Another HGV death in London (split from original thread)

[stowie]

You think putting yourself into the blind spot of a left turning lorry is 'impolite'....Jeez, where did you learn road craft ?....by the sounds of things you never have...and consider it is your god given right to put yourself into any gap you can get through and that then every one else on the road has a duty to protect you against your own ineptitude.

If you want to play in the traffic with the big boys, then you need to know the rules and best practice (Roadcraft) which are there to keep you alive. If you want to ignore this, then you become your own worst enemy !

The advice I was given when I learned to ride a motorcycle 30+ years ago was treat everyone else on the road as if they have not seen you, ride accordingly, and you might just avoid connecting with them

Linfy.

Motorcyclists might get taught this, but it seems somewhat flawed seeing as motorcyclists have appalling KSI statistics.

I don't really want to play in the traffic particularly. I have to because I choose to cycle, but I don't cycle to play with traffic, I do it because it is a more convenient way to do the shopping and go to work.

You are completely missing a few points

1) Cyclecraft / Roadcaft is all very well but it is a bit flawed if the other road users - the ones are operating the danger - have very little idea about it and don't get taught it either. Hence the view that cyclist in the middle of the road is an arrogant tw@t who thinks he/she owns the road as opposed to someone trying not to get hurt by implementing approved techniques. I have even had conversations with police who don't get the cyclecraft idea. If the principles aren't taken seriously by those who are meant to enforce road safety then the whole cyclecraft idea starts to look a bit futile.

2) Lorries bring immense danger to our roads. The fact that they are allowed to operate in crowded cities with huge "blind spots" just seems insane. Not every road user is the same. Pedestrians and cyclists bring very little danger to the road, but drivers do. This "everyone is equal" is really a way of drivers justifying dangerous driving by providing a comparison with an activity that isn't remotely comparable. If I drive I expect I should be held to a much higher level of responsibility for my actions than if I am walking. If I fly I expect the pilot to be held to a higher level of responsibility than the average car driver. Because the activities are different in the level of danger they bring to the environment in which they operate. So those operating trucks in the city need to be held accountable to why they are operating dangerous machinary so close to other people and yet have such poor visibility. If I set up a factory in this way I would be sued to high heaven even if the accidents were due to people wandering out of my line of sight.

3) You have no idea why these latest spate of accidents happened. Neither do I. What I do know is that there is a list of fatalities where the cyclist was simply mown down by the truck and hadn't gone up the inside beforehand. So it is clear to me that staying back from lorries is a good idea but isn't a guarantee of safety. I do think some people take this advise along with stuff like high-viz and helmets and rationalise it to say "if I do this then I will be safe". In reality my near collisions with lorries have nearly all involved them driving dangerously around me. I cannot mitigate for this. I can try to prevent being put in the situation in the first place (primary, staying back) but all this won't help me if a driver hasn't seen me or simply decides to drive through me. Which has happened on at least several occasions where I have had to take strong evasion and hope that it is enough.

Do not confuse survival techniques such as cyclecraft with responsibility.

 

[stowie]

And so you hang back if you are in moving traffic, and you are looking to sit in the middle lane, and wat for the gap to grow so you can position yourself in front. The only time I'd draw level on the motorway and sit there is when the traffic is stationary. How closr are you tailgating the car in front if you feel you must ride alongside a moving HGV ?

Sideswipes are a common HGV / Car accident. You are saying what you do (and what others should do) but it cannot be what many actually do otherwise HGV sideswipes would be very rare.

I was taught by this ex-police driver to simply overtake in lane 3 where at all possible. And before committing to an overtake of an HGV to assess whether it was closing in on slower traffic or a busy slip road. His opinion was that if you are next to a HGV when they start signalling to move out then you haven't been aware enough of the road situation. Of course this is all survival techniques - in practice no vehicle should have blind spots in which you can lose entire cars. But that is another story.

Finally, traffic in queues which are moving at 40-55mph are prime sideswiping territory. Everyone closes up the gaps but if you are alongside a HGV then you are probably not going fast enough to overtake completely. Think of the M25 when the traffic isn't at a standstill but very heavy and each lane is full.

 

[Linford]

Sideswipes are a common HGV / Car accident. You are saying what you do (and what others should do) but it cannot be what many actually do otherwise HGV sideswipes would be very rare.

I was taught by this ex-police driver to simply overtake in lane 3 where at all possible. And before committing to an overtake of an HGV to assess whether it was closing in on slower traffic or a busy slip road. His opinion was that if you are next to a HGV when they start signalling to move out then you haven't been aware enough of the road situation. Of course this is all survival techniques - in practice no vehicle should have blind spots in which you can lose entire cars. But that is another story.

Finally, traffic in queues which are moving at 40-55mph are prime sideswiping territory. Everyone closes up the gaps but if you are alongside a HGV then you are probably not going fast enough to overtake completely. Think of the M25 when the traffic isn't at a standstill but very heavy and each lane is full.

Whilst I do wholeheartedly agree with assessing the lorries potential movements and positioning oneself correctly before they make indications, I don't agree with the defending your position bit if it involves riding alongside lorries at 50mph. If some other vehicle wants to occupy that space, then let them...it simply isn't worth the risk...and that is where we differ...you see it as acceptable risk to do this, and I don't. This is also apparent in the way you view other vehicles in London. Simply put, a city the size of London would grind to a halt very quickly without HGV's....the alternatives would gridlock with congestion, and nearly all construction work would stop.

I am certainly not blaming all cyclists forthese accidents, but there are an undeniable proportion of riders who don't consider anything more than A to B in the quickest way possible, and risks....what are risks ?????

Incidentally, the majority of tipper lorries are not articulated.

 

[newfhouse]

Sorry, but your argument could also be applied to people swimming in the sea without any ability or caution. the risk is always there because The sea is a dangerous place, but it is the persons choice to put themselves in to that environment.

This is a false analogy. The sea is intrinsically dangerous, but it's not a designed environment is it? If I choose to ride my bike to work I have an expectation that other road users, backed up by enforcement if required, will drive sensibly and carefully in suitable vehicles.

What tells you personally that stuffing yourself up the side of a lorry turning left is so dangerous that you avoid doing this ?

Forty years of experience as a road user. I still make mistakes; do I deserve to die if I get it wrong? And anyway, what's this obsession you seem to have with cyclists undertaking left-turners? I'm not saying it never happens, but how many of the recent deaths had this as a contributory factor? And of that subset how many would have been prevented if the driver could have seen the cyclist?

 

[Linford]

This is a false analogy. The sea is intrinsically dangerous, but it's not a designed environment is it? If I choose to ride my bike to work I have an expectation that other road users, backed up by enforcement if required, will drive sensibly and carefully in suitable vehicles.


Forty years of experience as a road user. I still make mistakes; do I deserve to die if I get it wrong? And anyway, what's this obsession you seem to have with cyclists undertaking left-turners? I'm not saying it never happens, but how many of the recent deaths had this as a contributory factor? And of that subset how many would have been prevented if the driver could have seen the cyclist?

How many involved recently were with left turners..no idea as we haven't seen the inquest, but it is well established historically that people riding up the inside of left turning HGVs are the cause of many fatilities in the City

 

[newfhouse]

Incidentally, the majority of tipper lorries are not articulated.

Yet they still kill disproportionately. Why is that?

 

[Linford]

Yet they still kill disproportionately. Why is that?

'They kill' implies it is always their fault

 

[RedRider]

The way I see it is that inexperienced cyclists shouldn't be stuffing themselves up the side of lorries which are turning left. If they are looking to do this dangerous move, they really have no place on the roads until these essential skills are acquired.

Are you proposing cyclist's should be licensed?

Cycle craft advises stopping at the head of a queue at lights in the centre of the lane. "... do not allow any other vehicle to share the same lane to the side of you..."

I frequently (ie multiple times every time i ride in London) see cyclists stopping hard left against the kerb and often holding on to the railings.

We don't know what led led to the recent death at Albany Rd (other than another tipper crushed a cyclist) but my experience of making that same turn is that cycle craft is not a cloak of invincibility. I'm very experienced and would always take a strong primary. this did not always prevent a motor vehicle taking the lane to my right and attempting to make the turn 'over'/around me.

 

[newfhouse]

'They kill' implies it is always their fault

No it doesn't. Will you answer the question?

 

[Linford]

Are you proposing cyclist's should be licensed?

quote]

I feel that all people should be able to demonstrate a minimum standard of competence if they want to operate in a dangerous environment which they share with others.

 

[stowie]

Whilst I do wholeheartedly agree with assessing the lorries potential movements and positioning oneself correctly before they make indications, I don't agree with the defending your position bit if it involves riding alongside lorries at 50mph. If some other vehicle wants to occupy that space, then let them...it simply isn't worth the risk...and that is where we differ...you see it as acceptable risk to do this, and I don't. This is also apparent in the way you view other vehicles in London. Simply put, a city the size of London would grind to a halt very quickly without HGV's....the alternatives would gridlock with congestion, and nearly all construction work would stop.

I am certainly not blaming all cyclists forthese accidents, but there are an undeniable proportion of riders who don't consider anything more than A to B in the quickest way possible, and risks....what are risks ?????

Incidentally, the majority of tipper lorries are not articulated.

Linf.

I don't see it as an acceptable risk and I try not to do it. I leave a gap in front to position myself at the rear of the HGV.

My point which has been lost in my rambling posts is that car drivers have accidents where they position themselves next to the HGV. I don't see a huge outcry about stupid drivers going up next to HGVs - in fact when the popular media gets hold of the story the talk is all about blind spots. Not one story had about how cars shouldn't go near HGVs. Now with cyclists because the media and establisment is anti-cycling to a large degree (just hear what our mayor is saying about us at the moment) it is easy to blame cyclists and everyone nods wisely.

I guess my point is that it isn't that simple. I avoid HGVs and especially tippers like the plague. But there are times when one has to interact with them and a mistake by me shouldn't mean death because the vehicle is being operated half blind.

 

[Linford]

No it doesn't. Will you answer the question?

'They still kill' is a fairly unambiguous statement. If that isn't specifically what you mean, would you like to reword it ?

 

[RedRider]

How do you propose they do that? That is demonstrate competence.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Simply put, a city the size of London would grind to a halt very quickly without HGV's....the alternatives would gridlock with congestion, and nearly all construction work would stop.

Do you have any examples of this happening anywhere in the world? Just so we can test your hypothesis. Besides, we're already pretty much gridlocked down here.

And please give this excellent post about London v Paris a read - it touches on HGVs, construction practices, the use of banksmen, the resulting better sightlines and visibility. Though it's largely based on Kieron Yates' personal observations and knowledge of the city - so no claim to being definitive evidentially-supported fact- it does give a glimpse of how the problems can be mitigated.
http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpres...ost-about-lorries-cyclists-and-paris-deja-vu/

 

[stowie]

'They kill' implies it is always their fault

No it doesn't. You can kill someone yet not be at fault. How would you word it? I cannot think of another word for kill that means... well... kill.