# Trike on A82



## oldwheels (9 Dec 2020)

I put this up on the retirement thread originally but here is more appropriate. This is a fast traffic busy road with lots of bends. It was getting so bad a 50mph speed limit was imposed but widely ignored.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Dec 2020)

Holy smoke! 

I confess I would be too afraid to ride that, I'd take the added expense of going down the other side and getting the ferry back across at Corran. That section of the trunk road is pounded daily by articulated lorries and it's got double white lines for 99% of its length.
I wince every time I'm on it and see a cyclist.


----------



## oldwheels (9 Dec 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Holy smoke!
> 
> I confess I would be too afraid to ride that, I'd take the added expense of going down the other side and getting the ferry back across at Corran. That section of the trunk road is pounded daily by articulated lorries and it's got double white lines for 99% of it's length.
> I wince every time I'm on it and see a cyclist.


You would not have to pay at Corran I think. Pedestrians go free and bikes used to be but not been on it for a long time now. Lots of timber lorries on that road as well and I will refrain from giving my opinion of them. I would certainly not dream of cycling on that road now. There were so many fatal accidents that a 50mph speed limit was imposed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Dec 2020)

oldwheels said:


> You would not have to pay at Corran I think. Pedestrians go free and bikes used to be but not been on it for a long time now. Lots of timber lorries on that road as well and I will refrain from giving my opinion of them. I would certainly not dream of cycling on that road now. There were so many fatal accidents that a 50mph speed limit was imposed.



They introduced a fare of £1.50 last year but seem to have removed it on the latest timetable. I was thinking of the £3.50 fare on the wee ferry from Fort William to Camusnagaul so it would take you down the quieter A861 to come back over at Corran.

Aye, the loggers are something else on that road.


----------



## Edwardoka (9 Dec 2020)

I've ridden that stretch of road once in each direction. Not fun, to put it mildly. Doing it on a trike where you're so low down... nope nope nope


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2020)

What’s this thing about low down? He’s perfectly visible, just as much as someone on a road bike. But he’ll get noticed more and will in fact be safer.


----------



## Edwardoka (9 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> What’s this thing about low down? He’s perfectly visible, just as much as someone on a road bike. But he’ll get noticed more and will in fact be safer.


They'll be just as visible to a car driver, but as mentioned upthread, logging trucks use that section a lot, and truck cabs are not famed for having very good cones of vision. Someone standing in front of a truck cab is completely invisible to the driver (even downward-facing mirrors cannot fully alleviate this problem). 

The lower down someone is, the further ahead of the truck the arc of effective invisibility extends.
If you'll excuse my extremely crude knocked-up in 3 minutes, not to scale MS Paint diagram...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2020)

Edwardoka said:


> They'll be just as visible to a car driver, but as mentioned upthread, logging trucks use that section a lot, and truck cabs are not famed for having very good cones of vision. Someone standing in front of a truck cab is completely invisible to the driver (even downward-facing mirrors cannot fully alleviate this problem).
> 
> The lower down someone is, the further ahead of the truck the arc of effective invisibility extends.
> If you'll excuse my extremely crude knocked-up in 3 minutes, not to scale MS Paint diagram...
> View attachment 562619



If he’s that close he’ll run over all three people anyway.


----------



## Edwardoka (9 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> If he’s that close he’ll run over all three people anyway.


I did say it was not to scale. It was intended to show the principle of blind spots, not to be a scientific diagram to be picked apart.

If I'd used something better than paint I'd have made several images, with all three road users in the same place to show just how much farther ahead the recumbent rider has to be in order to be seen from a truck cab.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2020)

Edwardoka said:


> I did say it was not to scale. It was intended to show the principle of blind spots, not to be a scientific diagram to be picked apart.
> 
> If I'd used something better than paint I'd have made several images, with all three road users in the same place to show just how much farther ahead the recumbent rider has to be in order to be seen from a truck cab.



Either way, it’s a non problem on the A82.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Dec 2020)

Not sure I would fancy it myself, but I support his right to do so.


----------



## Edwardoka (9 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Either way, it’s a non problem on the A82.


So what you're saying is that on an twisty stretch of busy, fast road, with trees on either side (all of which contributes to very poor forward visibility and limited reaction time), and which is heavily used by logging trucks, the distance at which a rider disappears into the area of effective invisibility from the perspective of a truck driver *isn't* a problem?

Like, I'm fine with the trike rider doing it if they want, but saying that it's actually less dangerous is straight-up cuckoo-banana-pancakes level stuff that ignores the realities of that stretch of road, the significant visibility limitations of truck cabs and the disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities caused precisely because of truck blind spots.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2020)

Edwardoka said:


> So what you're saying is that on an twisty stretch of busy, fast road, with trees on either side (all of which contributes to very poor forward visibility and limited reaction time), and which is heavily used by logging trucks, the distance at which a rider disappears into the area of effective invisibility from the perspective of a truck driver *isn't* a problem?
> 
> Like, I'm fine with the trike rider doing it if they want, but saying that it's actually less dangerous is straight-up cuckoo-banana-pancakes level stuff that ignores the realities of that stretch of road, the significant visibility limitations of truck cabs and the disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities caused precisely because of truck blind spots.



No it doesn’t, accidents are rarely to lack of visibility. It’s lack of attention. The trike will get the drivers attention for more than any upright bike. in effect he or she is safer.


----------



## Edwardoka (9 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> No it doesn’t, accidents are rarely to lack of visibility. It’s lack of attention. The trike will get the drivers attention for more than any upright bike. in effect he or she is safer.


[Citation needed]


----------



## DRHysted (9 Dec 2020)

Edwardoka said:


> So what you're saying is that on an twisty stretch of busy, fast road, with trees on either side (all of which contributes to very poor forward visibility and limited reaction time), and which is heavily used by logging trucks, the distance at which a rider disappears into the area of effective invisibility from the perspective of a truck driver *isn't* a problem?
> 
> Like, I'm fine with the trike rider doing it if they want, but saying that it's actually less dangerous is straight-up cuckoo-banana-pancakes level stuff that ignores the realities of that stretch of road, the significant visibility limitations of truck cabs and the disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities caused precisely because of truck blind spots.



didn’t a lorry driver recently come out with the information that there were no blind spots on modern lorries, it was now fail to look spots.


----------



## Edwardoka (9 Dec 2020)

DRHysted said:


> didn’t a lorry driver recently come out with the information that there were no blind spots on modern lorries, it was now fail to look spots.


With new cab designs and lots of mirrors, radar and cameras coming onto the market, it will certainly be a lot safer than it was, but it's highly unlikely that these logging trucks will be up to date.


----------



## DRHysted (9 Dec 2020)

Edwardoka said:


> With new cab designs and lots of mirrors, radar and cameras coming onto the market, it will certainly be a lot safer than it was, but it's highly unlikely that these logging trucks will be up to date.


I have experience of Scottish logging lorries, they are interesting road users!!
Interestingly we are starting to see a few lorries at work with cameras instead of mirrors, they seem to cause the drivers hellish problems reversing onto our loading ramps.


----------



## DRM (10 Dec 2020)

DRHysted said:


> I have experience of Scottish logging lorries, they are interesting road users!!
> Interestingly we are starting to see a few lorries at work with cameras instead of mirrors, they seem to cause the drivers hellish problems reversing onto our loading ramps.


Mercedes Actros, first time I saw one I wondered where the hell the mirrors were, I’m guessing these logging trucks are on the same set up as tippers further south, ie on bonus, more loads equals more pay, equals appalling bullying driving.


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Dec 2020)

Edwardoka said:


> They'll be just as visible to a car driver, but as mentioned upthread, logging trucks use that section a lot, and truck cabs are not famed for having very good cones of vision. Someone standing in front of a truck cab is completely invisible to the driver (even downward-facing mirrors cannot fully alleviate this problem).
> 
> The lower down someone is, the further ahead of the truck the arc of effective invisibility extends.
> If you'll excuse my extremely crude knocked-up in 3 minutes, not to scale MS Paint diagram...
> View attachment 562619


I have had my class 1 licence for over 40 years and the diagram you have knocked up makes no sense at all. Trikes are more visible on the road as they take up more space. If you ever get to ride one on a road, you will see how much more room you are given. If you are sitting in the cab of a lorry. For something not to be visible in front of you., it would almost have to be laying under your bumper.


----------



## Edwardoka (10 Dec 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I have had my class 1 licence for over 40 years and the diagram you have knocked up makes no sense at all. Trikes are more visible on the road as they take up more space. If you ever get to ride one on a road, you will see how much more room you are given. If you are sitting in the cab of a lorry. For something not to be visible in front of you., it would almost have to be laying under your bumper.


IMO there's nothing wrong with the diagram apart from being extremely crude and slipshod and not at all to scale.
It is wholly inarguable that something lower to the ground will be in the blind spot at a farther distance from the front of the cab - trigonometry exists. Whether this extended "cone of invisibility" contributes to lower safety outcomes is neither proven nor disproven, because as recumbents are vanishingly rare, any collisions involving them would heavily skew any analyses that compare them against the cyclist population in general.

Now, I'm not a truck driver, nor could I ever get a licence to be one for medical reasons, so I will defer to your expertise on this matter. I'm certainly not going to lie down in front of a truck and see how close it gets before I can stop looking into the driver's eyes.

I'm aware of these types of photos but that's not really the principle I'm arguing.





I'd love to see a similar image that visualises the blindspots as the 3d volumes they are, rather than a "none of these people are visible" 2d slice.


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Dec 2020)

Blind spots to the sides I will accept.
The driver in this example can see all the people in front of him. It is actually a poor example. If the cab had been higher he would still see them all but probably only the heads of the front row. 

But how would they mystically appear that close in front of him without him seeing them?

A trike is far easier to see than a bike. I used to tell people that mine almost had the footprint of a mini. The biggest danger with mine was people driving so slowly in front of me to watch me in their mirrors or have the kids glare at me out of the back window.


----------



## Baldy (10 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> Mercedes Actros, first time I saw one I wondered where the hell the mirrors were, I’m guessing these logging trucks are on the same set up as tippers further south, ie on bonus, more loads equals more pay, equals appalling bullying driving.


I have cameras fitted to my scania, it's a retro fit. There's five cameras but I still have mirrors. Their really more for recording accidents than help you see.
Only the left hand one is any use. It's mounted on the front of the wheel arch, looking back. When you indicate left the monitor in the cab just shows that one camera image, normally it shows all five. Strangely when you're reversing all five go blank.


----------



## byegad (10 Dec 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I have had my class 1 licence for over 40 years and the diagram you have knocked up makes no sense at all. Trikes are more visible on the road as they take up more space. If you ever get to ride one on a road, you will see how much more room you are given. If you are sitting in the cab of a lorry. For something not to be visible in front of you., it would almost have to be laying under your bumper.



This^. 

As a recumbent trike rider I get much more room than a 'normal bike'.

I'm getting a little sick of being told I can't be seen by people who have no experience of using one on the roads, yet are seemingly perfectly capable of seeing lines painted on the road.


----------



## Edwardoka (10 Dec 2020)

I appear to have unwittingly wandered into the recumbent section from the sidebar. I was merely giving my opinion on an extremely sketchy stretch of road and a demonstration of trigonometry.

I didn't realise that this was contested territory like the helmet threads... time for me to hit the ol' dusty trail...

*backs away, carefully*
*runs*
. o O ( Don't look back, Ed, the chaise longues are after you )


----------



## Bad Machine (10 Dec 2020)

Another "demonstration of trigonometry" to discuss ?




The difference in height is only relevant when the lorry is right behind the recumbent.
Maybe the concern an attentive lorry driver has, that this "peculiar" cyclist disappears when really close to the cab, explains why the majority of us who trike see wider and longer passes ? 
But then again, if you've never ridden one, how would you know that happens ?


----------



## oldwheels (10 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Either way, it’s a non problem on the A82.


Have you ever cycled on the A82 recently? On the Corran/Fort William stretch particularly it is verging on suicidal.


----------



## oldwheels (10 Dec 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I have had my class 1 licence for over 40 years and the diagram you have knocked up makes no sense at all. Trikes are more visible on the road as they take up more space. If you ever get to ride one on a road, you will see how much more room you are given. If you are sitting in the cab of a lorry. For something not to be visible in front of you., it would almost have to be laying under your bumper.


Part of the problem is driver frustration. It is 8 miles Ft William to Corran Ferry and with lots of bends and poor forward visiblity as well as heavy oncoming traffic opportunities to overtake are few on this narrow road. There were so many fatalities that a speed limit of 50mph was introduced. Eight miles behind relatively slow trike can lead to bad decisions.
I ride a trike myself as well as drive so I have some insight.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Dec 2020)

oldwheels said:


> Part of the problem is driver frustration. It is 8 miles Ft William to Corran Ferry and with lots of bends and poor forward visiblity as well as heavy oncoming traffic opportunities to overtake are few on this narrow road. There were so many fatalities that a speed limit of 50mph was introduced. Eight miles behind relatively slow trike can lead to bad decisions.
> I ride a trike myself as well as drive so I have some insight.



The velomobile will be doing around 30 mph along that stretch


----------



## oldwheels (10 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> The velomobile will be doing around 30 mph along that stretch


? ? If motorised should be limited to 15mph surely.


----------



## Bad Machine (10 Dec 2020)

oldwheels said:


> ? ? If motorised should be limited to 15mph surely.


15.5 mph is the speed limit to which a legal motor-assist can power you * - but there's nothing to stop you going faster, but you'll just be using your own leg power. 

*you can modify many of the electric motor systems to provide electric assist to a higher speed - but that's a mod that produces something other than a road-legal e-bike/pedelec.


----------



## oldwheels (10 Dec 2020)

Bad Machine said:


> 15.5 mph is the speed limit to which a legal motor-assist can power you * - but there's nothing to stop you going faster, but you'll just be using your own leg power.
> 
> *you can modify many of the electric motor systems to provide electric assist to a higher speed - but that's a mod that produces something other than a road-legal e-bike/pedelec.


I used a GTech electric assist and I found that I was consistently going at higher speeds than the motor gave.
The USA I think has higher legal speed limits for e bikes and trikes. 
I do not have any assist on my own trike but if the motor can put you over 25kph you then become a scooter or something similar and that seems to be a bit of a legal jungle requiring insurance and VED.


----------



## recumbentpanda (10 Dec 2020)

Velomobiles do not necessarily have electric assist. Unassisted they are, I am told, well capable of 30 on the flat, and on gently rolling terrain.


----------



## HMS_Dave (10 Dec 2020)

recumbentpanda said:


> Velomobiles do not necessarily have electric assist. Unassisted they are, I am told, well capable of 30 on the flat, and on gently rolling terrain.


A super human perhaps, but the speed record for a velomobile is 89.59 mph. I think that would be utterly terrifying...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Dec 2020)

oldwheels said:


> ? ? If motorised should be limited to 15mph surely.



Velomobiles are not motorised, that is unassisted, and purely down to far superior aerodynamics.


----------



## DRM (10 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> The velomobile will be doing around 30 mph along that stretch


That might well be the case, but it’s no contest between 44 tonnes in a rush to get another load in, doing 56 mph bearing down on it


----------



## oldwheels (11 Dec 2020)

recumbentpanda said:


> Velomobiles do not necessarily have electric assist. Unassisted they are, I am told, well capable of 30 on the flat, and on gently rolling terrain.


How long could they sustain that speed? To get where he was reported he would have already travelled at least 30 miles and some of it on a long upward drag. He has another 25 miles or so to get home and another steeper hill to climb.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> That might well be the case, but it’s no contest between 44 tonnes in a rush to get another load in, doing 56 mph bearing down on it



Lorry driver will apply brakes and slow down. He’s not a character in a video game.


----------



## oldwheels (11 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Lorry driver will apply brakes and slow down. He’s not a character in a video game.


I have had conversations with timber lorry drivers. One quite openly said he would swipe me off the road if I got in his way. Real knuckle dragger.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Dec 2020)

oldwheels said:


> I have had conversations with timber lorry drivers. One quite openly said he would swipe me off the road if I got in his way. Real knuckle dragger.



All talk, unless you can point me to statistics on accidents involving timber lorries showing otherwise.


----------



## DRM (11 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Lorry driver will apply brakes and slow down. He’s not a character in a video game.


Not if he/she is is distracted talking on a phone or changing cd’s, radio stations etc etc, anyway usual stupid arguments, I’m out


----------



## DRM (11 Dec 2020)

oldwheels said:


> I have had conversations with timber lorry drivers. One quite openly said he would swipe me off the road if I got in his way. Real knuckle dragger.


Same sort of Neanderthal that drive tippers too


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> Not if he/she is is distracted talking on a phone or changing cd’s, radio stations etc etc, anyway usual stupid arguments, I’m out



In which who or what is in front of them is irrelevant, they’d drive into the back of a flashing neon sign 40ft tall.


----------



## DRM (11 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Lorry driver will apply brakes and slow down. He’s not a character in a video game.





YukonBoy said:


> In which who or what is in front of them is irrelevant, they’d drive into the back of a flashing neon sign 40ft tall.


You were saying? In the USA, not a good outcome is it?
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...s-group-of-cyclists-on-retirement-ride-485946


----------



## DRM (11 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Lorry driver will apply brakes and slow down. He’s not a character in a video game.


And another one 
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...lling-racing-cyclist-josephine-gilbert-476136


----------



## furball (12 Dec 2020)

There are limited potential overtaking spots on that road. I'm wondering how visible this would be from an overtaking vehicle point of view, particularly in relation t pulling back in.


----------

