# Better design of HGVs is key to improving safety for cyclists



## Dogtrousers (23 Nov 2018)

http://roadsafetyweek.org.uk/blog/e...-hgvs-is-key-to-improving-safety-for-cyclists

I don't have much background knowedge of this so I don't have any opinion but it seems an interesting article.

In short 

_London’s first walking and cycling commissioner Will Norman ... new Direct Vision Standard ... rates HGVs from zero star (lowest) to five star (highest), based on how much a driver can see directly through their windows ... from October 2019 ... ban zero star HGVs unless they prove they have a safe system fitted. Over time we’ll increase the rating threshold,... By 2024 require a minimum of three star_


----------



## Drago (23 Nov 2018)

Not hiring brain donors on minimum wage to drive mobile tower blocks is key to improving safety for cyclists.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

Drago said:


> Not hiring brain donors on minimum wage to drive mobile tower blocks is key to improving safety for cyclists.


Along with teaching cyclists that if they intentionally put themselves in a blindspot don't be surprised if the drivers doesn't see you


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

"Key to improving safety" is probably over-egging it. "Key to reducing London cycling fatalities" may be true, as HGVs seem disproportionately often involved in those.



Drago said:


> Not hiring brain donors on minimum wage to drive mobile tower blocks is key to improving safety for cyclists.


Does it matter how clever they are unless they refuse to drive a vehicle that doesn't let them cope safely with London streets?


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Along with teaching cyclists that if they intentionally put themselves in a blindspot don't be surprised if the drivers doesn't see you


You're never gonna teach all cyclists where all other vehicles have blind spots, and I've often been put in that position in London by motorists pulling up on my right at the lights (over the centre line, sometimes) - maybe they feel secure in knowing that their propaganda has been so successful that if they squash me, even some cyclists will be leaping to their defence and accusing me of having ridden up their left side?


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Does it matter how clever they are unless they refuse to drive a vehicle that doesn't let them cope safely with London streets?


I've managed to drive through most cities in the UK including Larrndun without hitting/killing/maiming anything, not saying the design couldn't be better but there's not great deal wrong with what there is.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> You're never gonna teach all cyclists where all other vehicles have blind spots, and I've often been put in that position in London by motorists pulling up on my right at the lights (over the centre line, sometimes) -


But that is not a design issue, it's a driver issue


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> That "_unless they prove they have a safe system fitted" _bit seems to be a bit of a hole in the idea: If you can only see via mirrors, and not directly, we won't let you drive in London ... unless you have a "safe system" fitted. Such as ... er ... mirrors?


It reads like mirrors don't count as one, but you're right that the devil will be in the detail of what "safe system" means.


----------



## Drago (23 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Does it matter how clever they are unless they refuse to drive a vehicle that doesn't let them cope safely with London streets?



If us, the consumer, didn't buy so much worthless tat, the latest mobile phone every 3 weeks, the latest must-have piece of crap, then there wouldn't be some many lorries on the streets. Cyclists are as guilty of fuelling the need for these vehicles as any other sector of society.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> An n=1 sample. Pretty conclusive. That's all right then. As you were.


You clearly have no concept of the issue & like to put your own spin on it, please read what I put, then think about it for a while, currently your reply deserves a 2/10


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> But that is not a design issue, it's a driver issue


Mix of the two. Once the driver issue has put me in that dangerous place, I'm unable to communicate with them and they can easily forget me because of the design issue. Of course, I'm hoping that someone's researched this and found that drivers are much less likely to run over people that they can see directly, rather than many being psychopaths.


----------



## PeteXXX (23 Nov 2018)

CROSSRAIL has a policy worth reading.


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

I've been a HGV class 1 driver for most of my working life..... cyclists consistently rode on the inside of my trailer when i'm stationary at traffic lights or anywhere where i have to stop in traffic. They've even rode along my nearside when i'm indicating left.
I've had them riding up my inside where there is so little room between my truck and the curb, these cyclists have one foot on the curb to get by.
The problem with a lot of cyclists, is that they have this absolute aversion to having to stop, they want to keep moving at all costs. These costs are often their life.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Drago said:


> If us, the consumer, didn't buy so much worthless tat, the latest mobile phone every 3 weeks, the latest must-have piece of crap, then there wouldn't be some many lorries on the streets. Cyclists are as guilty of fuelling the need for these vehicles as any other sector of society.


Ah, so it's not the fault of people hiring stupid drivers, now it's the victims' collective responsibility that they're getting run over because they collectively buy too much? Anyone else you'd like to blame?


----------



## Drago (23 Nov 2018)

Fair play to crossrail for working to make cxlists aware of truckies blind spots. Even better still if they'd invested the effort into eliminating such blind spots on the trucks tending their project.

In N.I. I was much happier when there were no snipers, rather than simply being made aware that a sniper was about.


----------



## Drago (23 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Ah, so it's not the fault of people hiring stupid drivers, now it's the victims' collective responsibility that they're getting run over because they collectively buy too much?



It's both. Consumers create the extent of the problem, Neanderthal drivers on minimum wage with no incentive to drive with any degree of skill apply the problem to those around them. Being a pedant in response doesn't alter those facts.

I never claimed was exclusively one other the other as the cause, although removing one or the other from the equation breaks the cycle and solves the problem.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> I've been a HGV class 1 driver for most of my working life..... cyclists consistently rode on the inside of my trailer when i'm stationary at traffic lights or anywhere where i have to stop in traffic. They've even rode along my nearside when i'm indicating left.
> I've had them riding up my inside where there is so little room between my truck and the curb, these cyclists have one foot on the curb to get by.
> The problem with a lot of cyclists, is that they have this absolute aversion to having to stop, they want to keep moving at all costs. These costs are often their life.


Sure, but probably even more cyclists consistently didn't ride on the inside and you don't mention those, same as I didn't mention all the drivers who didn't try to left-hook me. There's a lot of fools about and there's more of everything on London's streets.

I notice that many motorists also have this absolute aversion to having to stop, despite it not costing them energy to get moving again like it does cyclists (each extra stop is like riding another 100m). Motorists also want to keep moving at all costs, barging forwards, attempting overtakes where there's not space (like on the approach to junctions) and driving through red lights. These costs are too often other people's lives.


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

You get bad drivers of trucks and you get bad riders of cycles.
But one thing is certain, in a collision between a truck and a cyclist, a cyclists will always come off worse. The cyclist being in the right means nothing when they're under the wheels of a 42 ton artic.
When i'm riding my bikes, i keep well out of the way of trucks and dont put myself in a hazardous position.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> A lot of the recent issues in London have been with tipper trucks, resulting from the increased levels of construction, not delivery of worthless tat.


I have to say & it is a sweeping statement but the standard of driving of tippers does seem to be at the lower end of the spectrum, I was driving into Sheffield the other day & TBH I wasn't feeling to safe being along side a tipper & I was in the car, certainly wouldn't have wanted to be on a bike at the side.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5450072, member: 9609"]15 hour days on long haul must be a doddle to 15 hours in central london.[/QUOTE]
But that is only twice a week (although it may have changed, it's 10 years since I drove)


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I have to say & it is a sweeping statement but the standard of driving of tippers does seem to be at the lower end of the spectrum, I was driving into Sheffield the other day & TBH I wasn't feeling to safe being along side a tipper & I was in the car, certainly wouldn't have wanted to be on a bike at the side.



I've drove tippers many times..... and the issue with that work, especially for the 8 legger tippers, is that they almost all on load work. That is paid per load, whereas the smaller 4 & 6 wheel tippers get paid day rate.
Owners of 8 wheelers always want more loads out of their drivers and all the tipper companies are in competition with each other and cutting load rates. Its a vicious circle.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> You get bad drivers of trucks and you get bad riders of cycles.
> But one thing is certain, in a collision between a truck and a cyclist, a cyclists will always come off worse. The cyclist being in the right means nothing when they're under the wheels of a 42 ton artic.
> When i'm riding my bikes, i keep well out of the way of trucks and dont put myself in a hazardous position.


Sure, me too, but I still get put in hazardous positions... and anyway, does someone cycling cluelessly really deserve a death sentence? I don't really see what's not to like about improving HGV design like this - even if you think those overtaking on the left side deserve what they get, this seems to make driving a bit easier.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> That "_unless they prove they have a safe system fitted" _bit seems to be a bit of a hole in the idea: If you can only see via mirrors, and not directly, we won't let you drive in London ... unless you have a "safe system" fitted. Such as ... er ... mirrors?


Goes back to a promise made by Labour. Close quarter cameras and driver warning systems fitted to all HGV's.

It's been repackaged and presented under a new style/name.


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Sure, me too, but I still get put in hazardous positions... and anyway, does someone cycling cluelessly really deserve a death sentence? I don't really see what's not to like about improving HGV design like this - even if you think those overtaking on the left side deserve what they get, this seems to make driving a bit easier.



When i'm out cycling, i have far more issues with car drivers than i do trucks.... In fact i cant even remember ever having a close one with a truck. With cars, its almost a daily occurance.
So i dont have a problem with trucks when cycling at all..... But i understand them and how they are driven.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Slight diversion, but who's willing to try an alternate delivery method?


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> When i'm out cycling, i have far more issues with car drivers than i do trucks.... In fact i cant even remember ever having a close one with a truck. With cars, its almost a daily occurance.
> So i dont have a problem with trucks when cycling at all..... But i understand them and how they are driven.


I rarely have a problem with trucks when cycling in Norfolk or Somerset (and in Norfolk, I ride between two HGV-heavy industrial estates twice on almost every trip), but I keep having problems with them in London and Cambridge. I think it might be a city problem.


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> I rarely have a problem with trucks when cycling in Norfolk or Somerset (and in Norfolk, I ride between two HGV-heavy industrial estates twice on almost every trip), but I keep having problems with them in London and Cambridge. I think it might be a city problem.



Although i live in Somerset now..... I'm a Bristolian, so i've had decades on city living.
In fact i find it far easier riding my bikes & motorcycles there, because of all the bus lanes we can use.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Slight diversion, but who's willing to try an alternate delivery method?
> View attachment 440042


My only comment is WTF is he driving/riding on the pavement


----------



## byegad (23 Nov 2018)

I don't live in 'that there lunnon', nor would I want to. 

But I've seen fellow cyclist filter on the left side of lorries indicating a left turn at lights. Even without a barrier on the pavement this is asking for trouble. 

Yes I've also seen lorry drivers make stupid/dangerous manoeuvres, but too many cyclists put themselves into danger.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Along with teaching cyclists that if they intentionally put themselves in a blindspot don't be surprised if the drivers doesn't see you



The problem there is that you end up with cyclists having to be almost as well qualified as car drivers with a test before you can use a bike, which makes cycling impossible for many people who need it: my kids for one. Some of my mentally disabled clients can't drive for various reasons, but they are still mobile because they can ride a bike along the many cycleways locally. If the local government had taken the attitude that we just have to train cyclists, they would have lost their mobility and independence.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> I've been a HGV class 1 driver for most of my working life..... cyclists consistently rode on the inside of my trailer when i'm stationary at traffic lights or anywhere where i have to stop in traffic. They've even rode along my nearside when i'm indicating left.
> I've had them riding up my inside where there is so little room between my truck and the curb, these cyclists have one foot on the curb to get by.
> The problem with a lot of cyclists, is that they have this absolute aversion to having to stop, they want to keep moving at all costs. These costs are often their life.



I've not cycled in the UK for many years but I've [almost] never had a problem with an HGV driver here. In some ways I'm happier having a truck behind me than a car because I can be pretty sure the driver knows what he's doing.

I also think HGV's have a lot more mirrors here than in the UK. From what I can see there are far fewer blind spots.

On the other hand I have some trouble with car drivers because I try and stop somewhere I can see a mirror when behind an HGV, on the basis that if I can see a mirror, then the driver at least has a chance of seeing me. Car drivers don't seem to appreciate this and try to tell me to move forwards, ie, right into the blind spot.


----------



## Markymark (23 Nov 2018)

byegad said:


> I don't live in 'that there lunnon', nor would I want to.
> 
> But I've seen fellow cyclist filter on the left side of lorries indicating a left turn at lights. Even without a barrier on the pavement this is asking for trouble.
> 
> Yes I've also seen lorry drivers make stupid/dangerous manoeuvres, but too many cyclists put themselves into danger.


Popped in for the first time in a few months to see what's going on and it's sad to see there's still people posting this shite.

I never filter up the inside of a lorry. I rarely see people do. I cycle a lot mpore in London than you do. Yet we often find ourselves on the left of a slow moving or stationary lorry. Care to guess why that might be? I'll give you a clue...it's not magic, but crappy driving from lorry drivers.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> The problem there is that you end up with cyclists having to be almost as well qualified as car drivers with a test before you can use a bike, which makes cycling impossible for many people who need it: my kids for one.


Sorry I disagree, your kids I presume you go out with them & you either tell them prior to getting into an unsafe position why not to do it, or you scream at them as they do it to stop them doing it, okay maybe not scream but you know what I mean


Andy in Germany said:


> Some of my mentally disabled clients can't drive for various reasons, but they are still mobile because they can ride a bike along the many cycleways locally. If the local government had taken the attitude that we just have to train cyclists, they would have lost their mobility and independence.


Nobody is on about, well i'm not on about official training, but if you have people who due to mental disabilities are putting themselves & potentially others in danger, are they in the right place?


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I've not cycled in the UK for many years but I've never had a problem with an HGV driver here. In some ways I'm happier having a truck behind me than a car because I can be pretty sure the driver knows what he's doing.
> 
> I also think HGV's have a lot more mirrors here than in the UK. From what I can see there are far fewer blind spots.
> 
> On the other hand I have some trouble with car drivers because I try and stop somewhere I can see a mirror when behind an HGV, on the basis that if I can see a mirror, then the driver at least has a chance of seeing me. Car drivers don't seem to appreciate this and try to tell me to move forwards, ie, right into the blind spot.



For many years now here in the UK, trucks have had wide angle mirrors that are seperate from the usual reverse view door mirrors. They also have a downward facing mirror at the top of the passenger door.
The only areas a truck driver cannot see is directly behind the rear of the truck for a few feet and at the front within a couple of feet of the front grill.
But truck drivers cannot be looking in ALL their mirrors, ALL of the time, they also have to look at whats happening in front.... Its often at these times where a cyclist will put themselves in danger. This is why they want cameras and sensors, so in effect the cyclist is absolved of responsibility and its down to the driver to see them, irrespective of the fact the cyclist should not be there in the first place.


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Drago said:


> Not hiring brain donors on minimum wage to drive mobile tower blocks is key to improving safety for cyclists.


Nice bit of generalisation there Mr Drago! 
I once was an HGV driver but haven't touched one for almost 2 years now and can't say I miss driving for a living (although I still do enjoy driving as long as it is on MY terms). It is generally a thankless task. IMHO that's down to the stupidly long hours that drivers can be expected to work (legally), the congestion on our roads, low pay, some jobs involve getting your hands very dirty, being away from home sleeping in a tin can on some dodgy industrial estate, sleeping with one eye open waiting for someone to slash your trailer curtains to see what they can help themselves to, etc. etc.. 

So, yes, in general it's not going to attract the highest calibre of person, but you'd be surprised. I've met an ex airline pilot who found himself unable to fly due to failing the high medical standards required, and also a few retired plod. Some of the best drivers I've met though, are those who might not be the sharpest tool in the box; but what they do have is great awareness of the dangers involved in driving large vehicles. I would say experience counts for a lot more than brains, but when you see an HGV how do you know if it's being driven by a 30 year veteran, or someone who passed their HGV test yesterday? 
My advice would be to assume the latter and give them a wide berth.


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> For many years now here in the UK, trucks have had wide angle mirrors that are seperate from the usual reverse view door mirrors. They also have a downward facing mirror at the top of the passenger door.
> The only areas a truck driver cannot see is directly behind the rear of the truck for a few feet and at the front within a couple of feet of the front grill.
> But truck drivers cannot be looking in ALL their mirrors, ALL of the time, they also have to look at whats happening in front.... Its often at these times where a cyclist will put themselves in danger. This is why they want cameras and sensors, so in effect the cyclist is absolved of responsibility and its down to the driver to see them, irrespective of the fact the cyclist should not be there in the first place.


Oooft; you've done it now. How long before someone rolls out the well used YouTube clip of the old Foden and trailer to show the blind spots around an artic? Blind spots based on the assumption that mirrors are badly adjusted, the driver has his eyes at stomach height, and can't move his head.

Edit to add: If anyone hasn't already seen the annoying, scaremongering, nonsense; here it is in a similar thread.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry I disagree, your kids I presume you go out with them & you either tell them prior to getting into an unsafe position why not to do it, or you scream at them as they do it to stop them doing it, okay maybe not scream but you know what I mean


It seems rather depressing if children are expected to be near enough for parents to scream at all the time these days partly because we won't accept that better road and vehicle design is needed. I used to ride to school alone, partly on cycleways, partly on quiet roads. I guess that's no longer acceptable.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> My only comment is WTF is he driving/riding on the pavement


A DHL cargo bike, from the looks of it. DHL vans drive along pavements, so why would it be surprising if DHL bikes ride on them?


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> My only comment is WTF is he driving/riding on the pavement


Possible cycle path. Picture wasn't taken in the UK.


----------



## Mugshot (23 Nov 2018)

This thread gets an airing every now and again and each time the truckers/ex-truckers here will tell us why it's impossible to put an extra person in a cab when the vehicle is within an urban environment, why they can't change the design of a vehicle, why cameras wont work, why mirrors don't work, why it's not the drivers fault, why it is the cyclists fault, why they can't have hubs outside city limits and use smaller delivery vehicles and so on and so forth. It's almost enough to make you miss Glenn Forger, he used to love these threads.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I've not cycled in the UK for many years but I've never had a problem with an HGV driver here. In some ways I'm happier having a truck behind me than a car because I can be pretty sure the driver knows what he's doing.
> 
> I also think HGV's have a lot more mirrors here than in the UK. From what I can see there are far fewer blind spots.
> 
> On the other hand I have some trouble with car drivers because I try and stop somewhere I can see a mirror when behind an HGV, on the basis that if I can see a mirror, then the driver at least has a chance of seeing me. Car drivers don't seem to appreciate this and try to tell me to move forwards, ie, right into the blind spot.


One thing I've got in the habit of doing when behind a lorry is moving out to the right-hand side, every so often, just to remind the driver I'm there and watching what each of us are doing.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> One thing I've got in the habit of doing when behind a lorry is moving out to the right-hand side, every so often, just to remind the driver I'm there and watching what each of us are doing.



(Having done some Brief mental gymnastics) Yes, that's what I tend to do. I don't think some drivers are aware of why I'm doing it though, so they are sitting there getting upset because the weirdo hippy on the bike is drifting into the middle of the road...


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Mugshot said:


> This thread gets an airing every now and again and each time the truckers/ex-truckers here will tell us why it's impossible to put an extra person in a cab when the vehicle is within an urban environment, why they can't change the design of a vehicle, why cameras wont work, why mirrors don't work, why it's not the drivers fault, why it is the cyclists fault, why they can't have hubs outside city limits and use smaller delivery vehicles and so on and so forth. It's almost enough to make you miss Glenn Forger, he used to love these threads.


None of the things you mention are impossible, but......

1. Extra person in the cab - not in my lorry thanks. I'm the driver and it's my licence; I'm responsible for driving it, I'm not moving (or not moving as the case may be) on the say so of some disinterested minimum wage observer/lookout or whatever you have in mind.
2. Vehicle design - I'm open to suggestions but it's obviously going to have to be functional too, so there will be limitations as to what they can do.
3. Cameras and mirrors - the problem being that the driver only has one set of eyes, and again I'm not relying on someone else checking mirrors/cameras for me. I can't look in my nearside mirror AND straight ahead at the same time.
4. Hubs and smaller vehicles - that already happens to some extent. Have you ever tried parking a car to make a delivery in a big city, never mind an artic? Not many companies will try to use artics for city centre multi-drop work, but sometimes it can't be helped for logistical reasons or due to the size of the item being delivered/collected. It's not always nice little boxes and pallets to/from shops! Machinery, building materials, pipes, cars etc. all spring to mind.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry I disagree, your kids I presume you go out with them & you either tell them prior to getting into an unsafe position why not to do it, or you scream at them as they do it to stop them doing it, okay maybe not scream but you know what I mean
> Nobody is on about, well i'm not on about official training, but if you have people who due to mental disabilities are putting themselves & potentially others in danger, are they in the right place?



I think we may have hit cultural differences here. In Germany it is quite normal for children of six to go to school alone, with one parent probably keeping an eye on them on busy roads. We used to walk with our kids to the crossing over the main road, and let them carry on to school with their friends after that. 

Cycling/travelling to school is alone is also quite normal. Children have to take a test first at about ten, and then they're covered by the insurance. People tend to live further away from school here so it is normal to see children cycling to the next town or further, or taking the bus and/or tram.On my way to work I regularly see children from about 10 travelling to school by public transport or by bike unaccompanied. Ours certainly did, but the route is about 95% on traffic free streets, and the other 5% is mostly residential streets, so they don't have to deal with HGV's.



Phaeton said:


> Nobody is on about, well i'm not on about official training, but if you have people who due to mental disabilities are putting themselves & potentially others in danger, are they in the right place?



I think I may be having the same cultural difference here too, so before I specifically answer that, why do you think people with disabilities are putting themselves, and potentially others in danger by riding a bicycle?


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> (Having done some Brief mental gymnastics) Yes, that's what I tend to do. I don't think some drivers are aware of why I'm doing it though, so they are sitting there getting upset because the weirdo hippy on the bike is drifting into the middle of the road...


At least I'm behind, not likely to pass up the left-hand side. And when keeping up with the traffic flow, especially at lights, the distance between tends to be smaller.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> So, yes, in general it's not going to attract the highest calibre of person, but you'd be surprised. I've met an ex airline pilot who found himself unable to fly due to failing the high medical standards required, and also a few retired plod. Some of the best drivers I've met though, are those who might not be the sharpest tool in the box; but what they do have is great awareness of the dangers involved in driving large vehicles. I would say experience counts for a lot more than brains, but when you see an HGV how do you know if it's being driven by a 30 year veteran, or someone who passed their HGV test yesterday?
> My advice would be to assume the latter and give them a wide berth.



Another difference: until recently a lot of people doing their military service here would get their truck driver's licence as part of their training. This, you'll appreciate means they are pretty well trained. As far as I know truckers here also have to take a refresher every five years. This includes a fairly advanced first aid course, which is why car drivers are always told to let truckers take charge in the case of an accident.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> At least I'm behind, not likely to pass up the left-hand side. And when keeping up with the traffic flow, especially at lights, the distance between tends to be smaller.



Ah, yes, but you're _on the road_, and worse _in front of them_: this is not respecting the natural order of things...


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Mugshot said:


> This thread gets an airing every now and again and each time the truckers/ex-truckers here will tell us why it's impossible to put an extra person in a cab when the vehicle is within an urban environment.



What? Don't they have that in the UK?




Brandane said:


> 1. Extra person in the cab - not in my lorry thanks. I'm the driver and it's my licence; I'm responsible for driving it, I'm not moving (or not moving as the case may be) on the say so of some disinterested minimum wage observer/lookout or whatever you have in mind.



I know of at least one lad with some learning difficulties who does this now. He always wanted to be a truck driver but lacked the cognitive abilities to learn to drive. It was only when someone asked him why he wanted to drive trucks that they realised it was the travelling that he loved. He now works as a second man. You won't find a more careful one anywhere...


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> What? Don't they have that in the UK?


What? Do they have that in Germany?


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Ah, yes, but you're _on the road_, and worse _in front of them_: this is not respecting the natural order of things...


I have every legal right to use the roads I use. They don't like it, that's tough.

I prefer the driving of lorry drivers over that of drivers from a local bus company. Whose vehicles have glass almost the length of the passenger door, larger windscreen and are sat lower down.


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I know of at least one lad with some learning difficulties who does this now. He always wanted to be a truck driver but lacked the cognitive abilities to learn to drive. It was only when someone asked him why he wanted to drive trucks that they realised it was the travelling that he loved. He now works as a second man. You won't find a more careful one anywhere...



This might work in very limited circumstances, but like I said I personally wouldn't rely on someone else to tell me the road is clear. They could advise, but that's all. Plus I can't see that it would be practical for non local haulage companies. I'm thinking of your many Scottish haulage companies who send lorries down south on a Monday and they don't come back until Friday/Saturday. Known as "trampers", they have no idea where that lorry will be going during the week down south. So do you think the haulage companies are going to pay a second man to go along for the trip, just in case the lorry ends up having to do a job in London/Birmingham/Manchester? It's just not going to happen, on cost grounds alone.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> This might work in very limited circumstances, but like I said I personally wouldn't rely on someone else to tell me the road is clear. They could advise, but that's all. Plus I can't see that it would be practical for non local haulage companies. I'm thinking of your many Scottish haulage companies who send lorries down south on a Monday and they don't come back until Friday/Saturday. Known as "trampers", they have no idea where that lorry will be going during the week down south. So do you think the haulage companies are going to pay a second man to go along for the trip, just in case the lorry ends up having to do a job in London/Birmingham/Manchester? It's just not going to happen, on cost grounds alone.



It's very common here. I'll see if I can collar a friendly trucker and ask him about it: I know a few.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

There was talk some years ago of the driver paying for the second person in the cab. In full or part was never decided before it was quietly forgotten about.


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> There was talk some years ago of the driver paying for the second person in the cab. In full or part was never decided before it was quietly forgotten about.


Wonder who dreamt that one up? Since your average class 1 lorry driver is on about £9 per hour here in Scotland, and minimum wage is what? £7.00 per hour? So the driver would be earning £2 per hour once he'd paid his lookout? Now I know the haulage industry is fecked, but it's not quite as fecked as that! (Yet).


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> Wonder who dreamt that one up? Since your average class 1 lorry driver is on about £9 per hour here in Scotland, and minimum wage is what? £7.00 per hour? So the driver would be earning £2 per hour once he'd paid his lookout? Now I know the haulage industry is fecked, but it's not quite as fecked as that! (Yet).


It was doing the rounds of the RHA, when safety was raised once before.

Not hard to see why it was allowed to slip away quietly though.


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> It's very common here. I'll see if I can collar a friendly trucker and ask him about it: I know a few.


Are you thinking of double manning, where there are 2 drivers on board to make more efficient use of the lorry? i.e. keep it on the road for more hours than is allowed with a single driver. That being the case, the second driver, when not driving, is on "rest" for legal reasons and is recorded on his tachograph as such - and he should be doing exactly that; resting (not being a helper/lookout for the driver on duty).


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> Are you thinking of double manning, where there are 2 drivers on board to make more efficient use of the lorry? i.e. keep it on the road for more hours than is allowed with a single driver. That being the case, the second driver, when not driving, is legally on "rest" for legal reasons and is recorded on his tachograph as such - and he should be doing exactly that; resting (not being a helper/lookout for the driver on duty).



Honestly, I don't know. I have heard my trucking acquaintances speak of a 'Beifahrer' which could mean that, but when a truck reversed into a Mercedes outside of the building we were in, the truckers in the room all spoke as if he should have had a lookout man. I'll ask when I see them next...


----------



## Brandane (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> but when a truck reversed into a Mercedes outside of the building we were in, the truckers in the room all spoke as if he should have had a lookout man.


So he should, if he couldn't see where he was reversing; as can happen when going backwards! But the normal procedure when I was driving was to enlist the help of a "banksman", which would normally be someone employed by the premises you were trying to access. Borrow the services of a forklift driver for a couple of minutes to keep an eye on the back of your trailer, basically. When reversing at an angle, there are most certainly blind spots and it would be foolhardy to attempt some reversing manoeuvres without assistance. Particularly in close confines where there are cars, lorries, walls, or people!


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> So he should, if he couldn't see where he was reversing; as can happen when going backwards! But the normal procedure when I was driving was to enlist the help of a "banksman", which would normally be someone employed by the premises you were trying to access. Borrow the services of a forklift driver for a couple of minutes to keep an eye on the back of your trailer, basically. When reversing at an angle, there are most certainly blind spots and it would be foolhardy to attempt some reversing manoeuvres without assistance.



There wouldn't have been anyone where we were:it was a deceleration lane (quite why he was reversing in a deceleration lane is anybodies guess...)


----------



## Mugshot (23 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5450533, member: 9609"]he had (or someone very very like him) had some sort of thermo-nuclear melt down on lorry drivers forum a few years ago and has never been seen since - some of the funniest threads I have ever seen, when he lost his rag he lost his rag. For a while I dismounted when I heard a wagon coming on the remote chance the driver may have just been in one of his threads. Had to hand it to him he took the argument to those he wanted to argue with, usual MO, would be winning the argument then complete loose the plot.

I quite miss him - he was good value for money.[/QUOTE]
He certainly wasn't one to shy away from a confrontation, have to hand it to him, when it came to the victims in RTCs he knew his stuff.


----------



## Slick (23 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> I've been a HGV class 1 driver for most of my working life..... cyclists consistently rode on the inside of my trailer when i'm stationary at traffic lights or anywhere where i have to stop in traffic. They've even rode along my nearside when i'm indicating left.
> I've had them riding up my inside where there is so little room between my truck and the curb, these cyclists have one foot on the curb to get by.
> The problem with a lot of cyclists, is that they have this absolute aversion to having to stop, they want to keep moving at all costs. These costs are often their life.



This was a number of years ago and would probably result in an instant fail now but I always remember getting a minor when sitting my Hgv test because a cyclist came up my inside and despite me seeing him, I pulled away anyway but did keep him in my mirror. An Hgv driver should never pull away until the cyclists are clear. 



Smudge said:


> When i'm out cycling, i have far more issues with car drivers than i do trucks.... In fact i cant even remember ever having a close one with a truck. With cars, its almost a daily occurance.
> So i dont have a problem with trucks when cycling at all..... But i understand them and how they are driven.



I wish I had your experience. It might be rare but I have had to send a film clip to one local operator who's drivers were obviously more intent of keeping the convoy going in close formation than mine or anyone else's safety.


----------



## Smudge (23 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> I wish I had your experience. It might be rare but I have had to send a film clip to one local operator who's drivers were obviously more intent of keeping the convoy going in close formation than mine or anyone else's safety.



Obviously you get some bad truck drivers, no sector of drivers & riders are all perfect. But i can only speak as i find, most of the conflict i have with other motorists when riding my bike is them overtaking me. Trucks have always given me a wide berth, whereas cars often drive too close or cut me up when the road narrows or when they come to an obstruction or want to change lane. IME truckers seem to be more aware of the vulnerability of cyclists than car drivers do. They are also more than aware of the huge implications to them if they seriously injure or kill a cyclist and they're found at fault.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5450584, member: 9609"]it is a question of scale, I reckon in that box you could get quarter of a pallet of bog rolls 500 rolls. (70kg)

apparently average person uses a roll every 4.5 days
therefor London needs 1.8 million rolls per day
therefor just to keep the capital going in bog rolls there would need to be about 3,600 of these cycling trucks on London's roads.[/QUOTE]
You'd not do it then.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5450584, member: 9609"]it is a question of scale, I reckon in that box you could get quarter of a pallet of bog rolls 500 rolls. (70kg)

apparently average person uses a roll every 4.5 days
therefor London needs 1.8 million rolls per day
therefor just to keep the capital going in bog rolls there would need to be about 3,600 of these cycling trucks on London's roads.[/QUOTE]

That assumes one delivery per day. If the bikes make 12 deliveries per day it is only 300 bikes. Nothing in the scheme of things.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Taken 300kg on an unassisted. Weight shouldn't be as big an issue with e-assist.


----------



## Phaeton (23 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I think I may be having the same cultural difference here too, so before I specifically answer that, why do you think people with disabilities are putting themselves, and potentially others in danger by riding a bicycle?


That is done to what disability they have, there are some on here who don't believe I should ride a bike as I have no hearing in one ear.


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> That is done to what disability they have, there are some on here who don't believe I should ride a bike as I have no hearing in one ear.


Why should that stop you?


----------



## classic33 (23 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5450755, member: 9609"]M25 into central london - I will let you have 4 deliveries tops, so 900 bikes, and remember this is just to get the capitals bog rolls in. For everything you would need 4.1 million of the things - they will soon be causing more chaos then the trucks ever did.[/QUOTE]
How many vans & lorries every day?


----------



## Salty seadog (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> The only areas a truck driver cannot see is directly behind the rear of the truck for a few feet and at the front within a couple of feet of the front grill.



You see a lot of trucks with a mirror outside above the windscreen facing down so that blind spot in front can now be seen.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Salty seadog said:


> You see a lot of trucks with a mirror outside above the windscreen facing down so that blind spot in front can now be seen.


It's been that way for a number of years now.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Obviously you get some bad truck drivers, no sector of drivers & riders are all perfect. But i can only speak as i find, most of the conflict i have with other motorists when riding my bike is them overtaking me. Trucks have always given me a wide berth, whereas cars often drive too close or cut me up when the road narrows or when they come to an obstruction or want to change lane. IME truckers seem to be more aware of the vulnerability of cyclists than car drivers do. They are also more than aware of the huge implications to them if they seriously injure or kill a cyclist and they're found at fault.


Yeah, I think that is mostly true for me too but as you have already noted there are exceptions to every rule and when you do come across these drivers, the possible consequences are huge.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Salty seadog said:


> You see a lot of trucks with a mirror outside above the windscreen facing down so that blind spot in front can now be seen.



Some trucks have them, but they are few & far between on trucks..... They are far more common on coaches.
Of the multitude of trucks i've driven, none of them have had these mirrors. Plus its easy to see those few feet in front of the truck grill just by leaning forward to the screen or raising yourself up.


----------



## Brandane (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Some trucks have them, but they are few & far between on trucks..... They are far more common on coaches.
> Of the multitude of trucks i've driven, none of them have had these mirrors. Plus its easy to see those few feet in front of the truck grill just by leaning forward to the screen or raising yourself up.


I thought they were a legal requirement, and had been since about 2009? Class 6 mirrors I think they are called. Thanks to where they are fitted, they get ripped off every time a lorry goes through a truck wash. Secondly, if you're driving into the sun and have the sun blind lowered even a touch, they cover the mirror! Thirdly, again thanks to where they are, a few miles on gritted salted roads as we have at this time of year, and they are covered in road muck sprayed off the front nearside wheel. Yet another wonderful idea on paper which doesn't work in the real world.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> I thought they were a legal requirement, and had been since about 2009? Class 6 mirrors I think they are called. Thanks to where they are fitted, they get ripped off every time a lorry goes through a truck wash. Secondly, if you're driving into the sun and have the sun blind lowered even a touch, they cover the mirror! Thirdly, again thanks to where they are, a few miles on gritted salted roads as we have at this time of year, and they are covered in road muck sprayed off the front nearside wheel. Yet another wonderful idea on paper which doesn't work in the real world.



If they are a legal requirement now, then its a new one on me. Although, i've been retired a few years now.
I mainly did supermarket deliveries and due to the tight spaces to manoeuvre in these loading bays, these mirrors would have been a real hinderance. Certainly none of the fleet of our trucks had them. Never had them on any truck i've drove with any company.
But things change all the time, especially in haulage legislation.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> If they are a legal requirement now, then its a new one on me.


TBH I thought they were a legal requirement, but it's 10 years since I drove, time makes the memory hazy but I'm sure I drove quite a few with them fitted, I remember them on Stobart, Next & DHL or maybe I'm just dreaming them.


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> That is done to what disability they have, there are some on here who don't believe I should ride a bike as I have no hearing in one ear.



How does it make sense to say you shouldn't ride because of deafness, when drivers are in a box with music on or having phone conversations and can't hear a damn thing?

Anyway...

The type and severity of a mental ilness is an important part of the question. A person with a severe disability in Germany has the right to a job, which includes transporting them to work, and part of my work was/is finding the best way for them to get to work, the best way being defined as the one which brings them most freedom and independence. Some people will alwways need to be brought, and every workshop has a fleet of minibuses arriving every morning full of clients who can't travel alone. If we had clients who could handle public transport we would often do teach them how to read a timetable and get a ticket there was a risk to this but the psychological boost it gave clients outweighed occasionally being contacted by a someone who had got on the wrong train...

Same applied to cycling. The advantage of a bike is that reactions don't need to be as fast as a car, and frankly some of the clients need exercise or to burn energy. If a client wanted to ride we would give them training, check the route and see what sort of bike they needed. If they were a bit wobbly we'd try a bike or a trike, although in practice they often leaned this in School before they came to us. We'd plan a route with them and trainn them so they were safe. 

My point is though that without the network of traffic free routes we have locally, this would be near impossible though: most clients couldn't deal with HGV's and sadly most drivers are not capable of reacting to people with disabilitey on the road, even if they are cycling in a straight line. We need infrastructure than anyone can ride on safely, not just those of us who can deal with traffic...


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> I notice that many motorists also have this absolute aversion to having to stop, despite it not costing them energy to get moving again like it does cyclists (each extra stop is like riding another 100m). Motorists also want to keep moving at all costs, barging forwards, attempting overtakes where there's not space (like on the approach to junctions) and driving through red lights. These costs are too often other people's lives.



I often think that driver get the most annoyed with cyclists when they are displaying the worst habits of car drivers, and getting away with it.



Smudge said:


> This is why they want cameras and sensors, so in effect the cyclist is absolved of responsibility and its down to the driver to see them, irrespective of the fact the cyclist should not be there in the first place.



The UK is one of only a few countries where car and truck drivers are not considered to be autiomatically at fault in an accident unless they can prove otherwise. The principle here ins on the basis of risk: A car driver causes a higher potential risk than a cyclist, so in an accident the car driver is considered at fault, a Truck is bigger and more difficult to stop, so they are considered to be at fault in a crach with a car, and so on. As one instructor once said "If a bike falls out of the sky and hits your car, you are liable unless you can prove otherwise"

By the same token I am responsible for the safety of pedestrians when I'm cycling. And if you hit a child when driving or cycling, even on an autobahn... well, just hope the police are in a good mood and wave bye bye to your low insurance premium...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (24 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> How many vans & lorries every day?



Take them off tge road to significantly improve capacity.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I often think that driver get the most annoyed with cyclists when they are displaying the worst habits of car drivers, and getting away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Considered by who ?


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Considered by who ?



Legally, and by insurance companies.

If the driver of the more dangerous vehicle can prove otherwise, all well and good, but the burden of proof is on them.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Legally, and by insurance companies.
> 
> If the driver of the more dangerous vehicle can prove otherwise, all well and good, but the burden of prove is on them.



I doubt its any different than here in the UK.... Insurance wont pay out if they have evidence the other person is found to be at fault. Similarly, no one is considered at fault until all the evidence is looked at.
If a driver hits a cyclist and injures or kills them, the police will look at the evidence and the circumstances of that RTC. If there is any evidence that the driver was at fault, the driver will be charged. But only a court can decide if the case is proven one way or another.


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> *I doubt its any different than here in the UK.... *Insurance wont pay out if they have evidence the other person is found to be at fault. Similarly, no one is considered at fault until all the evidence is looked at.
> If a driver hits a cyclist and injures or kills them, the police will look at the evidence and the circumstances of that RTC. If there is any evidence that the driver was at fault, the driver will be charged. But only a court can decide if the case is proven one way or another.


Without wanting to derail the thread, search for "presumed liability" on here. To get an idea of what the difference between the countries is.


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> I doubt its any different than here in the UK.... Insurance wont pay out if they have evidence the other person is found to be at fault. Similarly, no one is considered at fault until all the evidence is looked at.





classic33 said:


> Without wanting to derail the thread, search for "presumed liability" on here. To get an idea of what the difference between the countries is.



As Mr @classic33 says, it's presumed liability, and this makes a big difference. Last time I looked every EU country except the UK and Romania presumed liability on the driver of the more dangerous vehicle. It means that a driver is effectively responsible for making sure that if a pedestrian or cyclist makes a mistake, then he can stop the car or avoid them. SMIDSY ("Sorry mate I didn't see you") isn't a defence against it either. Our own story about being in this situation is here.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Without wanting to derail the thread, search for "presumed liability" on here. To get an idea of what the difference between the countries is.



Yes but 'presumed liability' doesn't absolve the cyclist of being at fault.... and it doesn't automatically assume the driver is at fault.
I would have thought, that any RTC after being investigated, would have the same outcome whether its in a country that does or doesn't have presumed liability.


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Yes but 'presumed liability' doesn't absolve the cyclist of being at fault.... and it doesn't automatically assume the driver is at fault.
> I would have thought, that any RTC after being investigated, would have the same outcome whether its in a country that does or doesn't have presumed liability.


The outcome may differ, after investigation, but it's up to the driver of the more dangerous/larger vehicle to prove they weren't to blame.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

The only way i can see PL being in the cyclists favour, is if there's no evidence either way and no witnesses. So it would be the drivers word against the cyclist. Then i assume it would only be insurance involved.
Would the driver be convicted of any motoring offence under these circumstances ?


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> The only way i can see PL being in the cyclists favour, is if there's no evidence either way and no witnesses. So it would be the drivers word against the cyclist. Then i assume it would only be insurance involved.
> Would the driver be convicted of any motoring offence under these circumstances ?



The difference is partly preventative: A driver knows that if (s)he does harm a pedestrian or cyclist then he will be held liable unless he/she can prove otherwise. Of course if a cyclist is drunk or runs a red light, then they are liable. But unless the driver can prove this, (s)he 's liable for the accident. In the UK, a driver seems to be able to say "I didn't see him" and that's all fine. Here that's not considered an adequate response, because if you couldn't stop in time, you were driving too fast. My impression after riding a lot in the UK and EU is that it means car drivers are more careful: I get much less close passes here, and 95% of the time drivers will stop at a zebra crossing: last time I was in York zebra crossings were nice decorations to look at while waiting for a gap in the traffic.

By the same token, if I hit a child on a cycleway I am liable for any harm I may cause.

Another major difference is that the police must in theory be called every time there is a crash, or it is considered a hit and run.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> The difference is partly preventative: A driver knows that if (s)he does harm a pedestrian or cyclist then he will be held liable unless he/she can prove otherwise. Of course if a cyclist is drunk or runs a red light, then they are liable. But unless the driver can prove this, (s)he 's liable for the accident. In the UK, a driver seems to be able to say "I didn't see him" and that's all fine. Here that's not considered an adequate response, because if you couldn't stop in time, you were driving too fast. My impression after riding a lot in the UK and EU is that it means car drivers are more careful: I get much less close passes here, and 95% of the time drivers will stop at a zebra crossing: last time I was in York zebra crossings were nice decorations to look at while waiting for a gap in the traffic.
> 
> By the same token, if I hit a child on a cycleway I am liable for any harm I may cause.
> 
> Another major difference is that the police must in theory be called every time there is a crash, or it is considered a hit and run.



I dont think 'i didn't see him' is automatically a defence here in the uk. It could be argued the driver didn't look properly. We all know they dont look properly many times.
I have to put up with the SMIDSY's not only on my bikes, but on my motorcycles as well.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> I dont think 'i didn't see him' is automatically a defence here in the uk. It could be argued the driver didn't look properly. We all know they dont look properly many times.
> I have to put up with the SMIDSY's not only on my bikes, but on my motorcycles as well.


Smudge, it's well known that a driver can drive right over the top of a cyclist then just claim not to have seen him or her and then get no more than a slapped wrist. Lots of examples in the legal section for you to have a look at.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> Smudge, it's well known that a driver can drive right over the top of a cyclist then just claim not to have seen him or her and then get no more than a slapped wrist. Lots of examples in the legal section for you to have a look at.



Yes i accept that does happen..... as unacceptable as it is.
But not everyone gets away with that lame excuse as an only form of defence...... especially when a cyclist or motorcyclist is seriously injured or killed.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Yes i accept that does happen..... as unacceptable as it is.
> But not everyone gets away with that lame excuse as an only form of defence...... especially when a cyclist or motorcyclist is seriously injured or killed.


Sorry, but that's just not how it works.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> Sorry, but that's just not how it works.



How does it work then ?


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> Sorry, but that's just not how it works.



Sadly, no. Presumed Liability also has other side effects: I think the reason trucks have all these mirrors on trucks in Germany is because of this: the trucker can say 'I dodn't see him" but knows the police will demand to know why not and "Because I didn't have a mirror there" isn't a permitted answer, so there's ore pressure from insurers to make sure trucks are safer because it's costing them money.

It is also why the German 'Play Streets' and 'Bicycle streets' have a chance of working, because in the event of a motor vehicle vs. Child/cyclist collision, the driver knows he can't just bluff it out with "They ran in front of me" or "He came out of nowhere" when the police turn up, so drivers are generally slower on play streets (although frequently not the legal 7km/h) and more aware around bikes on cycle streets.


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> How does it work then ?



Have a look a the story I posted: it explains the difference.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Sadly, no. Presumed Liability also has other side effects: I think the reason trucks have all these mirrors on trucks in Germany is because of this: the trucker can say 'I dodn't see him" but knows the police will demand to know why not and "Because I didn't have a mirror there" isn't a permitted answer, so there's ore pressure from insurers to make sure trucks are safer because it's costing them money.
> 
> It is also why the German 'Play Streets' and 'Bicycle streets' have a chance of working, because in the event of a motor vehicle vs. Child/cyclist collision, the driver knows he can't just bluff it out with "They ran in front of me" or "He came out of nowhere" when the police turn up, so drivers are generally slower on play streets (although frequently not the legal 7km/h) and more aware around bikes on cycle streets.


Has a German truck really got more mirrors installed than a Scottish truck? 
Do you know how many cyclists and pedestrians were killed in Germany last year? 
No particular reason for asking other than my own curiosity.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Have a look a the story I posted: it explains the difference.



I was talking about using SMIDSY as a defence here in the UK. This doesn't automatically get someone a light sentence or let off altogether..


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> How does it work then ?


I'm honestly not looking for an argument or anything else, but I would ask you to research what happens to a driver involved with killing a cyclist.


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> Has a German truck really got more mirrors installed than a Scottish truck?
> Do you know how many cyclists and pedestrians were killed in Germany last year?
> No particular reason for asking other than my own curiosity.



I was going off the comment ade earlier that a lot of trucks 'don't' have the mirrors described, whereas German trucks do.
Last I checked the figure was astronomical: I worked out that it was something like 11 people a day killed by motor vehicles although it wasn't just pedestrians/cyclists. I'll try to remember to look when I have energy. PL isn't a silver bullet, just a useful legal assistance when you're on roads.


----------



## Smudge (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> I'm honestly not looking for an argument or anything else, but I would ask you to research what happens to a driver involved with killing a cyclist.



Well obviously i cant research every single incident of that that has ever happened. But in those incidences, just saying i didn't see the cyclist is not a sure fire defence to get off.
Its not really a defence at all without other mitigating circumstances.
If i were to drive my car into a cyclist and kill them, its highly likely i'll be charged with some sort of driving offence, from driving with undue care and attention to causing death by dangerous driving. So i turn up at court and my only defence is.... 'well i didn't see them'...Would this be guaranteed to to only get a light sentence or let off ?
I dont think so.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Well obviously i cant research every single incident of that that has ever happened. But in those incidences, just saying i didn't see the cyclist is not a sure fire defence to get off.
> Its not really a defence at all without other mitigating circumstances.
> If i were to drive my car into a cyclist and kill them, its highly likely i'll be charged with some sort of driving offence, from driving with undue care and attention to causing death by dangerous driving. So i turn up at court and my only defence is.... 'well i didn't see them'...Would this be guaranteed to to only get a light sentence or let off ?
> I dont think so.


Okay. 

It is already being discussed here and you don't have to research every one but have a look as you might be surprised. 

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/six-in-seven-drivers-involved-in-cyclists-death-avoid-jail.242082/


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

Thread title, Incidents and Outcomes, thread starter Magnatom. Worth a read.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Thread title, Incidents and Outcomes, thread starter Magnatom. Worth a read.


Have you a link?

I tried the search function but nothing.


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/incidents-and-outcomes.67755/


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/incidents-and-outcomes.67755/


I assume the mods didn't like it?


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> I assume the mods didn't like it?


The wasn't the reason it's locked.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> The wasn't the reason it's locked.


Legal?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Nov 2018)

Slick said:


> I assume the mods didn't like it?


I'm not in the know about what happened to that old thread, wasn't a CC member then.
If you want to know more about the topic, David Brennan aka Magnatom, has a (bit scary) YouTube channel, where he documents his daily bike commute from Torrance to Glasgow city centre.
He is also a convenor for GoBike, and is one of the Pedal on Parliament founders.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I'm not in the know about what happened to that old thread, wasn't a CC member then.
> If you want to know more about the topic, David Brennan aka Magnatom, has a (bit scary) YouTube channel, where he documents his daily bike commute from Torrance to Glasgow city centre.
> He is also a convenor for GoBike, and is one of the Pedal on Parliament founders.


I think I got my answer Pat, thanks.


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2018)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I'm not in the know about what happened to that old thread, wasn't a CC member then.
> If you want to know more about the topic, David Brennan aka Magnatom, has a (bit scary) YouTube channel, where he documents his daily bike commute from Torrance to Glasgow city centre.
> He is also a convenor for GoBike, and is one of the Pedal on Parliament founders.


And the Glasgow Cycling Forum.


----------



## byegad (25 Nov 2018)

Markymark said:


> Popped in for the first time in a few months to see what's going on and it's sad to see there's still people posting this shite.
> 
> I never filter up the inside of a lorry. I rarely see people do. I cycle a lot mpore in London than you do. Yet we often find ourselves on the left of a slow moving or stationary lorry. Care to guess why that might be? I'll give you a clue...it's not magic, but crappy driving from lorry drivers.


You would cycle more than me in London, but....
1. I do see cyclists undertaking at lights and junctions.
2. If you have to resort to calling my post shite, I must be winning.


----------



## Markymark (25 Nov 2018)

byegad said:


> You would cycle more than me in London, but....
> 1. I do see cyclists undertaking at lights and junctions.
> 2. If you have to resort to calling my post shite, I must be winning.


Imagine a cyclist is waiting at the lights in, say a bike lane with nothing to their right, an empty space. Then imagine a lorry approaches the lights. Have you ever ever ever seen that lorry stop with a car space in front of it...or does every single last one stop behind the car in front, thus placing the cyclist in the danger blind spot zone? 

I’ve been driving for many many years and never seen a lorry avoid putting cyclists in danger given such a scenario. 

The safe thing to do if for the cyclist to own the lane even when there’s a cycle lane, at which point you get the lorry driver shouting at the cyclist, or worst still, forgetting they are there and driving over them. As has happened many times. And the lorry driver doesn’t go to prison. 

So, yes, some cyclists are silly. But most situations of cyclists being in danger zones from what I’ve ever seen is by ignorant driving.

And I won’t do name calling if you stop posting inaccurate victim-blaming shite.


----------



## classic33 (25 Nov 2018)

Markymark said:


> Imagine a cyclist is waiting at the lights in, say a bike lane with nothing to their right, an empty space. Then imagine a lorry approaches the lights. Have you ever ever ever seen that lorry stop with a car space in front of it...or does every single last one stop behind the car in front, thus placing the cyclist in the danger blind spot zone?
> 
> I’ve been driving for many many years and never seen a lorry avoid putting cyclists in danger given such a scenario.
> 
> ...


If I feel a particular junction may be dangerous, I'll ignore any cycle lane markings and claim the lane.

Not always appreciated, but if it improves my safety then it's tough luck for anything behind me. At one junction, in the early hours on a Sunday, I upset a skip lorry driver by not going through a red light(nothing else on the road, five way, junction of two "A" roads and unsighted to the left). Ignored the repeated use of the horn, leaving him to go round me on red.


There's a well known haulage company, red lorries, who's attitudes to other road users is well known within the industry. In recent years they've switched to the southern route, having upset more than a few up here. I see one of theirs, I'm wary.


----------



## Andy_R (25 Nov 2018)

Markymark said:


> Imagine a cyclist is waiting at the lights in, say a bike lane with nothing to their right, an empty space. Then imagine a lorry approaches the lights. Have you ever ever ever seen that lorry stop with a car space in front of it...or does every single last one stop behind the car in front, thus placing the cyclist in the danger blind spot zone?
> 
> I’ve been driving for many many years and never seen a lorry avoid putting cyclists in danger given such a scenario.
> 
> ...


Good to see you back


----------



## simongt (26 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Along with teaching cyclists that if they intentionally put themselves in a blindspot don't be surprised if the drivers doesn't see you


Agree on that point Phaeton. Having been an HGV driver for about 16 years, I make these two observations; yes, some dickhead cyclists come right up on the inside expecting you to be able to see them and secondly, in order to observe all the multi mirrors on an HVG requires a wide turn of the driver's head, not a quick glance at one or two. 
Basic & obvious rule for cyclists; if its bigger than you, for the sake of a few seconds, let it move on first.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2018)

simongt said:


> Basic & obvious rule for cyclists; if its bigger than you, for the sake of a few seconds, let it move on first.


An excellent recipe to stop almost all urban cycling ever!  Maybe a few people will be able to complete their journeys late at night. Might makes right, huh?


----------



## Phaeton (26 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> An excellent recipe to stop almost all urban cycling ever!


Why?


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Why?


Because there are rarely gaps longer than a few seconds between vehicles bigger than you. If you're going to have to wait for all of them, you're going to get nowhere fast.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Because there are rarely gaps longer than a few seconds between vehicles bigger than you. If you're going to have to wait for all of them, you're going to get nowhere fast.


I didn't read his comments that way, I read he was suggesting that you allow the vehicle at the side to move first so you know where it's going rather than racing it off from the grand prix start.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I didn't read his comments that way, I read he was suggesting that you allow the vehicle at the side to move first so you know where it's going rather than racing it off from the grand prix start.


OK, so you'd only be stuck at junctions? Once the vehicle at the side moves, the one behind it will follow and also be bigger than you, then the one behind that...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Nov 2018)

All lights let cyclists go 15 secs ahead of everyone else. HGV can wait.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> OK, so you'd only be stuck at junctions? Once the vehicle at the side moves, the one behind it will follow and also be bigger than you, then the one behind that...


No, the vehicle at the side of you starts to move, it is clear it's not turning left so you start to move, it's not complicated


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> No, the vehicle at the side of you starts to move, it is clear it's not turning left so you start to move, it's not complicated


So you get left-hooked by the second lorry not the first. Whoopee(!)


----------



## Phaeton (26 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> So you get left-hooked by the second lorry not the first. Whoopee(!)


Okay you win, have it your way, if you don't want to have a serious discussion.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> An excellent recipe to stop almost all urban cycling ever!  Maybe a few people will be able to complete their journeys late at night. Might makes right, huh?


Why? I cycle on A-roads, and once you realise that although the lorry is in the right-hand lane the driver may just require the extra room to make a corner.

And having cycled the same A-roads in the early hours, there's often just as many lorries on them as during the day. Responsibility isn't just down to the lorry driver for your safety.

If you feel unsafe on the roads, best advice I can give is to stay off them.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Because there are rarely gaps longer than a few seconds between vehicles bigger than you. If you're going to have to wait for all of them, you're going to get nowhere fast.


Why not simply get away from the side of the road. You'll then be in your own piece of road, within the traffic(Of which you are part) flow.


----------



## mustang1 (27 Nov 2018)

Some truck drivers, due to the way they are paid, are forc d to drive inconsiderately. Having said that, it's probable they will drive that way regardless of how they are paid .

The designs of the trucks should be changed: lower front windscreen, side protection, things like that .

Need to look at another way of transporting goods in the city, maybe use two smaller trucks rather than one large one .

Give the drivers more time to make their deliveries without penalties. 

I haven't seen it lately so maybe things have improved, but some cyclists need to stop buzzing around like flies and be a bit more considerate. Again, I haven't seen it for a while, but some cyclists need to understand extra care required while over/under taking. 

There is no need for cyclists to always get to the front in a queue of traffic waiting at red lights.


----------



## Mugshot (27 Nov 2018)

mustang1 said:


> Some truck drivers, due to the way they are paid, are forc d to drive inconsiderately.


No they're not, they may be encouraged or feel obliged, but they're not forced to drive like daffodils.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Why not simply get away from the side of the road. You'll then be in your own piece of road, within the traffic(Of which you are part) flow.


How far "away from the side of the road" would I need to be to stop a lorry pulling up in a lane to my right? Or if I'm in the rightmost lane, what stops a right-turning lorry pulling up on my left? (as has happened in London once...)



mustang1 said:


> There is no need for cyclists to always get to the front in a queue of traffic waiting at red lights.


There is, but we could argue about whether it's worth the risk at the minute.


----------



## Phaeton (27 Nov 2018)

mustang1 said:


> Some truck drivers, due to the way they are paid, are forc d to drive inconsiderately. Having said that, it's probable they will drive that way regardless of how they are paid .





Mugshot said:


> No they're not, they may be encouraged or feel obliged, but they're not forced to drive like daffodils.


This is correct, I used to do 2 runs, one from Doncaster to Glasgow (well just outside) & Worksop to deepest darkest Norfolk, both routes had long stretches of single carriageway A roads A66 & A17, both at the time were 40mph for HGV's I would regularly get a call on the way asking why I wasn't there yet & that other drivers seemed to get there in less time than me. My response was the same, it's my license, my living, I will always obey the speed limit, if you don't like it don't put me on these runs.


----------



## Phaeton (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> There is, but we could argue about whether it's worth the risk at the minute.


I know this is getting monotonous but again Why?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> Well obviously i cant research every single incident of that that has ever happened. But in those incidences, just saying i didn't see the cyclist is not a sure fire defence to get off.
> Its not really a defence at all without other mitigating circumstances.
> If i were to drive my car into a cyclist and kill them, its highly likely i'll be charged with some sort of driving offence, from driving with undue care and attention to causing death by dangerous driving. So i turn up at court and my only defence is.... 'well i didn't see them'...Would this be guaranteed to to only get a light sentence or let off ?
> I dont think so.



There are many cases of the justice system failing the victim in such circumstances but the Michael Mason case is probably the most memorable. Driver could not account for driving straight into the back of Mr Mason and killing him as he road his legally compliant bicycle on a well-lit Regent St. Didn't see him ahead of her. Claimed she didn't see him even as his body bounced of the bonnet. 
No charges by police.


----------



## Smudge (27 Nov 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There are many cases of the justice system failing the victim in such circumstances but the Michael Mason case is probably the most memorable. Driver could not account for driving straight into the back of Mr Mason and killing him as he road his legally compliant bicycle on a well-lit Regent St. Didn't see him ahead of her. Claimed she didn't see him even as his body bounced of the bonnet.
> No charges by police.



There is bad sentencing in all types of convictions. A lot of it will come down to how good the lawyer in the defense and how they highlight any mitigating circumstances.
But just because some bad drivers that kill or seriously injure cyclists get off lightly, it doesn't mean they all do. I've heard of drivers going down for killing cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, or even other drivers. A quick Google search will provide any cases to suit anyone's point of view.
The fact is, i see many bad drivers all the time, so we all know they're out there.... We can only do our best to ride defensively and take responsibility for our own safety, to at least try to lessen any incidents we might get into.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I know this is getting monotonous but again Why?


A cyclist in the front position is most often noticed by following traffic, especially compared to waiting by the kerb. It reduces the risk of being ‘cut up’ by turning traffic, it avoids having to breathe exhaust fumes and it removes the risk of being the "sandwich meat" in the far too common nose-tail shunts of queuing motorists. It enables easier positioning for right turns. Finally, it keeps cycling fast and convenient, which helps to encourage cycling as a mode of transport in line with local and national policies. So there is a need, but as I wrote, it's debatable whether it's always worth the risks.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> But just because some bad drivers that kill or seriously injure cyclists get off lightly, it doesn't mean they all do. I've heard of drivers going down for killing cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, or even other drivers. A quick Google search will provide any cases to suit anyone's point of view.


It might not mean they all get off lightly but @Slick already linked to the shocking average that 6 out of 7 avoid jail in https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/5451259 - If you're hearing of many of the 1 in 7, that's a bit odd.



Smudge said:


> The fact is, i see many bad drivers all the time, so we all know they're out there.... We can only do our best to ride defensively and take responsibility for our own safety, to at least try to lessen any incidents we might get into.


Riding defensively is far from the "only" thing we can do! Part of "take responsibility for our own safety" is to push for things like better HGV design, better policing and saner sentencing... basically the ongoing Road Justice campaign and Stop The Killing and so on.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2018)

Smudge said:


> There is bad sentencing in all types of convictions. A lot of it will come down to how good the lawyer in the defense and how they highlight any mitigating circumstances.
> But just because some bad drivers that kill or seriously injure cyclists get off lightly, it doesn't mean they all do. I've heard of drivers going down for killing cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, or even other drivers. A quick Google search will provide any cases to suit anyone's point of view.
> The fact is, i see many bad drivers all the time, so we all know they're out there.... We can only do our best to ride defensively and take responsibility for our own safety, to at least try to lessen any incidents we might get into.



You were casting doubt on the efficacy of SMIDSY as a defence. Sadly, it's an excellent defence.


And by the way, five out of six drivers involved in fatal collisions with cyclists avoid prison, and less than a third lose their licence. Driving privileges are well protected, people cycling or walking? Meh...


----------



## Phaeton (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> A cyclist in the front position is most often noticed by following traffic, especially compared to waiting by the kerb. It reduces the risk of being ‘cut up’ by turning traffic, it avoids having to breathe exhaust fumes and it removes the risk of being the "sandwich meat" in the far too common nose-tail shunts of queuing motorists. It enables easier positioning for right turns. *Finally, it keeps cycling fast and convenient*, which helps to encourage cycling as a mode of transport in line with local and national policies. So there is a need, but as I wrote, it's debatable whether it's always worth the risks.


So there is no need, it's just your desire


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> So there is no need, it's just your desire


 So, to you, all of those are desires not needs? Avoiding being squished in a nose-tail shunt is merely a desire, not a need? Having cleaner air to breathe is merely a desire not a need? If that's your view, then you're welcome to it!


----------



## Phaeton (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> So, to you, all of those are desires not needs? Avoiding being squished in a nose-tail shunt is merely a desire, not a need? Having cleaner air to breathe is merely a desire not a need? If that's your view, then you're welcome to it!


Yes, because apart from the air, which will not really be any better, you are prepared to put yourself KNOWINGLY in danger to save yourself a few seconds, i think you need to recalibrate your own thoughts before blaming everybody else for theirs.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yes, because apart from the air, which will not really be any better, you are prepared to put yourself KNOWINGLY in danger to save yourself a few seconds, i think you need to recalibrate your own thoughts before blaming everybody else for theirs.


I think that's obsessing on a minor benefit and ignoring the bigger needs, so it's not my calibration that's off.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> How far "away from the side of the road" would I need to be to stop a lorry pulling up in a lane to my right? Or if I'm in the rightmost lane, what stops a right-turning lorry pulling up on my left? (as has happened in London once...)
> 
> 
> There is, but we could argue about whether it's worth the risk at the minute.


Nothing, same as for a car. 

As for turning right, the extra room may be required to make the turn. The same as for left-hand turns, where the driver has to take the right-hand lane.

What's to stop you keeping your eyes and ears open, and realising that your safety is down to you first and foremost.

dafety corrected to safety


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> What's to stop you keeping your eyes and ears open, and realising that your dafety is down to you first and foremost.


Maybe the same that stops you acknowledging that there are limits to cyclists' ability to ward off badly-driven HGVs?


----------



## Markymark (27 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yes, because apart from the air, which will not really be any better, you are prepared to put yourself KNOWINGLY in danger to save yourself a few seconds, i think you need to recalibrate your own thoughts before blaming everybody else for theirs.


Most cyclists ride defensively. We avoid dangerous positions as best as we can. There are many situations where if we are to move st all we must rely on the huge road users around us to be aware of us. We do what we can to be seen but rely on someone moving 20t to do so mindfully and properly. What they have at their disposal is potentially very dangerous. What we expect then is for them to not only be aware of this but to be open to all improvements to make it less hazardous even if it’s at their cost and convenience.

The problem we have is the cyclists are all simply told the roads are dangerous, we should protect ourselves, we should get out of everyone’s way as it’s our responsibility to not get killed.

I don’t want to be killed. But I also want to cycle abd I expect people in big machines to allow me to do this safely. I also want to live in a city that priorities this. This will be costly and inconvenient to large lorries. But tough. They are killing people. They must accept more restrictions.

I say again, I never ever cycle up the inside of large vehicles. Yet I find myself there. Because of their poor driving. I try and prevent them from doing so but it’s hard to use my 70kg against their 20t to manage this.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Maybe the same that stops you acknowledging that there are limits to cyclists' ability to ward off badly-driven HGVs?


Nothing stopping me from knowing that flesh and bone will always loose against steel. But I'm willing to accept that in staying safe on the roads, I have to put my safety first.


----------



## Phaeton (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> I think that's obsessing on a minor benefit and ignoring the bigger needs, so it's not my calibration that's off.


Okay you;re a big boy & I'm not your dad so continue as you are in your bubble, it appears you're not prepared to listen to anyone elses view.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Nothing stopping me from knowing that flesh and bone will always loose against steel. But I'm willing to accept that in staying safe on the roads, I have to put my safety first.


I do put my safety first, but I accept that sometimes there are limits to what I can do and if I stop and wait every time a larger vehicle is near, the journey will take much longer and that added journey time in itself will expose me to more danger.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Okay you;re a big boy & I'm not your dad so continue as you are in your bubble, it appears you're not prepared to listen to anyone elses view.


 To the contrary - I answered your "why" about the need to be near the front of a red light queue by pasting in someone else's view from the camcycle briefing on it!


----------



## Phaeton (27 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5454218, member: 9609"]Cars are bloody dangerous things[/QUOTE]
Nope I disagree there, although there are some dangerous vehicles, it's mainly down to the driver/owner


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2018)

The figures look much worse if you look at numbers of vehicles registered, of course, because HGVs and vans are more likely to be working vehicles that are used more.


----------



## mustang1 (27 Nov 2018)

Mugshot said:


> No they're not, they may be encouraged or feel obliged, but they're not forced to drive like daffodils.



True that.
An operator may tell their driver to arrive within 20 minutes or they will no longer have a job. Technically, they are not being forced, but merely encouraged/obliged. But the end result is similar to being forced; one doesn't need a gun pointed to head in order to feel forced. I think?


----------



## mustang1 (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> How far "away from the side of the road" would I need to be to stop a lorry pulling up in a lane to my right? Or if I'm in the rightmost lane, what stops a right-turning lorry pulling up on my left? (as has happened in London once...)
> 
> 
> There is, but we could argue about whether it's worth the risk at the minute.



I can only speak for myself in the city where I ride: if the traffic lights have been red for a while and there's a queue of traffic, I'll stay behind the cars with no need to get to the front; I'll take centre position behind the car, much like a motorcyclist may do.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> I do put my safety first, but I accept that sometimes there are limits to what I can do and if I stop and wait every time a larger vehicle is near, the journey will take much longer and that added journey time in itself will expose me to more danger.


What you're saying then is that lorries shouldn't slow your journey down. You're the only one saying you'd add time by having to stop, for every large vehicle. You can't be slowed down, because your journey is more important. Where's that been heard before?

There's an attachment to the previous post made. Tell me where, as far as you're concerned, I should be to make a right turn, from the road running across to the road running top to bottom? Lanes are marked & signed. Right hand lane covers both the 90° right-hander and the second road that comes off at an angle.

All three roads see heavy HGV usage.


----------



## mjr (28 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> What you're saying then is that lorries shouldn't slow your journey down. You're the only one saying you'd add time by having to stop, for every large vehicle.


Does that mean that you think you can stop without adding time, or that you think this instruction


simongt said:


> Basic & obvious rule for cyclists; if its bigger than you, for the sake of a few seconds, let it move on first.


wasn't posted?



classic33 said:


> You can't be slowed down, because your journey is more important.


Those are your inferences and not what I wrote or meant.



classic33 said:


> There's an attachment to the previous post made. Tell me where, as far as you're concerned, I should be to make a right turn, from the road running across to the road running top to bottom? Lanes are marked & signed. Right hand lane covers both the 90° right-hander and the second road that comes off at an angle.
> 
> All three roads see heavy HGV usage.


I think it depends on the traffic. If there are often suitable gaps in the traffic, I'd be using Barfield Road on the bottom left and avoiding that outdated motoring-centric junction layout. If not, I might turn right from the centre of the right lane, or I might do a two-step right from the left lane. I don't see anything on your attachment or https://mapstreetview.com/#vzitb_-12urz_2g_0_-kj43 which suggests that the right-hand lane is for anything other than the A644 Halifax Road - the traffic island between the turning prevents its use for A649 Wakefield Road because there's only one lane east out of the crossroads, which is the left approach lane.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> What you're saying then is that lorries shouldn't slow your journey down. You're the only one saying you'd add time by having to stop, for every large vehicle. You can't be slowed down, because your journey is more important. Where's that been heard before?



So are you saying we should not follow the rules of the road? To be honest I think that pulling to the side of the road a doffing our cap is more dangerous than following the rules and claiming our right to be on the road. Not to mention encouraging far more anti social behaviour. "Might is right", is actually wrong.


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (29 Nov 2018)

The whole blind corner thing is strange, in terms of there are so many techniques to prevent that blind sport altogether that it is ridiculous that is still exist.(for example a camera system like Brigade Backeye 360 Select )
However i personally always choose safety over being at my destination a few seconds earlier(by hoping to pass a blind sport before the truck needs to turn for example)


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Nov 2018)

It would help if HGV drivers used their indicators. Are lorries secretly BMWs under the hood?


----------



## classic33 (29 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Does that mean that you think you can stop without adding time, or that you think this instruction
> 
> wasn't posted?
> 
> ...


You're willing to cross three lanes of traffic to get to a road that has restricted access, via another road. Which if followed brings you out needing to cross two lanes of traffic.

Traffic is often nose to tail in all three lanes. HGV's amongst them. On all three roads.


----------



## Slick (29 Nov 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> It would help if HGV drivers used their indicators. Are lorries secretly BMWs under the hood?


Seems most car drivers don't use indicators round here but do like to drive with their front fog lights on.


----------



## mjr (29 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> You're willing to cross three lanes of traffic to get to a road that has restricted access, via another road. Which if followed brings you out needing to cross two lanes of traffic.
> 
> Traffic is often nose to tail in all three lanes. HGV's amongst them. On all three roads.


Which is why I answered with a conditional, duck! I've no fear of crossing lanes if there are gaps. I cross two lanes of HGV- heavy A road almost every time I leave home. If it worries you, use one of the other approaches, or get some bikeability classes to get the skills.


----------



## classic33 (29 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Which is why I answered with a conditional, duck! I've no fear of crossing lanes if there are gaps. I cross two lanes of HGV- heavy A road almost every time I leave home.


In the example given you'd be crossing three. To gain acccess to a restricted access road, before having to cross two more when/if you get to the far end.

All HGV vision improvements are based, so far, on bus style doors to the left-hand side with a reliance on built in sensors to alert the drivers. Is it not safer to claim your place in the lane than rely on a sensor to alert the driver.

As for "might is right"


classic33 said:


> If I feel a particular junction may be dangerous, I'll ignore any cycle lane markings and claim the lane.
> *
> Not always appreciated, but if it improves my safety then it's tough luck for anything behind me. At one junction, in the early hours on a Sunday, I upset a skip lorry driver by not going through a red light(nothing else on the road, five way, junction of two "A" roads and unsighted to the left). Ignored the repeated use of the horn, leaving him to go round me on red.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brandane (29 Nov 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> It would help if HGV drivers used their indicators. Are lorries secretly BMWs under the hood?


HGV drivers on the whole, are about the only group of road users who DO use their indicators properly IME.. There will be the odd exception to the rule, of course.


----------



## Slick (29 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5456337, member: 9609"]about a third of drivers round here use their fogs at night - i'm wondering if it is a cataract problem, may be there licences could be suspended until they have had an assessment from an optician.[/QUOTE]
I would say more round here since the morning's got dark. I think you may be right about the eye sight as well as I have heard a few horror stories from the guys at work with one even telling me how he didn't even bother shutting his eyes anymore to go round a particular long sweeping bend ad he couldn't see anything before he got his cataracts done. 

They would then normally go on to pontificate about how dangerous cycling to work was.


----------



## Smudge (29 Nov 2018)

Brandane said:


> HGV drivers on the whole, are about the only group of road users who DO use their indicators properly IME.. There will be the odd exception to the rule, of course.



Of course they do..... HGV drivers, because of the size of their vehicle, have to take positions of the road before maneuvers that other road users rarely understand. So truckers are far more likely to indicate. 
Still doesn't stop other road users trying to drive down the side of the direction the truck is indicating tho..... including cyclists. Us truck drivers have seen it many, many times over.


----------



## Markymark (30 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5456530, member: 9609"]think they are going to turn them into greenhouses, no amount of air conditioning will keep them cool during hot summers, drivers will be passing out with the heat[/QUOTE]
UV film on the glass?


----------



## Mugshot (30 Nov 2018)

Always nice to have something fresh and new;
[QUOTE 5456530, member: 9609"]think they are going to turn them into greenhouses, no amount of air conditioning will keep them cool during hot summers, drivers will be passing out with the heat[/QUOTE]
Let's see where we were;


Mugshot said:


> This thread gets an airing every now and again and each time the truckers/ex-truckers here will tell us why it's impossible to put an extra person in a cab when the vehicle is within an urban environment, why they can't change the design of a vehicle, why cameras wont work, why mirrors don't work, why it's not the drivers fault, why it is the cyclists fault, why they can't have hubs outside city limits and use smaller delivery vehicles


And now we can add, "We can't do it because the drivers will get too warm." 
Actually that does sound horrific, I find it difficult to imagine a sweaty lorry driver!


----------



## Mugshot (30 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5456530, member: 9609"]think they are going to turn them into greenhouses, no amount of air conditioning will keep them cool during hot summers, drivers will be passing out with the heat[/QUOTE]
Air con is bad the environment anyway, they can open one of their nice big windows.


----------



## Milkfloat (30 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5456565, member: 9609"]ever tried driving a tractor on a hot summers day, no matter how much air con, reflective glass etc, it can get very uncomfortable in the hot sun. So all i'm saying is could there be side effect to the very slight (if any) benefits in increased visibility, in that drivers are going to be more stressed and hence more likely to make mistakes?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because buses have no glass.


----------



## Mugshot (30 Nov 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> People are getting hot under the collar.


I think we should get proper bloke blokes driving again, ones with ruddy complexions, calloused hands and neckerchiefs. Get the metrosexuals out of the cabs.


----------



## mjr (30 Nov 2018)

Mugshot said:


> I think we should get proper bloke blokes driving again, ones with ruddy complexions, calloused hands and neckerchiefs. Get the metrosexuals out of the cabs.


Sounds dangerous because it's only a short step from ruddy complexions, calloused hands and neckerchiefs to rouge, moisturisers and cravats!


----------

