Frightening truck "safety video"...

[User]

 

[MontyVeda]

wasn't this video discussed to death years ago?

 

[Firestorm]

It highlights that the stipulation that you should not overtake when approaching a junction is there for a reason.
if the cyclists were there first then the truck wait behind them. If the truck was there first, it should have been indicating left and the any vehicle should be sitting behind them.
if it were two lanes then the cyclists would be ok moving up , but the truck would not be turning left from a right hand lane.
But the video does raise the issue of blind spots, which I am sure all road users could do with more reminding about, information is always a good thing

 

[Vantage]

Your signature strip says it all.
I'll either stay behind the wagon or position myself quite a good 10-15 feet in front of the drivers seat unless I think there's a chance of him/her overtaking me.
As evident in the video, a truck will often need an extra lane to turn across due to the length and in this case with the indicator lights blinking for a left turn and the front wheels already steering in that direction, what kind of brainless moronic halfwit other than a Londoner would position his/her bike in that lane???

 

[sidevalve]

Yeah it's been done before. but it's still the same - big vehicle sat indicating left at a junction and I'll ride up on it's inside ??!!! Well at least it helps get rid of the stupid gene.

 

[Vantage]

[QUOTE 4199855, member: 45"]My main point is that the truck driver can't see anything in the lane beside him. So regardless of whether anyone is or should be beside the truck he's turning into a blind area. This shouldn't be acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
I think there are calls for nearside doors to be fitted with lower windows now and some companies are making the effort to do this. I think DAF's efforts are a bit of a joke though. That little window on theirs is too small to see a fly fart. http://www.daf.co.uk/en-gb/news-and...15/q1/26-02-15-daf-commitment-to-road-safety#

 

[Vantage]

How do you know the cyclists weren't there first?

If they were, their best option is to get the hell out of the way.

 

[mjr]

How do you know the cyclists weren't there first?

Yep. I won't ride up the left of large vehicles but on any road ride of any distance in London, at least one large vehicle nobber overtakes me on a junction approach. Please reject the motoring propaganda, stop attacking cyclists and bring nobbers to account for careless driving.

 

[jefmcg]

If they were, their best option is to get the hell out of the way.

In London there's very likely to be a pedestrian barrier, so you can have few escape routes.

 

[glenn forger]

Yeah it's been done before. but it's still the same - big vehicle sat indicating left at a junction and I'll ride up on it's inside ??!!! Well at least it helps get rid of the stupid gene.

Which of the fatalities are you talking about? Under-taking is not how cyclists are being killed by HGV drivers. In a quarter of cases the rider was run down from behind, in 3 the driver was playing with a mobile, in another the driver was drunk and in last year's case the hgv driver had jumped a red and had no licence or insurance. This idea that cyclists wait until they see a lorry and decide to commit suicide under it is the most pernicious and dishonest myth. If cyclists are suicidal they are very picky about which vehicles they elect to die under.

This is real people you're talking about sidevalve, name the ones you are calling stupid.

 

[glenn forger]

In the case of double-killer Lopes it was never worked out who he was actually employed to drive HGVs for. Sub-contracting can be useful for plausible deniability.

 

[jefmcg]

Isn't that the very reason why they have been removed in a lot of places.

They are not always safe for pedestrians. I was once heading west after 10 at night, and I got to Aldgate East, and the station was closed. At the time there were barriers completely stopping pedestrians crossing the road, you were meant to use the subway. However that subway has stretches where you can't see any exits. There weren't any people about, there was no way I was going that way in a short skirt. So I had to hitch up the same short skirt, scramble over the metal railings, press myself against it until it was safe to cross - and no driver would expect a pedestrian there, then clamber of the railings on the far side. I think I may have had to do this across two roads. Those railings are gone now, but the whole intersection has been redeveloped.

Those railings were alway "keep out of the damn way of cars" not really about safety. Those long subways are not a good idea, except for giving homeless people somewhere dry to sleep. http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1694

 

[glenn forger]

Tulse Hill:

That bridge has been driven into by HGV drivers sixteen times in the last 6 months:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...or-16th-time-in-just-six-months-a3206601.html

Must be in the blind spot.

 

[jefmcg]

I had a similar experience, short skirt aside, where I got a lift from Brighton and the driver dropped me at the M23/M25 junction on the south side. Crossing over the whole junction to the north side was an interesting experience.

OK, but you aren't legally allowed to be on those roads if you are a pedestrian, so it's no surprise there's not suitable pedestrian facilities there. I hope the person that dropped you there was a stranger. A friend who drops you at a place like that is not really a friend.

 

[snorri]

That bridge has been driven into by HGV drivers sixteen times in the last 6 months:
Must be in the blind spot.

You'd have thought someone would have foreseeen the danger of establishing a goods transit depot in a place named Lowbridge.

IGMC