwards as you straightened up). It still wouldn't help to be able to see the blind spot along the right side of the trailer when reversing to the left (and left side when reversing to the right).
The smaller mirror positioned either above or below the main mirror is supposed to cover such blind spots as it is convex. On tight turns though, even it is of little use.

I have driven a car with a similar system, which is totally unnecessary. Funnily enough I think it was a Citroen, possibly a C5. Put it in reverse and the nearside mirror automatically changes position. Why it does it, I'm not quite sure - maybe to give a better view of the kerb for parking. A typically Citroen gimmick!


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> ...
> you are the guy with the scaremongering avatar. YAAAAAWN.



do you really think that advising people not to cycle up the inside of artics is scaremongering?


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> do you really think that advising people not to cycle up the inside of artics is scaremongering?


That's not what your avatar says though, is it? It says "all of these bikes are in the driver's blindspot". I am saying they are not. Unless of course the driver sits with his head on the seatbase, and with badly adjusted mirrors.
Anyway, enough of this; like I said we have discussed this before.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> In theory, yes I suppose it could help to eradicate blind spots (but might create others!). If for example you were turning left, and as you did so the mirror rotated outwards (and then inwards as you straightened up). It still wouldn't help to be able to see the blind spot along the right side of the trailer when reversing to the left (and left side when reversing to the right).
> The smaller mirror positioned either above or below the main mirror is supposed to cover such blind spots as it is convex. On tight turns though, even it is of little use.
> 
> I have driven a car with a similar system, which is totally unnecessary. Funnily enough I think it was a Citroen, possibly a C5. Put it in reverse and the nearside mirror automatically changes position. Why it does it, I'm not quite sure - maybe to give a better view of the kerb for parking. A typically Citroen gimmick!


Thanks for that. I realise that it wouldn't eradicate blind spots (and there's already a convex mirror for the reversing turns) but I'm thinking specifically about bike fatalities. The concern here is to keep the best possible visibility of the nearside area and the ''I can't see you when I turn'' problem highlighted by that video. It would probably have to only affect the mirror on the side to which the vehicle is turning because the other side would then become a complete blind spot if it followed the same degree of turn - you'd only see the side of the tractor.

A second question about the risk of creating other blind spots: I imagine that under the current arrangement, when you turn to the left, there's a degree of sweep through a small arc before it becomes simply a view of the nearside of the truck. Would the loss of that sweep view be significant, given that you'll be concentrating primarily on the road you're entering? And what other loss of vision might there be?


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> That's not what your avatar says though, is it? It says "all of these bikes are in the driver's blindspot".
> ...



well done... that's what it says, but what is it saying? What is the message it's trying to get across?


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> well done... that's what it says, but what is it saying? What is the message it's trying to get across?


Okay, I will try again, 3rd time lucky and all that - "IT MIGHT BE USEFUL IN HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT VISIBILITY CAN BE RESTRICTED FROM AN ARTIC CAB".

However, the content of the video is bollox.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Nov 2013)

sometimes i wonder if I'm surrounded by idiots, but I'm not, they're just pretending to be idiots for the sake of argument.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (22 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> It's worth noting that one of the mirrors in the cab was missed. It's at the top of the passenger window and shows you what is to the side of the cab and has a convected mirror to show a large area.


 
The mirror at the top of the passenger side window is designed to be used while manoevering. It shows a very limited area around the front corner of the cab and is intended to allow the driver to avoid clouting the bottom step of the cab on kerbs, concrete posts and what have you when turning. It will show a cyclist right next to the cab, but it wouldn't really have helped in the video in the OP.
Incidentally, the lorry in the video is in pretty much the exact position it would be in if it was at the entrance to a roundabout. It may not be an entirely accurate representation of an artic's blind spot, but it's not far off.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (22 Nov 2013)

2782381 said:


> Is it always universally unsafe to be to the left of an HGV?


 
It's certainly not a good place to be. You're relying on an awful lot of things going right, all of which are entirely outside your control. Depending on things which are outside your control is a bad idea for any road user, not just cyclists.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Nov 2013)

2782381 said:


> Is it always universally unsafe to be to the left of an HGV?



Depends on your knowledge and circumstances.

There is one set of lights on my commute where left hooks into Paulsgrove are virtually guaranteed.

There is an on road cycle facility to an ASL which is really the only way to tackle this junction safely

I know the light sequence so in these circumstances - yes I would go down on the left of an HGV and access the ASL if the sequence is in my favour


----------



## Dan B (22 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> sometimes i wonder if I'm, surrounded by idiots,


You could try looking in your mirrors?


----------



## Brandane (22 Nov 2013)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The mirror at the top of the passenger side window is designed to be used while manoevering. It shows a very limited area around the front corner of the cab and is intended to allow the driver to avoid clouting the bottom step of the cab on kerbs, concrete posts and what have you when turning. It will show a cyclist right next to the cab, but it wouldn't really have helped in the video in the OP.
> Incidentally, the lorry in the video is in pretty much the exact position it would be in if it was at the entrance to a roundabout. It may not be an entirely accurate representation of an artic's blind spot, but it's not far off.


When I sat my test in 2005 (ish), we were taught that the mirror at the top of the nearside window was for picking out pedestrians/cyclists who were within a couple of feet of the side of the cab, and therefore in the blind spot of the main mirrors and below window level.
It was a driving fault for test purposes if you didn't check it before moving off, after each time you were stopped. Not just manoeuvring.

As an HGV driver, how can you find that video to be anything like a true representation? Mirrors are wrongly adjusted and camera level is way below eye level. Yes the cab/trailer angle might be similar to that when at the give way lines coming onto a roundabout, but that's not what it is trying to represent. Even the most foolhardy cyclist would surely be having a brain lapse if they tried to cut up the nearside of an artic at a roundabout.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Nov 2013)

@Rhythm Thief , I started a discussion in post #96 (continued in #98 and #101) with @Brandane about swivelly mirrors. I know little about driving HGVs so it may be a completely useless idea but it would be simple, cheap and so far it appears to me that it could help vision in artics. As you have hands on experience of HGVs, I wondered whether you had any comments or observations that you could make. Feel free to rubbish the idea but I would appreciate getting some more feedback.


----------



## bpsmith (22 Nov 2013)

McWobble said:


> "As fast as legally allowed" is not the same as "as fast as is _safe_". Shared paths are simply not designed for fast cyclists. Even segregated paths are still likely to have pedestrian traffic on them, will not get gritted in winter and are unlikely to be maintained to the same standard as roads, so fast cycling on those facilities is unlikely to be advisable. The same applies to road speed limits: they aren't targets, there is a requirement for motorists to reduce speed in reduced visibility or poor grip. The fact that this is widely ignored along with the "you should drive at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear" does not make it acceptable - or legal.
> 
> Most cyclist injuries are _not _as a result of collisions with other vehicles, but due to things like ice, diesel, leaves, potholes, etc. Segregation will do nothing to solve this, in fact as a result of the usually poor standard of construction (it's amazing how many designers seem to think that high kerbs and sharp 90 degree bends are perfectly fine) and poor upkeep is likely to worsen matters.


 At what point did I say Unsafe riding? I just meant that you could ride more naturally, and at a faster speed if you choose, if there were dedicated tracks/paths. At no point did I say to ride as fast as possible despite the circumstances. Surely this is common sense and need not be explained!?!


----------



## bpsmith (22 Nov 2013)

I was behind an artic this morning, in the car, and noticed a brand new very clean sticker stating not to undertake the vehicle down the left hand side as the drive has a restricted view. Things like this cant harm surely? Kind of reemphasises the point of this post tbh....awareness!

Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a "who know's best" rather than anything worthy of discussion it seems...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Nov 2013)

bpsmith said:


> I was behind an artic this morning, in the car, and noticed a brand new very clean sticker stating not to undertake the vehicle down the left hand side as the drive has a restricted view. Things like this cant harm surely? Kind of reemphasises the point of this post tbh....awareness!
> 
> Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a "who know's best" rather than anything worthy of discussion it seems...


And I've been trying to engage people with much more knowledge about the inside of an HGV. It may be a rubbish idea- a sticking plaster on a gaping wound - but I'm trying to be constructive.


----------



## Wobblers (22 Nov 2013)

bpsmith said:


> At what point did I say Unsafe riding? I just meant that you could ride more naturally, and at a faster speed if you choose, if there were dedicated tracks/paths. At no point did I say to ride as fast as possible despite the circumstances. Surely this is common sense and need not be explained!?!



You said "as fast as legally allowed". That isn't the same as "going at a safe speed". While it may be obvious common sense to you, there are plenty of road users you don't appear to have that common sense - as that multiple pile up in the fog at Sheerness a few weeks ago demonstrated. To most people "as fast as legally allowed" means exactly as going at the speed limit, no matter the conditions. I shouldn't need to spell that out.

When I wish to ride at a faster speed, I use the roads, because they are designed for fast traffic - cycle paths are not. Safe speeds on even dedicated cycle paths are below 12 mph.


----------



## subaqua (22 Nov 2013)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> to play devil's advocate: science, efficient, seize, weird and caffeine


 
I know it is off topic

recipient

QI has a whole host of words that don't meet the "Rules of Grammar" I do love it when atempts at pedantry backfire spectacularly ( or spectacularly backfire who knows or cares)


----------



## subaqua (22 Nov 2013)

2783134 said:


> And when we have widened all the roads in the country to however wide they need to be to provide separate lanes for pedestrians, horse riders, wheel chair users, powered and unpowered, cyclists, milk floats, HGVs, Morris Minors, other cars, BMWs, etc each at their best speed, how are you going to manage the junctions?


 ASLs they work really well .


----------



## Brandane (22 Nov 2013)

bpsmith said:


> Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a "who know's best" rather than anything worthy of discussion it seems...



Is that not part of the point in taking part in discussions on internet forums? Seeing things from a previously unknown perspective and sharing differing levels of knowledge? It is just slightly disappointing when some people rubbish others POV because their heads are stuck firmly in the sand.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2783373, member: 30090"]You have not engaged with me at all - I feel left out.[/quote]
If you had anything constructive to say, you would have already said it, wouldn't you?


----------



## Brandane (22 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> A second question about the risk of creating other blind spots: I imagine that under the current arrangement, when you turn to the left, there's a degree of sweep through a small arc before it becomes simply a view of the nearside of the truck. Would the loss of that sweep view be significant, given that you'll be concentrating primarily on the road you're entering? And what other loss of vision might there be?



Without the help of a blackboard, chalk, and a toy articulated lorry, this is a difficult one to explain!
I am thinking that the loss of sweep wouldn't be too much of a problem, given that the driver has already established that the area which is about to become "blind" has already been seen to be clear, otherwise he wouldn't be continuing with the manoeuvre. 
The problem might arise when straightening up again, if someone has been stupid enough to move into the blind area while the lorry was turning. I had this exact situation one night when joining the M8 motorway in Edinburgh, from the city by-pass (A720). 
Heavy traffic on a big multi-lane roundabout, and I am going right on the roundabout. Someone lets me into the queue, so I am effectively turning to my left to join the right hand lane for turning right. I couldn't straighten up in the space available before coming to a stop in the traffic, so trailer is sitting about 45 degrees to the left of the tractor unit. Nobber in car thinks he can take advantage and cut into the traffic by coming up the left side of my trailer, about 2 feet from the side of it! What he doesn't think about is how my trailer is going to move to my left as I straighten up, and is going to re-arrange the right side of his car. Luckily I checked my nearside mirrors (as always) before moving off and realised I would have to sit there until nobber realised what he had done. With swivelling mirrors I would only have been able to see him in the blind spot mirror.
Your idea might work better if the main mirror was split into two parts (it is big enough for that) with one half remaining the way it is in one position, and the other half able to swivel outwards and inwards in conjunction with the steering.
We don't want any more mirrors! There are enough distractions already, and mirrors in themselves cause blind spots. They are quite big, and you can't see through them.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> Without the help of a blackboard, chalk, and a toy articulated lorry, this is a difficult one to explain!
> I am thinking that the loss of sweep wouldn't be too much of a problem, given that the driver has already established that the area which is about to become "blind" has already been seen to be clear, otherwise he wouldn't be continuing with the manoeuvre.
> The problem might arise when straightening up again, if someone has been stupid enough to move into the blind area while the lorry was turning. I had this exact situation one night when joining the M8 motorway in Edinburgh, from the city by-pass (A720).
> Heavy traffic on a big multi-lane roundabout, and I am going right on the roundabout. Someone lets me into the queue, so I am effectively turning to my left to join the right hand lane for turning right. I couldn't straighten up in the space available before coming to a stop in the traffic, so trailer is sitting about 45 degrees to the left of the tractor unit. Nobber in car thinks he can take advantage and cut into the traffic by coming up the left side of my trailer, about 2 feet from the side of it! What he doesn't think about is how my trailer is going to move to my left as I straighten up, and is going to re-arrange the right side of his car. Luckily I checked my nearside mirrors (as always) before moving off and realised I would have to sit there until nobber realised what he had done. With swivelling mirrors I would only have been able to see him in the blind spot mirror.
> ...


Thanks, I'll have to think for a while because I haven't managed to visualise this fully yet.


----------



## Brandane (22 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2783850, member: 30090"]I don't think what has been described would happen.

If when looking at the unit and trailer combination from behind, the trailer the is at a 45 degree angle to the left, when the trailer straightens out the trailer will move to the right. Although the question is whether there is enough room for the trailer to straighten up without clipping what has gone up the left. So there is that to think about. What you think is room is not when you hit by the trailer wheels.[/quote]
Maybe I haven't described it very well, or underestimated the angles involved, but..... If the angle between tractor and trailer are big enough, then when you move the tractor forward you are obviously pulling the trailer in that direction from the point of the pin, which is located on the underside of the trailer about 10% along its length (the pin being the bit on the trailer which connects with the turntable or fifth wheel on the tractor unit - for non HGV drivers).
In the situation I tried to describe on the roundabout, I was most certainly going to pull the front of the trailer to the left as it straightened up!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> Maybe I haven't described it very well, or underestimated the angles involved, but..... If the angle between tractor and trailer are big enough, then when you move the tractor forward you are obviously pulling the trailer in that direction from the point of the pin, which is located on the underside of the trailer about 10% along its length (the pin being the bit on the trailer which connects with the turntable or fifth wheel on the tractor unit - for non HGV drivers).
> In the situation I tried to describe on the roundabout, I was most certainly going to pull the front of the trailer to the left as it straightened up!


Forgive my nursery school graphics but is this something vaguely like the situation you described? You're entering the roundabout off the southbound carriageway of the A270 and going for the right hand lane for the M8 entrance. You've found a gap to get onto the right lane on the RB and a car has pulled into the gap on your left. So the car driver has effectively pinned you there until it moves off. (I suppose it must have been a little further back and the car was heading for the 3rd lane).


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Forgive my nursery school graphics but is this something vaguely like the situation you described? You're entering the roundabout off the southbound carriageway of the A270 and going for the right hand lane for the M8 entrance. You've found a gap to get onto the right lane on the RB and a car has pulled into the gap on your left. So the car driver has effectively pinned you there until it moves off. (I suppose it must have been a little further back and the car was heading for the 3rd lane).
> View attachment 32955


Thats more or less the situation, but maybe a bigger angle of bend between cab and trailer as traffic was backed up! The cab was lined up on the right hand lane, so when you move off, it pulls the trailer at an angle to the left before it begins to straighten up.
There was traffic in the third lane, preventing me (and dopey in the car) from joining at less of an angle. Oh, and car driver had moved up the trailer so far that he couldn't move off without reversing first, because the cab was in the way! He was waiting for me to move first, but hadn't thought it out very well.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> Thats more or less the situation, but maybe a bigger angle of bend between cab and trailer as traffic was backed up! The cab was lined up on the right hand lane, so when you move off, it pulls the trailer at an angle to the left before it begins to straighten up.
> There was traffic in the third lane, preventing me (and dopey in the car) from joining at less of an angle. Oh, and car driver had moved up the trailer so far that he couldn't move off without reversing first, because the cab was in the way! He was waiting for me to move first, but hadn't thought it out very well.


Cheers. So it's a frontal version of what I call drag sweep, which I normally associate with the rear axle. The idea of having a swivelling mirror is so that the turning view is pretty much the same as you'd get with the artic going straight ahead. If there were an equal adjustment of the mirror to the angle of the articulation, the field of vision would be altered only by the fact that the mirror would be situated further outboard, i.e. to the left of its straight on position. The field of vision would move in parallel outward. I hadn't appreciated that this movement might be big enough to remove a car from the field of vision. A slightly reduced angle of swivel might cure this - so, say, a 5:4 correspondence* - provided it doesn't remove vision of the rear of the trailer and the immediate stretch of road to the rear of that.

Perhaps the car driver thought the roundabout was some kind of Tetris game, where the idea is to get as many vehicles onto it without going anywhere. What I call a plug - it's a very characteristic style of driving.

*figure plucked out of the air!

EDIT: Oops, I spot a problem. It's exaggerated in the ''diagram'' below because I've represented the mirrors as at right angles. (The diagram was meant to show how the field of vision would only be slightly changed) But as the vehicle articulates, the angle of the mirror to the driver changes and becomes much narrower from the driver's point of view. In the exaggerating diagram, in fact, the mirror face on the turning cab would no longer be visible at all. In a more realistic image, though, the effect would not be that severe because mirrors aren't at right angles to the cab, the effect would also be reduced by changing the ratio from 1:1


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2783850, member: 30090"]I don't think what has been described would happen.

If when looking at the unit and trailer combination from behind, the trailer the is at a 45 degree angle to the left, when the trailer straightens out the trailer will move to the right. Although the question is whether there is enough room for the trailer to straighten up without clipping what has gone up the left. So there is that to think about. What you think is room is not when you hit by the trailer wheels.[/quote]
From the kiddie's google illustration, are we talking about the same thing?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2784813, member: 9609"]I know - how about a huge bungee type cable strapped from the front of the cab to the rear of the trailer, then as the truck turns left anybody stupid enough to have ventured into the danger zone will get catapulted out of the way.

On a more serious thought, and getting back to the mirrors - I''m not sure more mirrors is the answer, there is already too much to concentrate on at a busy junctions, you can't look solely in your nearside mirrors and cyclists can arrive into that space in a fraction of a second. Maybe some sort of proximity sensors that could halt the truck or better still educate cyclists in road craft.[/quote]
I'm not talking about extra mirrors, just one that compensates a little for the turning of an artic to reduce the blind spots, specifically the blind spot that cyclists can stray into/get caught in.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2784889, member: 9609"]Yes I appreciate that and it is far from a bad idea. However I guess most of the accidents are not because of blind spots but more because a cyclist has moved into the danger zone after the driver has checked.

How many of the cyclists lorry incidents have been with articulated vehicles - every time I view the images in the press the tippers are rigids - and they don't suffer from the blind spots in the same way articulated vehicles do - which backs up my theory that it is not necessarily a blind spot issue.[/quote]
I appreciate that it's of no use to a non-articulated truck but, spurred on by recent deaths and the original TfL video of a turning artic, there did seem to be a problem that wasn't being looked at. Cyclists were being told to look out for a danger, my response was to say ''Well, what can we do to minimise that danger. I was curious about how turn-sensitive mirrors could be used to reduce blind spots in HGV drivers' opinions. It must have been trialled before because, in my own clumsy non-mechanical kind of way, I reckon I could do a simple mock up using little more than bike cabling and a spring for the mirror. But I haven't found anything out about when it was tried and what the results of the tests were.

As for for the tipper and skip lorries, I've commented on various issues concerning road compliance, assuming safety responsibilities while on the public road, pay-per-load pressures, and rush hour restrictions. And in my head I've been trying to imagine a series of bicycle priority zones on the approach to junctions on regular freight-bearing roads where trucks may not overtake any vehicle, especially bikes, on the approach. A sort of tipper-taming corner-calming feature....
Easy to imagine, difficult to realise when you have no relevant expertise, design skills, etc, etc! If we had any highway engineers on here, I'm sure they could help. But they are curiously absent from here....


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Nov 2013)

A wide angle cctv camera over the front wheel facing back with a display in the cabin is all that would be needed.


----------



## bpsmith (24 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> Is that not part of the point in taking part in discussions on internet forums? Seeing things from a previously unknown perspective and sharing differing levels of knowledge? It is just slightly disappointing when some people rubbish others POV because their heads are stuck firmly in the sand.


Exactly! It's those who don't take any other comments on board that spoil things. Sometimes I am right, sometimes not, but that's where forums come in and do exactly as you state. Some people are just always right it seems. Lol.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Nov 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> A wide angle cctv camera over the front wheel facing back with a display in the cabin is all that would be needed.


True enough but it would be yet another thing to look at. And - perhaps this is a prejudice - it would be a less immediate and more distorted representation (wide angle) of what's going on back there. In principle, though, it would be performing the same function.


----------



## SquareDaff (25 Nov 2013)

Ultimately at some point it's all about the cyclist taking some responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You can stick as many extra mirrors as you like down the nearside of a lorry but at some point he has to look straight on and down the offside while completing that turn and we all know that that's more than enough time for a cyclist to scoot up near side if he's of a mind to. In a battle between a cyclist and a HGV there's only ever going to be one winner. Keep yourself safe and keep your distance.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> I don't at all agree that this is the ultimate destination for this discussion. The blame lies elsewhere. Try thinking about how relatives of people who have been killed recently might feel when they read posts like yours.


But we do have a responsibility for our own safety. Blame lies in a number of places, usually all at once... it's not always 'over there'.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Nov 2013)

SquareDaff said:


> Ultimately at some point it's all about the cyclist taking some responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You can stick as many extra mirrors as you like down the nearside of a lorry but at some point he has to look straight on and down the offside while completing that turn and we all know that that's more than enough time for a cyclist to scoot up near side if he's of a mind to. In a battle between a cyclist and a HGV there's only ever going to be one winner. Keep yourself safe and keep your distance.


I think the use of ''ultimately'' is unhelpful. It would maybe be more useful to think about it in terms of ''big picture, little picture''. Little picture: when it comes to the cement lorry ahead that isn't indicating at the junction, it doesn't mean that it isn't going to turn. When the truck up ahead at the lights is a little out of lane leaving you an inviting corridor to the lights, it may be out of lane because it's about to turn. In situations like this, sure, your responsibility is towards yourself and your loved ones.

Big picture: ''Here's the thing, folks: we seem to have unleashed a fatal danger onto our streets and we don't have the will to deal with it. This means that you will have to be very, very careful when you're out cycling on the streets. Of course, you might still get killed, even if you take all the necessary precautions, but remember it's *Your responsibility* to take these precautions.'' That's why the police are out telling cyclists to wear helmets and hi-viz.''


----------



## SquareDaff (25 Nov 2013)

I think they'd be quite disgusted that some morally superior trolls would argue that black is white and end up stifling what could be a proper debate. My blunt views might not be to everyones taste but at least they're consistent and I actually give one rather than just argue counter to everyone elses opinion.

I have every sympathy with those people who've lost relatives but unless you're one of those relatives or the person that attended the scene of the accident you have no more idea what happened in those instances than I.

At the start of this thread we had a lorry at a give way junction with a load of bikes up the near side in a "blind spot". Now there's only two ways this is going to happen. Either the cyclists rode up the nearside while the lorry was waiting for a gap in the traffic in which to pull out OR the lorry pulled up the offside of all those cyclists to then deliberately turn left and wipe them all out.

My comment was clearly assuming scenario 1. If you argue with something that much bigger and heavier than you are, whether you're morally right or not, you're going to lose. Leave your ego at home and live to ride another day.


----------



## charlie_lcc (26 Nov 2013)

Hi, I have just had this chat brought to my attention. Like Bradane I have a lot of experience driving lorries, artics and rigids although I got my licence several decades before him.
As others have said the TfL video and poster is deeply misleading. Most of the cyclists are not in a blindspot, the lorry has out of date with mirrors set so badly to be illegal. I made my view clear when it first came out http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-for-london-lorry-safety-poster-misinforms-cyclists-and-drivers . After several conversations with TfL it became clear that the people who set up the video and poster shoot misunderstood the requirements for vision from lorry mirrors. Informally TfL said they would use different imaging if we stopped waging a public campaign against it. That message hasn't quite got through to all levels at TfL.
In London cyclist fatalities with turning artics are very rare. Mostly they involve large rigid lorries like tippers and cement mixers. The two cyclists killed in artic crashes in London in the last two years were run down from behind in heavy traffic situations. 
In my opinion the most hazardous blind spot area for the driver of a large lorry is to the left side of the cab from about 1.5 metres away from the cab to about 4 metres away. This is the area where unseen cyclists are before the lorry makes a turn across their path, failing to give way because the cyclist is hidden from view. It is hard to turn this into useful advice for cyclists. The new police video on the subject will say something like: 
the more space a lorry has left you the more likely it is that he's going to turn left
the more inviting it looks the more dangerous it is


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Nov 2013)

charlie_lcc said:


> Hi, I have just had this chat brought to my attention. Like Bradane I have a lot of experience driving lorries, artics and rigids although I got my licence several decades before him.
> As others have said the TfL video and poster is deeply misleading. Most of the cyclists are not in a blindspot, the lorry has out of date with mirrors set so badly to be illegal. I made my view clear when it first came out http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-for-london-lorry-safety-poster-misinforms-cyclists-and-drivers . After several conversations with TfL it became clear that the people who set up the video and poster shoot misunderstood the requirements for vision from lorry mirrors. Informally TfL said they would use different imaging if we stopped waging a public campaign against it. That message hasn't quite got through to all levels at TfL.
> In London cyclist fatalities with turning artics are very rare. Mostly they involve large rigid lorries like tippers and cement mixers. The two cyclists killed in artic crashes in London in the last two years were run down from behind in heavy traffic situations.
> In my opinion the most hazardous blind spot area for the driver of a large lorry is to the left side of the cab from about 1.5 metres away from the cab to about 4 metres away. This is the area where unseen cyclists are before the lorry makes a turn across their path, failing to give way because the cyclist is hidden from view. It is hard to turn this into useful advice for cyclists. The new police video on the subject will say something like:
> ...


Aha, and I just sent LCC an email about the feasibility of swivelly mirrors! I await a response.


----------



## theclaud (26 Nov 2013)

charlie_lcc said:


> Hi, I have just had this chat brought to my attention. Like Bradane I have a lot of experience driving lorries, artics and rigids although I got my licence several decades before him.
> As others have said the TfL video and poster is deeply misleading. Most of the cyclists are not in a blindspot, the lorry has out of date with mirrors set so badly to be illegal. I made my view clear when it first came out http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-for-london-lorry-safety-poster-misinforms-cyclists-and-drivers . After several conversations with TfL it became clear that the people who set up the video and poster shoot misunderstood the requirements for vision from lorry mirrors. Informally TfL said they would use different imaging if we stopped waging a public campaign against it. That message hasn't quite got through to all levels at TfL.
> In London cyclist fatalities with turning artics are very rare. Mostly they involve large rigid lorries like tippers and cement mixers. The two cyclists killed in artic crashes in London in the last two years were run down from behind in heavy traffic situations.
> In my opinion the most hazardous blind spot area for the driver of a large lorry is to the left side of the cab from about 1.5 metres away from the cab to about 4 metres away. This is the area where unseen cyclists are before the lorry makes a turn across their path, failing to give way because the cyclist is hidden from view. *It is hard to turn this into useful advice for cyclists*. The new police video on the subject will say something like:
> ...



Illuminating post - thanks. The statement in bold is perceptive, and your closing couplet for me illustrates the foolishness as well as the injustice of the widespread desire to shift the responsibility onto the vulnerable road user. There are several simultaneous threads on related subjects here and I would imagine you have not been able to comb through them all. The important thing is that, if we wish to create a road environment which is always welcoming to novice, inexpert, untrained or nervous cyclists, then we are going to have to recognize that the danger must be controlled at its source. Your post reinforces my conviction that such vehicles are fundamentally under-manned (or womanned, but it's a de facto thing). Forgive me for the self-quoting ego fest, but I wrote this in the other thread:



theclaud said:


> Take the persistent issue about poor visibility down the left-hand side of the truck. How about a second person in the cab who was responsible for ensuring that the turn is clear?





theclaud said:


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



.


----------



## Origamist (26 Nov 2013)

SquareDaff said:


> Ultimately at some point it's all about the cyclist taking some responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You can stick as many extra mirrors as you like down the nearside of a lorry but at some point he has to look straight on and down the offside while completing that turn and we all know that that's more than enough time for a cyclist to scoot up near side if he's of a mind to. In a battle between a cyclist and a HGV there's only ever going to be one winner. Keep yourself safe and keep your distance.


 
I don’t think comments about shifting “blame elsewhere” is constructive when considering the longstanding and tragic issue of trying to reduce the danger posed by HGVs to cyclists and pedestrians – particularly in dense urban areas. It is better to adopt an approach that examines the “critical combination of circumstances” that led to the collision as this provides a far more detailed and rounded examination of the events and conditions that precipitated the collision.

As regards cyclists “taking some responsibility” no one is arguing that cyclists should abdicate responsibility, but this is, fundamentally, a lower order, diversionary tactic, based around the "swimming with the sharks" idiom (which Boris is employing with some success) as it shifts attention away from attempts to remove or mitigate the danger at source (be it through HGV restrictions/better enforcement and improved engineering/infrastructure developments).

It’s also worth remembering that recent data from the mid-to-late 2000s reported that less than 50% of all HGV/cyclist collisions nationwide are of the "left-turning HGV at a junction and cyclist on the nearside type" (contrary to what you might expect if you read posts on here). In London, this is a far more common collision type though (usually involving rigids). That said, it is often unclear if the cyclist filtered on the nearside of the HGV.


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Nov 2013)

right someone at work has made a proper vid of what we can see in our mirrors, if you go to youtube and search for truck blind spot movie. I cant link as I'm on my phone.
It goes to show alot of accidents could be at least 50/50 as geting yourself in to that position without the driver seeing you means you really are doing something wrong


----------



## L14M (26 Nov 2013)

This one? 

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alPeQsH-UVM


Liam


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Nov 2013)

L14M said:


> This one?
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alPeQsH-UVM
> 
> ...



that's the one fella, thankyou


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Nov 2013)

L14M said:


> This one?
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alPeQsH-UVM
> 
> ...



Thanks for that... so none of those bikes are in the drivers blind spot and the image is wrong in that aspect. But I'll state one last time that the message behind the image in my avatar is to point out that as a cyclist, you don't want to be in the same position as any of those cyclists. It may be based on a lie, but it's still good sound advice.


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Nov 2013)

No never the best place to be, if you changed the scenery to night and / or had rain spray onthe mirrors, then its a whole different story, that's why i say lights on and hi-vis if possible, i don't want to hurt or kill any one so help me by helping yourself


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2790014, member: 30090"]Hmm, I'd add one more postion to that video just to make sure:-

From the first position, go maybe 3-4 feet to the 'cyclists' left and see if you can see the cyclist either via the Class IV mirror that you have above the windscreen or you can see the top of the guys head through the passenger window/windscreen.[/quote]

On our lorries you would see the top of the cyclist, but we use low cabs, the big long distance and tipper lorries are higher up, you can hide a whole car in that gap!!


----------



## XRHYSX (26 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2790025, member: 30090"]I agree but this is typically the position that a cyclist would hold at a red light.

Where your cyclist stands is way to close imo and if a truck pulled up that close to me at a red light then I'd have words with the driver. That's why I say I'd want to see position one but 3-4 feet further out and see what the driver sees throught the mirrors/windscreen.[/quote]

I personaly would never pull up that close to anyone, be it a cyclist,car or lorry, i like to see the rear wheels touching the tarmac,
what I'm trying to get at is if your going to filter down that side of the lorry to the front before the lights change, just have a glance up at the driver to see if he sees you, dosnt matter if he smiles waves or giges you the finger it means he's seen you


----------



## charlie_lcc (26 Nov 2013)

XRHYSX said:


> On our lorries you would see the top of the cyclist, but we use low cabs, the big long distance and tipper lorries are higher up, you can hide a whole car in that gap!!


Thanks for the video, that's really useful.
If the person/bicycle is further forward then only the nearside overhead mirror will show them and only if they are a bit less than 2 metres away or closer. With the highest cabs they may not be visible for as much as 5 metres away! Even with your lorry you might not see the top of the head of a small cyclist 2 metres away. 
When a cyclist is in that position, typically in the left lane when the lorry has moved right before a narrow turn, as the turn starts the cab can swing across the cyclist's path very quickly, especially for a large rigid lorry. If the lorry is doing only 5mph in the turn direction there is less than a second for the driver to see a cyclist in either overhead mirror. That's why a driver should be keeping a steady watch for cyclists moving into that position OR pull away very slowly and almost stop before turning to give cyclists time to get away.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2790009, member: 30090"]We got there in the end.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

I'd suppose it would be too much for you to apologise to me and Brandene?[/quote]

What have you done to deserve an apology? And with the tone expressed in the above... it's got to be a 'no'.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Nov 2013)

2789998 said:


> You don't feel that the being based on a lie part could undermine the message?


the message is pretty clear... one doesn't need to know exactly what a driver can see from their cab to understand that it's advising one that it's not a good idea to be in the same position as any of the bikes in the scenario depicted. But I'm just repeating myself now... you know my stance. Any further questions on the subject, just refer to any of my earlier posts... there's a good chap


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Nov 2013)

2790674 said:


> You are at the level of telling toddlers not to touch the kettle when we need to aim for is grown-ups who know how to use it safely.


oh dear. 

[QUOTE 2790644, member: 30090"]Are you going to change your avatar?[/quote]
I might... maybe change the text to something like, _don't put yourself where these cyclists are_.

edit...but then again, 
I could make a festive one with the text _All of these snowmen are in santa's blind spot_ ...and change the truck & bikes accordingly


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> I might... maybe change the text to something like, _don't put yourself where these cyclists are_.


I wouldn't. There aren't blue people or such a thing as Minions either but no-one complains about those!! It's an Avatar. If you like it then keep it!


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

Seem to remember reading something about a low ride height cab being introduced for lorries. Any of our HGV drivers have a view on this? I can imagine it'd cause problems for you with other aspects of the job but, in your view, would it help you with visiblity to other traffic?


----------



## Mugshot (27 Nov 2013)

SquareDaff said:


> There aren't blue people or such a thing as Minions either but no-one complains about those!!


Noooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Noooooooooooooooooooo


I'll refrain from mentioning Father Christmas then!


----------



## Shaun (27 Nov 2013)

Please, let's not dilute the discussion by nit-picking and winding each other up; you've made your points and there may be some merit to what some of you are saying, but the _essence_ of the message is what's important and most people will "get" it - regardless of any technical inconsistencies.

Any positive action - aimed at drivers, cyclists, or both - that helps to avoid further injury or death has got to be applauded, surely?


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

In an attempt to get this back onto something like topic......There are obviously some cyclists on here that are also HGV drivers. What steps do you think could be taken to make you more aware of our presence? Either by cyclists or HGV drivers.


----------



## Shaun (27 Nov 2013)

2791272 said:


> I appreciate that you don't like this but our right to use the roads without unnecessary fear is the topic.



Really, I thought it was about keeping us all safe and (any) measures that might help to achieve that?


----------



## Brandane (27 Nov 2013)

SquareDaff said:


> In an attempt to get this back onto something like topic......There are obviously some cyclists on here that are also HGV drivers. What steps do you think could be taken to make you more aware of our presence? Either by cyclists or HGV drivers.



That's fairly simple:

Cyclists - make yourselves visible to HGV drivers, bearing in mind that there MAY be the odd blind spot particularly when they are turning. Don't go up the nearside of an HGV if there is ANY chance that they might be turning left. Use lights in poor visibility (not just at night; fog or rain too), and wear something that doesn't blend into the background (so not necessarily hi-viz then, but maybe bright colours where appropriate).

HGV drivers - be observant and look out for other road users. As 99.99999% already do. Use indicators - as 99.99999% already do, unlike car drivers.


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

OK - all of that I do 99.9% of the time and I imagine the vast majority of people on here do too. As an immediate solution they're common sense. Any thoughts on how to help detect mistakes that will eventually be made by both sides. For instance, I know of the system that uses some sort of chip to alert an HGV driver of cyclist proximity even if they can't see them. I believe it's being trialed in York!?!?! I'd like to read the thoughts of anyone that's been involved in that. There's the lower cab heights proposal that I believe is being trialed (in London?) Would a lower cab height really help eliminate blind spots or would it just relocate them? I don't drive a HGV so can't answer. Are there others?


----------



## XRHYSX (27 Nov 2013)

The lower cab, like most dust carts and busses is perfect for town driving, but in relllaty its down to the length of the vehicle,
they put the cab on top of the engine so you can get the full length trailer on the back, this is why we don't have american style bonneted trucks


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> That's fairly simple:
> 
> Cyclists - make yourselves visible to HGV drivers, bearing in mind that there MAY be the odd blind spot particularly when they are turning. Don't go up the nearside of an HGV if there is ANY chance that they might be turning left. Use lights in poor visibility (not just at night; fog or rain too), and wear something that doesn't blend into the background (so not necessarily hi-viz then, but maybe bright colours where appropriate).
> 
> HGV drivers - be observant and look out for other road users. As 99.99999% already do. Use indicators - as 99.99999% already do, unlike car drivers.



How about simply staffing dangerous vehicles with enough people to operate them safely?


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

XRHYSX said:


> The lower cab, like most dust carts and busses is perfect for town driving, but in relllaty its down to the length of the vehicle,
> they put the cab on top of the engine so you can get the full length trailer on the back, this is why we don't have american style bonneted trucks


I don't understand that one. How can the cab height have an effect on trailer length? I'm assuming this is due to a lack of knowledge about HGVs on my part. Can you explain please? (btw: this is a genuine question not a dig)


----------



## XRHYSX (27 Nov 2013)

my lorry is a day cab (I go home every night) I sit next to my engine which brings the hight of my cab down,
but a lot of lorry drivers live in there cabs weeks on end so to save them having to climb all over the place they give them a flat floor which starts at the top of the engine hence being so high


----------



## Brandane (27 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> How about simply staffing dangerous vehicles with enough people to operate them safely?



1. They are not dangerous vehicles when operated properly by the one person already paid to operate them; i.e the driver. I think that has been covered in the last 9 pages.

2. Was it you who proposed a co-driver/observer to be paid to sit in the passenger seat? This is not a practical solution if you think about it. Might be OK for lorries that operate solely in London or other big cities, but they are few and far between.
Just as an example; I can't see W.H. Malcolm of Linwood (outside Glasgow) sending a truck to London with an observer being paid to sit and do nothing other than keep an eye out for cyclists on left turns once the lorry gets to London.
Let's not get into using the second driver on double manned runs for this task. Then you are breaking all sorts of tachograph regulations as the second driver should be resting (i.e. sleeping) when not driving.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> *1. They are not dangerous vehicles when operated properly by the one person already paid to operate them; i.e the driver. I think that has been covered in the last 9 pages.*
> 
> 2. Was it you who proposed a co-driver/observer to be paid to sit in the passenger seat? This is not a practical solution if you think about it. Might be OK for lorries that operate solely in London or other big cities, but they are few and far between.
> Just as an example; I can't see W.H. Malcolm of Linwood (outside Glasgow) sending a truck to London with an observer being paid to sit and do nothing other than keep an eye out for cyclists on left turns once the lorry gets to London.
> Let's not get into using the second driver on double manned runs for this task. Then you are breaking all sorts of tachograph regulations as the second driver should be resting (i.e. sleeping) when not driving.



1. I'm afraid it hasn't. They are killing pedestrians and cyclists, so either improper operation is endemic, or the one person paid to operate them is simply not enough, however properly he does it.

2. Yes it was me, and I have thought about it quite a lot, thanks. When you say, "not practical", do you actually mean that operators are simply not willing to pay the costs or handle the logistics of controlling the danger they bring to the roads?


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

XRHYSX said:


> my lorry is a day cab (I go home every night) I sit next to my engine which brings the hight of my cab down,
> but a lot of lorry drivers live in there cabs weeks on end so to save them having to climb all over the place they give them a flat floor which starts at the top of the engine hence being so high


OK I understand now. Cheers. So a lower cab height would work for you then?

I've also read an article that suggested lengthing the cab of one of the longer trailer HGV's by 80cm to accomodate a more rounded cab with lower height (or drop) windscreen but the driver at the same seated height. Would this help/be practical/be dangerous for the driver?


----------



## Brandane (27 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> 1. I'm afraid it hasn't. They are killing pedestrians and cyclists, so either improper operation is endemic, or the one person paid to operate them is simply not enough, however properly he does it.
> 
> 2. Yes it was me, and I have thought about it quite a lot, thanks. When you say, "not practical", do you actually mean that operators are simply not willing to pay the costs or handle the logistics of controlling the danger they bring to the roads?



1. Presumably you are referring to the deaths of cyclists predominantly in London, and mostly by collisions with tipper lorries? That is off topic for this thread, which is about the alleged blind spots on ARTICULATED lorries. I appreciate that in your usual twisted way, you are trying to lure me into some sort of victim blaming statement so that you and your pals can have a rage fest . Sorry but it's not going to happen.

2. Why would you need an observer on a vehicle which, if mirrors are properly adjusted, has very limited blind spots. Have you even bothered to watch this video yet? Even @MontyVeda has admitted his avatar is bollox.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> 1. Presumably you are referring to the deaths of cyclists predominantly in London, and mostly by collisions with tipper lorries? That is off topic for this thread, which is about the alleged blind spots on ARTICULATED lorries. I appreciate that in your usual twisted way, you are trying to lure me into some sort of victim blaming statement so that you and your pals can have a rage fest. Sorry but it's not going to happen.
> 
> 2. Why would you need an observer on a vehicle which, if mirrors are properly adjusted, has very limited blind spots. Have you even bothered to watch this video yet?




1. It's about blind spots on large vehicles, and the mythology surrounding the issue, in the context of the spate of recent deaths. It's an old video - why do you imagine it's being dragged up all over the place just now? I am aware that it is tipper trucks and not artics that are mainly killing people. For cyclists it is also mainly trucks overtaking them and turning across their paths, and not cyclists deliberately positioning themselves on the nearside of lorries, that has led to their deaths, but that hasn't stemmed the relentless flow of "advice" _to cyclists_. And any chance you can cut down on the gratuitous abuse?

2. Yes I've watched it. My suggestion was initially made in the other thread, and it's aimed at all large vehicles with significant blind spots operating in public spaces shared with cyclists and pedestrians, not just artics. The complaint that it is impossible, despite conscientious driving and the best will in the world, for a driver to be sure he is not killing anyone, is one made frequently by drivers, not one initiated by me. I'm suggesting that the operators take responsibility for this problem and address it. I've suggested one way in which that would be possible.


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Nov 2013)

Brandane said:


> ...
> Even @MontyVeda has admitted his avatar is bollox.



you have an inability to see what is written in front of you... I said

... the image in my avatar is to point out that as a cyclist, you don't want to be in the same position as any of those cyclists. It may be based on a lie, but it's still good sound advice." 

that's a long way from _admitting it's 'bollox'_. Please don't distort what i say in your quest to have 'the last word'.


----------



## Brandane (27 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> you have an inability to see what is written in front of you... I said
> 
> ... the image in my avatar is to point out that as a cyclist, you don't want to be in the same position as any of those cyclists. It may be based on a lie, but it's still good sound advice."
> 
> that's a long way from _admitting it's 'bollox'_. Please don't distort what i say in your quest to have 'the last word'.



???? What I see written in front of me, on your avatar, in big letters, is this: "All of these bikes are in the driver's blind spot."

So perhaps it is YOU who can't see what is written in front of you; or you just have an inability to admit you are wrong .


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> ... the image in my avatar is to point out that as a cyclist, you don't want to be in the same position as any of those cyclists. It may be based on a lie, but it's still good sound advice."
> 
> that's a long way from _admitting it's 'bollox'_. Please don't distort what i say in your quest to have 'the last word'.


 
You have accepted that your avatar is wrong in its representation of all those cyclists being hidden in the lorry's blind spot:



MontyVeda said:


> ... none of those bikes are in the drivers blind spot and the image is wrong in that aspect.


 
I don't think it's wrong to suggest that your avatar's message (now refuted) is nonsense.


GC


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Nov 2013)

*the image in my avatar is to point out that as a cyclist, you don't want to be in the same position as any of those cyclists*. It may be based on a lie, but it's still good sound advice.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> *the image in my avatar is to point out that as a cyclist, you don't want to be in the same position as any of those cyclists*. It may be based on a lie, but it's still good sound advice.


 
If your message was something like <<_don't ride in this zone or you might be squashed_>> your overall message would still be relevant but, more importantly, not undermined by being based on a lie.

I'm trying to help here!

GC


----------



## XRHYSX (27 Nov 2013)

We as lorry drivers are trying to stop any problems with cyclists, peds, cars and vans we have many large mirrors (which in itself causes more blind spots) and class room based training. We need you to make yourself seen, I ride my bike in a built up town and know here and where not to put myself in relation to HGVs and other traffic, yet i still wear a hi vis or bright clothing and put my lights on in anything but the clearest of days, there will always be accidents but a bit of self-presavataion goes a long way,
lorrys arnt going away any time soon, at least not whilst everyone is consuming good and services.
Think about this, the amount of stuff i carry on my one lorry would take approximately 13 transit vans or 500 cars.... And you think I'm the problem


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

Well instead of trying to inflame the relationship between HGV drivers and cyclists on this forum how about posting something constructive?


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

I


2791955 said:


> I have done several times, you presumably haven't read that. To make it clear though, I want every person responsible for a hard object on our roads who kills or seriously damages a soft road user removed from that position permanently.


Probably missed it because of all the antagonistic rhetoric. I presume that includes cyclists when they now down pedestrians?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Nov 2013)

2791955 said:


> I have done several times, you presumably haven't read that. To make it clear though, I want every person responsible for a hard object on our roads who kills or seriously damages a soft road user removed from that position permanently.


 
Regardless of blame or any mitigating circumstances? I nearly hit an unlit cyclist who wobbled off a pavement out of a side road right in front of me once ... While I'm happy to accept responsibility for my own actions, I'd hate to think that my mortgage payments depended forever more on everyone else behaving as well as I try to when out on the road.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Nov 2013)

2792016 said:


> Not hard.


 
Have you told this to the family of that nine year old recently hit by a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing?


----------



## SquareDaff (27 Nov 2013)

That a bike isn't a hard object? Last I checked steel, titanium, aluminium and even carbon were pretty solid especially when travelling at speed.


----------



## XRHYSX (27 Nov 2013)

2791818 said:


> And then I look at the story of Catriona Patel and what happened when she met Dennis Putz on the road.


 drink driver, i fully agree should never have been on the road that day, and should never be aloud again
my job is my world, i love it, wouldn't want to do any thing else, ( maybe a sailing instructor)
that's why i made a lifestyle choice to give up alcohol, never a chance i will still be hunover from the night before, i personally do everything i can to be as safe as i can on the roads in whichever form of transport I choose,


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Nov 2013)

2792058 said:


> In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians damage tends to be 50:50. In collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists or motor vehicles and pedestrians it isn't. Newspaper reports frequently contain the phrase 'the driver of the car was uninjured".
> Your one example doesn't swing it.


 
Perhaps not, although I'd still be interested to see the reaction of the families of those (admittedly few) people killed or injured by inconsiderate cyclists when you told them bicycles were not hard traffic and that their loved ones were merely statistical anomalies.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Nov 2013)

Here's a little question that I'd like you all to answer to yourself: that drag sweep that drivers are unable to monitor (or can only monitor with great difficulty), and which regularly takes out unwitting passing cyclists, who is responsible for it? Who owns the problem, in other words?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2792155, member: 30090"]What's drag sweep?[/quote]
The area of space that a vehicle, particularly the rear axle, moves into (''sweeps'') as a vehicle turns. The area where unwitting cyclists get caught. But, no doubt, you knew exactly what I meant and you'll have a more precise definition.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Nov 2013)

I didn't mean *behind* the rear axle, I mean any point in front of it. When you turn, the rear wheels turn in a smaller arc than the front. This has the effect off closing off space. Further forward the lateral movement is even greater.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Nov 2013)

2792112 said:


> How many are there?


 
There are very few indeed, I freely admit. But they do exist (and the number is almost certainly higher than the converse, viz. cyclists killed by pedestrians), and if you want to go down that road, there are very few cyclist / lorry incidents as a proportion of the number of successfully completed journeys. But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2792232, member: 30090"]Ok, then this would be down to the driver but you cannot stop cyclists passing up the inside and they have done with me. Despite there being seven flashing indicators indicating that I'm turning left.[/quote]

I've experienced the same thing from time to time. Less so now I'm on nights and mostly on the motorway, but it has happened.


----------



## Brandane (27 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2792155, member: 30090"]What's drag sweep?[/quote]


----------



## XRHYSX (27 Nov 2013)

SquareDaff said:


> I don't understand that one. How can the cab height have an effect on trailer length? I'm assuming this is due to a lack of knowledge about HGVs on my part. Can you explain please? (btw: this is a genuine question not a dig)



• 12 metres for a rigid vehicle
• 16.5 metres for an articulated vehicle if the articulated combination can turn within a concentric radii of 12.5 metres and 5.3 metres; otherwise 15.5 metres
• 18.75 metres for a road train (a combination of a lorry and a trailer) 
If you put the cab in front of the engine you make the lorry longer so you would have to make the trailer shorter to compensate
having the cab on top of the engine means you can have the full length trailer


----------



## SquareDaff (28 Nov 2013)

XRHYSX said:


> • 12 metres for a rigid vehicle
> • 16.5 metres for an articulated vehicle if the articulated combination can turn within a concentric radii of 12.5 metres and 5.3 metres; otherwise 15.5 metres
> • 18.75 metres for a road train (a combination of a lorry and a trailer)
> If you put the cab in front of the engine you make the lorry longer so you would have to make the trailer shorter to compensate
> having the cab on top of the engine means you can have the full length trailer


Cheers - that makes it clear.


----------



## User16625 (1 Dec 2013)

Why do I get an error saying *"this video is private"? *


----------



## XRHYSX (1 Dec 2013)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Why do I get an error saying *"this video is private"? *


don't know, its working for me


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Here's a little question that I'd like you all to answer to yourself: that drag sweep that drivers are unable to monitor (or can only monitor with great difficulty), and which regularly takes out unwitting passing cyclists, who is responsible for it? Who owns the problem, in other words?


 
I am interested to know, how many cyclists taken out in this area, hold a full driving license?

When learning to drive, I was taught not to be in that area on roundabouts and bends, as that gap can close very very quickly.

A few years later I got my bike license, and again was told not to be anywhere near that area at junctions or filtering, or be alongside them during any tight turns.


I wouldn't put a motorcycle behind the cab and infront of the rear axle in a car, never on a motorcycle, and certainly won't be there on a bicycle.

How many of those hit in these situations have had no kind of road training, or licensing in which they are taught how dangerous these large vehicles are.

HGV's will always have large blind spots, but as a vulnerable road user, we have to avoid putting ourselves in a position of increased risk, and HOPE that the driver notices something that he cannot see nor hear.

I for one, would rather take charge of my own safety, than rely on others in vehicles to look out for me.


----------



## theclaud (4 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I am interested to know, how many cyclists taken out in this area, hold a full driving license?
> 
> When learning to drive, I was taught not to be in that area on roundabouts and bends, as that gap can close very very quickly.
> 
> ...



Have you bothered to read any of this thread? Do you know the first thing about how the lorries in question have been killing cyclists and pedestrians? Clue - it isn't in the way you insinuate. What is your answer to @deptfordmarmoset's question, which you appear to have quoted without giving it the slightest thought?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Dec 2013)

I was responding to the bit, about who is responsible for that space.

I suspect like a lot of incidents involving these vehicles, that most involve somebody undertaking a lorry turning left, or trying to go with a lorry and getting squeezed or dragged under the back of the lorry as it turns.

If you feel that I have misunderstood the area of the lorry that poses the risk, then the post I quoted was also inaccurate "that drag sweep that drivers are unable to monitor (or can only monitor with great difficulty), and which regularly takes out unwitting passing cyclists"

Either way, "who is responsible for it? Who owns the problem, in other words?" That area is part of the lorries space, and while it may be the drivers "legal duty" to ensure that space is clear, we have to understand that it is difficult for them to do so, and to not be in that area.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> For cyclists it is also mainly trucks overtaking them and turning across their paths, and not cyclists deliberately positioning themselves on the nearside of lorries, that has led to their deaths, but that hasn't stemmed the relentless flow of "advice" _to cyclists_. And any chance you can cut down on the gratuitous abuse?.



I assume your posts relates to this earlier one you made.

I also believe that it is the only post in the thread suggesting that lorries overtake and then turn across. In which case, it is merely your opinion or belief on it, which differs from mine. Unless of course you can provide a credible source to back your opinion up?


----------



## Origamist (4 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I was responding to the bit, about who is responsible for that space.
> 
> I suspect like a lot of incidents involving these vehicles, that most involve somebody undertaking a lorry turning left, or trying to go with a lorry and getting squeezed or dragged under the back of the lorry as it turns.



Less than half of cyclist/HGV fatalities are caused in the manner you describe. What's more, you also need to disentangle the instances of drivers passing and then turning across cyclists.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Either way, "who is responsible for it? Who owns the problem, in other words?" That area is part of the lorries space, and while it may be the drivers "legal duty" to ensure that space is clear,* we have to understand that it is difficult for them to do so, and to not be in that area*.



If it is difficult for them to see whether or not they are killing people, they (and those on whose behalf they are driving) need to take responsibility for this, and figure out how they are going to stop killing people.

Excellent article by Caroline Russell.
_
Nazan _[a lorry killed her 13-year old daughter as she was wheeling her bike across a pedestrian crossing]_ described the extraordinary situation where we have "lorries driving blind" through crowded city streets and asked how that can be acceptable? When you pause to consider the safety requirements on construction sites where lorries move at 5mph with a banksman on foot alongside, the fact that the same vehicles can move legally at 30mph with limited vision on London's busy roads, crowded with people, is bewildering. That they are killing and injuring people with such frequency is nothing short of scandalous.

The recent police activity to enforce the rules on driving-tired and road-worthiness of vehicles is to be welcomed but it needs to continue long term. If those in charge of the vehicles that can cause most harm feel there are no consequences for infringing the rules, we will continue to see further unnecessary deaths and injuries on our roads. And of course, every heavy goods vehicle driving through London should be fitted with technology that enables drivers to check their blind spots for the presence of people on foot and on bikes._


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2013)

It's good that she doesn't see the HGV problem as being a cyclists' problem but a civic problem.



> Many of us were there, not 'for cycling' but because we can see that London could be a more liveable city. We were there not as cyclists or as pedestrians but as people: mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and grandparents.
> The current debate is focused too much on cycling and the behaviour of those who use bikes to get around. It needs to expand. We need to build a coalition of London residents who value walking and cycling and understand that pedestrians are at risk too. Otherwise we won't begin to reduce road danger or create a more liveable and less vehicle-dominated city.


----------



## Archie_tect (5 Dec 2013)

While I fully support better driver aids to help them drive safely, more needs to be done to educate everyone including vulnerable people, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles to help them be aware of the dangers around HGVs so that all drivers give more room and/or consideration to all other road users around hazards and people give HGVs more space and take steps to keep out of their blind spots, but it is a 2 way process...


----------



## Archie_tect (5 Dec 2013)

2805728 said:


> It beggars belief that there is anything much to debate in this.


Exactly!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2013)

Meanwhile I'm really angry about a side issue. Some time ago @charlie_lcc appeared on this thread to discuss lorry vision. His appearance on here came immediately after I'd written to LCC about mirrors, with links to that thread. He has not responded to me on that, nor has he replied to an PM or a follow up email to the LCC. If that's the level of respect that I get, I think I should cancel my LCC membership and go somewhere else where I might be able to get a response. I really didn't expect to get completely blanked.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> While I fully support better driver aids to help them drive safely, more needs to be done to educate everyone including vulnerable people, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles to help them be aware of the dangers around HGVs so that all drivers give more room and/or consideration to all other road users around hazards and people give HGVs more space and take steps to keep out of their blind spots, *but it is a 2 way process..*.



I find this weird. I go out on my bicycle every day and the only real constraint (my own abilities excluded) upon the way I ride is the conviction that I must not use the superior speed of my bicycle to hurt, endanger or intimidate others. This is not a "two-way process" but an absolute responsibility. It's nice, of course, if pedestrians make things easy for me by not veering suddenly onto the cycle bit of the path or not stepping out into the road without looking, but if they fail to do so it doesn't absolve me of my responsibilities towards them. Why is this different for the operators of motor vehicles?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

@theclaud That article is very well written, and has a very good point to put across. However, why should my safety be the responsibility of others? Why should I trust somebody else to keep me safe? It is my safety, and I use my judgement to keep me safe.

Modern society places too much emphasis on make others responsible for other peoples safety.

This isn't to say that, you can drive a vehicle with no regard for the safety of others, anybody in charge of a vehicle is responsible for their actions, however, as vulnerable road users (note that vulnerable is a relative term, pedestrians are vulnerable to most traffic, bicycles included, bicycles can be vulnerable to even cars, but in context of HGVs then even cars can be considered a vulnerable vehicle) we must do our best to keep ourselves out of harms way, what is the point of being in the right if it means you are dead?

I have a local road with a very tight turn for articulated lorries in which it must use both sides of the road, and still the trailer's overhang and inside edge still crosses the footpath, and I regularly see pedestrians standing on the very edge of the footpath waiting to cross, and then are shocked when they need to move out of the way, I personally wouldn't be stood there if I saw one turning.

People want to be able to push the responsibility on to others so as to not be at blame themselves, people in modern society seem to be afraid of making mistakes or maybe peoples attitudes have changed and more have some kind of superiority complex.

We must empathise with users of all vehicles, and do our best to help each other, mistakes will happen, they are controlled by humans, however 90% of the time, it takes a mistake from both parties, and it nearly always takes 2 people to have an accident.

Get knocked over walking across a street? Lets play devil's advocate, did that person stop and wait for the traffic to stop and look to ensure it was clear, or simply walk across the pedestrian crossing because they have "right of way"?

You may say that is a ridiculous thing to say, but if you drove across a traffic controlled junction, you would still LOOK to ensure other traffic has stopped before proceeding, never make assumptions that others are going to follow the rules, and be prepared to back down and let them proceed incorrectly if it means you are safe.

Being blindsided by an overtaking vehicle who then turns across, is probably unavoidable, and unforgivable driving, but it is not the vehicle that is doing this, it is the driver, it is not because you are a cyclist, I see plenty of drivers do nobbish moves against other cars and motorcycles. But, I still believe that this kind of accident is less common than people either knowingly or unknowingly being in a dangerous position, with no empathy towards the operators of the other vehicles.

The correlation drawn between HGV operating in construction regulations and on the streets is also pretty ridiculous, it will just be as easy to say then that pedestrians aren't permitted out of their home without a Hi-Vis, hard hat, boots and must sign in with the foreman first, to pull bits and pieces to support an argument is pure biased journalism not intelligent debate.

To sum up, safety IS a two way street, we must be responsible of our actions to others, but we must also take responsibility and ownership of our own safety.

Education of ALL road users is the key, blame game is short sighted and doesn't solve the issue.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @theclaud That article is very well written, and has a very good point to put across. However, why should my safety be the responsibility of others? Why should I trust somebody else to keep me safe? It is my safety, and I use my judgement to keep me safe.
> 
> Modern society places too much emphasis on make others responsible for other peoples safety.
> 
> ...



I don't mean to suggest that all this is the same-old same-old, but does anything in this very long and not terribly novel post absolve _me _of _my _responsibility not to hurt, endanger or intimidate others?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

That there is the point. A lot of people involved in these incidents they endanger themselves due to their ignorance of keeping themselves safe.

All road users have a duty of care to others but that does not absolve you from being responsible for your own safety also.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> *That there is the point.* A lot of people involved in these incidents they endanger themselves due to their ignorance of keeping themselves safe.
> 
> All road users have a duty of care to others but that does not absolve you from being responsible for your own safety also.



Which you still appear to be evading. Supposing, just for a second, that you fail in your responsibility to look after yourself. Does that mean that_ I _am no longer responsible if _I_ hurt or endanger _you_?


----------



## snorri (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I have a local road with a very tight turn for articulated lorries in which it must use both sides of the road, and still the trailer's overhang and inside edge still crosses the footpath, and I regularly see pedestrians standing on the very edge of the footpath waiting to cross, and then are shocked when they need to move out of the way, I personally wouldn't be stood there if I saw one turning.



Some of us would consider it unreasonable of the owner of the said artic to expect his employee to take the vehicle on a route which requires positive actions of pedestrians on footpaths to ensure safe passage of the vehicle through the junction.

You (as a pedestrian) have the experience to recognise the hazard in this situation, and the physical and mental competence to take action to ensure your safety, many people on our footpaths lack these abilities..
Should we be restricting pedestrian status only to those holding certificates of their mental and physical competence?


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> Some of us would consider it unreasonable of the owner of the said artic to expect his employee to take the vehicle on a route which requires positive actions of pedestrians on footpaths to ensure safe passage of the vehicle through the junction.



Quite.


----------



## Origamist (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @theclaud That article is very well written, and has a very good point to put across. However, why should my safety be the responsibility of others? Why should I trust somebody else to keep me safe? It is my safety, and I use my judgement to keep me safe.
> 
> Further red herrings, strawman arguments and non sequiturs snipped


 
Your safety is contingent on the behavior of other road users, particularly the behavior of HGV drivers who are in charge of large, heavy vehicles (with limited visibility) that have the potential to kill and maim at very low speeds.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> Some of us would consider it unreasonable of the owner of the said artic to expect his employee to take the vehicle on a route which requires positive actions of pedestrians on footpaths to ensure safe passage of the vehicle through the junction.



Unfortunately it is the world that consumerism has forced us to be in, if the population didn't want a supermarket on their doorstep, then this problem would not be so severe I imagine.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

Origamist said:


> Your safety is contingent on the behavior of other road users, particularly the behavior of HGV drivers who are in charge of large, heavy vehicles (with limited visibility) that have the potential to kill and maim at very low speeds.



True, but I am safer not putting myself in the dangerous position regardless of the actions of the driver.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> Which you still appear to be evading. Supposing, just for a second, that you fail in your responsibility to look after yourself. Does that mean that_ I _am no longer responsible if _I_ hurt or endanger _you_?



No, But there can be mitigating circumstances to any incident. We have a duty of care to all other road users, but must also take responsibility of our own safety. Hopefully, riding your bike, you are aware of the risks enough to take action should another road user make a mistake, and hopefully when you're in a car, you're aware enough of a pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist that you can avoid killing them when they make a mistake.

As, the world is not perfect, mistakes will be made, by acknowledging that safety is the responsibility of ALL and not the responsibility of the largest vehicle then, hopefully 1 of the 2 involved are able to avoid the incident regardless of blame, the problem happens when both parties blindly continue, and then the blame game begins.

To reverse your argument, suppose that a pedestrian steps off a curb as you turn into a junction and you hit them, by your argument, that should be your (the cyclist) fault since you have the responsibility to the more vulnerable to keep safe.

Safety is the responsibility of everybody.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Oh Christ, so it's STILL all our fault then.



The problem has been created by people, and society. But then, I'd rather be dodging HGV's than dodging other far more dangerous things that other societies have to


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> To reverse your argument, *suppose that a pedestrian steps off a curb as you turn into a junction and you hit them, by your argument, that should be your (the cyclist) fault since you have the responsibility to the more vulnerable to keep safe.*



Yes. Pedestrians do not materialize out of thin air. It's not a reversal of the argument - it's the same argument.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> Yes. Pedestrians do not materialize out of thin air. It's not a reversal of the argument - it's the same argument.



So, regardless of speed, distance and physics, the person in the bigger vehicle is always to blame?


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So, regardless of speed, distance and physics, the person in the bigger vehicle is always to blame?



The greater the danger you present to others, the more responsibility you have. So speed, mass, size all figure quite a lot in that.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> The greater the danger you present to others, the more responsibility you have. So speed, mass, size all figure quite a lot in that.



Pedestrian stepping out into the road, in a distance that is not physically possible to stop? Car driver still to blame?


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Pedestrian stepping out into the road, in a distance that is not physically possible to stop? Car driver still to blame?


The closer you are to pedestrians and the less certain you are of their trajectory, the slower you need to go...


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

2806061 said:


> Highway code 170 covers that.



Exactly, yet @theclaud would disagree with HWC #170 since the operator of the vehicle is responsible for that pedestrian, the person can cross without blame or worry.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> The closer you are to pedestrians and the less certain you are of their trajectory, the slower you need to go...



So Trucks should reduce speed to 10mph everytime they are within 14ft of a pedestrian? Cars should only do 20mph within 12m of a pedestrian?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @theclaud Education of ALL road users is the key, blame game is short sighted and doesn't solve the issue.


^^^ This, I cringe at some mistakes I see, nearly been toasted twice this last week by purely observant errors, one was very scary, an on come car had over taken another and had barely enough time to start to move back in before we passed, them still on my carriage way approaching speeds were probably 60-80 mph (similar to the case where the lass died), the other was just lack of observation and pulling out in front of me, the main thing is I had spotted the danger in both cases and was prepared (the first less so, because of the speed at which it happened, but was aware and had an alternative opt out, though in reality I probably wouldn't have time to make the safer manoeuvre i.e. the ditch/grass verge/hedge), accidents usually occur due to not observing what is going on around you, and failing to take appropriate action, and no matter how good we are (and humans are pretty good most of the time), it only takes one small error to kill someone, be it their error of judgement or yours, so we all have a responsibility to each other to try and be in the right place, and down the inside of a truck/bus/van/car is not the safest of places to be, it doesn't matter if the driver can/does/does not see you, stay behind the vehicles (assuming you are the one pulling up) and you will be safe.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So Trucks should reduce speed to 10mph everytime they are within 14ft of a pedestrian? Cars should only do 20mph within 12m of a pedestrian?



That sounds like one way of managing the danger, yes. You are aware of the 20's Plenty campaign?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So Trucks should reduce speed to 10mph everytime they are within 14ft of a pedestrian? Cars should only do 20mph within 12m of a pedestrian?



Of course bearing in mind the UK Mean road width is approx 11m, so therefore, cars should be travelling 20mph, when there's a pedestrian on any side of the road or within a 12m line of sight to them? Regardless of the current posted speed limits and traffic levels?


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Of course bearing in mind the UK Mean road width is approx 11m, so therefore, cars should be travelling 20mph, when there's a pedestrian on any side of the road or within a 12m line of sight to them? Regardless of the current posted speed limits and traffic levels?


Are you talking to me or yourself now?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

@theclaud 
Who is responsible for this incident?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNc4XGzsuzo&feature=youtu.be


The larger vehicle, or the cyclist?


Before the comment about the advanced stop line, it's legal for the motorcycle to be there, since the gated entry into the ASL box is not a solid line, but an advisory broken one, so the motorcycle did NOT brake a compulsory solid white line to be there, and therefore did not brake the first stop line. (ASL Box regulations, refer to vehicles not being permitted to brake the first stop line on red, not specifically motor vehicles, so cyclists also should NOT enter an ASL box if the light is on red, unless through a gate on the cycle lane)


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Can you make a good argument why not?



Are you suggesting that HGVs slowing to 10mph for a pedestrian maybe more than 1 lane away on a 70mph dual carriage way is sensible and won't cause a road accident? Or cars slowing to 1/3rd of the posted limit is sensible?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

Additionally, a vehicle slowing considerably may invite a pedestrian to cross a road where they would have other wise waited.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> You're being silly now. There's no reason why traffic could not travel much more slowly all the time than it does at present. As for 'inviting a pedestrian to cross a road' - well good!



Am I? @theclaud suggests the driver must always be able to stop, so if there's a pedestrian 1 lane over (less than 12m) or the other side of a single carriage way, then the stopping distance is 10mph for a lorry and just shy of 20mph for a car.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

2806126 said:


> And what does it say?



To watch out, but to give way to pedestrians that have already started to cross, not those waiting.

Rule 8 is the reverse for pedestrians to look out for cars.

Rule 7 suggests letting traffic past before crossing.

This is the exact point I have been trying to get across, regardless of who the vulnerable user is, we must be responsible for others AND our own safety.

Motorised users should look out for vulnerable users, and vulnerable users should be aware of the risks to avoid


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Yes, and I've suggested that people don't actually die if they have to drive about at 20 mph. Perhaps 'traffic' should just SLOW DOWN. What's the friggin rush?



In a residential area yes, but some NSL dual carriageways have footpaths alongside, in which it wouldn't be safe to do 1/3rd of the limit.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @theclaud
> Who is responsible for this incident?
> 
> The larger vehicle, or the cyclist?
> ...



Not being some kind of legal fundamentalist, I find the rules about entry to ASLs so absurd that I wouldn't hold that against the motorcyclist anyway, but (as an aside) I disapprove of motorcyclists being allowed in ASLs at all. The cyclist appears to have disobeyed a red light (although she has a somewhat leisurely pace - it is possible that she went through at amber) and is responsible for doing so. You might want to note that there is no pedestrian behaviour that is precisely equivalent to this. The motorcyclist should have noted that the van part-blocking the junction presented a hazard to his sightlines, and passed it more slowly/cautiously, so he is responsible for an unsafe manoeuvre. So the answer to your question is that they are both responsible for the incident, and fortunately at that speed the differential between them in terms of size and power was a less salient issue.

As to what all this has to with HGVs killing pedestrians and cyclists... well, not a great deal, as neither motorcyclists nor cyclists seem to be killing people at all. Had an HGV passed the van that close at that speed and killed someone because of it, the HGV would have been responsible, because he is wielding lethal force around vulnerable people, which neither the cyclist nor the motorcyclist were doing. I do realise that some people find both nuance and responsibility a great strain...


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

I find it difficult to disagree with you, the video was to demonstrate that it is not always as clean cut as bigger vehicle = blame.

What is difficult, is the hgv situation entirely. You can't get them off the roads as it would cause huge congestion, give them more mirrors will result in restricted forward view at junction, removing mirrors will reduce rearward vision for cyclists and pedestrians.

I honestly think, the best suggestion in this thread as a material solution, are the swivelling mirrors as described earlier. You could have less mirrors so more forward vision, but mirrors that pivot to stay in the same position relative to the trailer would far improve rear view.

How well this would work on non-articulated hgvs I don't know.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Maybe not 'get them off the roads', but why not restrict their access to certain times of day/night? Or the oft-quoted idea of using smaller delivery vehicles operating from edge of town depots?



When we built a venue, we need to be able to get shipping containers to the site, some items are bigger than LWB transits, smallest vehicle we could get away with are the lorries with curtains on the sides that you often see doing the beer deliveries etc, or for the majority of stuff, you would need far far more vans, that would take up far more room on the road than a HGV

One of our venues is based in Westfield shopping centre in stratford, that has restricted delivery hours, it cost the business a fortune for deliveries, and paying staff out of hours to be there for deliveries as not permitted at normal working hours, these guys then had to use transport as public transport had finished when they had finished unloading.

So stopping the deliveries at normal hours, resulted in increased costs everywhere including to the clients/customers, it also forced more cars onto the road that would have otherwise being using public transport.

Your comments for the driver being pre-occupied is entirely 100% valid, I absolutely detest mobile phone usage, facebooking, twittering while driving. And would fully support some kind of signal suppresion built into all vehicles.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What is difficult, is the hgv situation entirely. You can't get them off the roads as it would cause huge congestion, give them more mirrors will result in restricted forward view at junction, removing mirrors will reduce rearward vision for cyclists and pedestrians.
> 
> I honestly think, the best suggestion in this thread as a material solution, are the swivelling mirrors as described earlier. You could have less mirrors so more forward vision, but mirrors that pivot to stay in the same position relative to the trailer would far improve rear view.
> 
> How well this would work on non-articulated hgvs I don't know.



I refer the honourable gentleman to my post #156 above...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I honestly think, the best suggestion in this thread as a material solution, are the swivelling mirrors as described earlier. You could have less mirrors so more forward vision, but mirrors that pivot to stay in the same position relative to the trailer would far improve rear view.
> 
> How well this would work on non-articulated hgvs I don't know.



It was a side issue because they would have no effect on non-articulated hgvs, such as those used by the construction industry. I still think they would be a possible improvement on the blind spots caused when artics are....er...articulated. They'd also be cheap.

However, I am glad that you have understood the basic idea of them for artics. And dismayed that Charlie Lloyd hasn't. 

The classic tipper truck, skip lorry, types, which appear with fearsome regularity in the rider down RIP threads, however, are the most dangerous and therefore need addressing first IMO.


----------



## Wobblers (6 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> True, but I am safer not putting myself in the dangerous position regardless of the actions of the driver.



Errr, _what_???

The footpath is _by definition_ a place for pedestrians. Motorised vehicles are only allowed to encroach it for access to properties. And pedestrians have priority there. Hence, pedestrians have _every reasonable expectation of safety whilst they are on the footpath_. If a turning HGV encroaches onto the footpath, that rather suggests that the HGV is entirely unsuitable for the road. Certainly the driver should wait until the pavement is clear - the safe operation of his vehicle is entirely his responsibility. It is unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be aware of any dangers posed - few will have driven vehicles and children certainly will not be aware of any risk. Can anyone comment as to whether or not encroachment in these circumstances constitutes an offence?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (6 Dec 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The classic tipper truck, skip lorry, types, which appear with fearsome regularity in the rider down RIP threads, however, are the most dangerous and therefore need addressing first IMO.


I think you may find that the problem with such types of L.G.V.'s is down to the driver (not taking away from those that are good drivers as most will surly be), having spent sometime drive class 2 Hi-Habs, that the type you referred to do tend to have some abandonment to other road users (but again this is down to the attitude of the person and would most probably be the same no matter what they drive or ride), as for missing a pedestrian or cyclist on the near side of the L.G.V. I completely missed a car coming up the M56 one evening (back end of the year so it was dark), I was in lane 3 of 4 as it became a 3 lane carriageway, (I indicated to move to what was going to become lane 1) checked and manoeuvred, the next thing I saw was the roof of a car pass under the windscreen, the car in question must have been slightly forward of me as I caught it around the rear wheel, so I either completely missed the car or they were undertaking me at speed, apart from the road side questions I was never asked another by the police, I never heard anything else after filling an insurance form out. The driver was ok apart from being a little shocked. 

The onance I believe is on yourself to stay safe and on others to observe and stay within the rules a regulations of the road, if this is done people should know what everyone is doing, a recent example of this is, I was approaching a local mini-roundabout the other day car to my right indicated right so I stop, they then precede to take the exit of the roundabout I approached on, indication of your intent (or lack of it) can lead to many accidents, I find people either don't do it or leave it very late to be of any use, but you also have to understand that what they indicate is their intent.


----------



## Origamist (6 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> No, But there can be mitigating circumstances to any incident. *We have a duty of care to all other road users, but must also take responsibility of our own safety*. Hopefully, riding your bike, you are aware of the risks enough to take action should another road user make a mistake, and hopefully when you're in a car, you're aware enough of a pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist that you can avoid killing them when they make a mistake.
> 
> To reverse your argument, suppose that a pedestrian steps off a curb as you turn into a junction and you hit them, by your argument, that should be your (the cyclist) fault since you have the responsibility to the more vulnerable to keep safe.
> 
> *Safety is the responsibility of everybody*.


 
It’s worth unpicking the insidious, false equivalence that is embedded in those statements (however well intentioned and reasonable they might superficially sound) as it gets to the heart of what is wrong with the prevailing “road safety” mindset. The notion that all road users are somehow equal and "in it together", diverts attention away from the simple truth that HGVs have a massive potential to harm and, as such, the unswerving focus should be on reducing their deadliness – be it by limiting access to towns and cities, cab re-design, better regulation and inspection procedures etc. As it currently stands, killing or seriously injuring someone because of limited visibility or driver error is an occupational hazard as the vehicle is not fit for purpose. Attempts at educating other road users to the dangers posed by HGVs (which can be reduced to “hang back” or “get the fark out of the way” ) have a place, but we must not pretend that this approach is any more than an Elastoplast when dealing with the problem.


----------

