HGVs in towns and cities

[dondare]

Hello Again all,


Just a reply to comments made by Gentleman of the road.

[lots of very small writing]

I said the person bringing the danger onto the road should be responsible for the danger, but you may have misunderstood the concept.
Drivers of HGVs are killing cyclists, and this is not happening because cyclists are bringing danger to the road but because lorry drivers are. I'm not asking you to pay for it, I'm reminding you that you have a responsibility, legally and morally, to control that danger. If the design of the lorry means that in the narrow confines of a crowded public street that is not possible then don't use them there. The railway system was originally developed specifically to keep powered vehicles off the public roads and this separation is maintained in several ways, it is not simply a case of cyclists recognising that it'd be stupidly dangerous to ride on the tracks that stops them from doing so. Unfortunately vehicles even larger and more powerful than those early steam engines have been permitted to use our roads and so the public are unable to avoid them and the public are getting killed.
I'd be quite happy to se the law evenly applied across the board and cyclists who endanger pedestrians being punished for it but that's really not the big problem. Cyclists do not, for example, kill 35 or so lorry drivers every year.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

... but in my experience I see more dangerous cycling/cyclists than I do dangerous HGV driving ... If I were to single out the dangerous driving culprits I would go for the very lightly trained car driver in rush hour as being the highest risk of hitting me.

I'd agree with both of these points.

 

[BentMikey]

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9976.msg174679#msg174679

I'm not the only one who worrys about left hooking lorry drivers...

 

[dondare]

Yet another cycling forum? I think I'll sign up.

 

[dondare]

I'd agree with both of these points.

And yet it's HGVs that prove to be particularly lethal to cyclists. They make up 2.5% of the motor traffic and are involved in 25% of the fatalities.

 

[col]

Its interesting to see how large vehicles are being blamed for bringing danger to the roads,when in the cyclist going up the inside at junctions or lights its the cyclist that has put themselves in danger by doing just that.Just as when a cyclist filters between slow moving traffic its ok to do that,but get a driver making a mistake like not looking before they change lanes because they dont expect anything in a two foot gap in tailbacks,and its the dangerous drivers fault for not being more carefull,Yet a car passing a cyclist within falling off distance of the cyclist and its another dangerous vehicle being driven by a dangerous driver,personally if i thought im likely to fall off in a straight line on busy roads i wouldnt be out there,but a cyclist can do that by filtering and its ok?Of course a cyclist putting themselves in this position and getting knocked off isnt to blame are they?Of course they are,but we all too readily say its the larger vehicles fault because they should have seen us.Well im afraid i dont blame others for my mistakes,so ill not do those things,but those that choose to only have themselves to blame.And the so called statistics that point out,as some say that the hgv killed a cyclist,should be worded to say that a hgv was involved in it while the cyclist put themselves in a dangerous situation.I think a driver of any vehicle who was involved with a death would lose sleep for a long time,but then some would say they deserve too,im afraid i wouldnt agree,i would say the cyclists who put themselves in that position should be the ones losing sleep.

 

[zimzum42]

spot on col, but i fear daondare is a lost cause, he just has a chip on his shoulder about HGVs, maybe he failed his test and has to drive a van

 

[dondare]

It is the lorry that is the danger, not the road or the bike. Hence I say that the lorry driver brings the danger onto the road. Hence I say that it is the responsibility of the driver to control the danger, not of the cyclist to avoid it.
You can say that cyclists should be trained to avoid lorries but the fact is that they're not required by law to have such training, never have been and never will be. You can say that cyclists shouldn't be stupid but stupid people exist and some do ride bikes. The roads are not a war zone or subject to dangerous natural hazards and there is no real reason why only intelligent people who have taken a survival course should be safe using them.

 

[dondare]

spot on col, but i fear daondare is a lost cause, he just has a chip on his shoulder about HGVs, maybe he failed his test and has to drive a van

I've never wanted to be a lorry driver. I don't like the things because they keep killing cyclists for one thing; they also demolish pedestrian barriers and pedestrian refuges, bollards and traffic islands and dislodge kerb stones and destroy pavements as they manoevre their vast, massive, unwieldy bulk down roads designed for much smaller vehicles.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I've never wanted to be a lorry driver. I don't like the things because they keep killing cyclists for one thing; they also demolish pedestrian barriers and pedestrian refuges, bollards and traffic islands and dislodge kerb stones and destroy pavements as they manoevre their vast, massive, unwieldy bulk down roads designed for much smaller vehicles.

Not necessarily. Anyone can have an off day and damage some street furniture, but the vast majority of HGV deliveries are carried out competently and safely.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

How about banning cycling in cities instead

“I'd be quite happy to see the law evenly applied across the board and cyclists who endanger pedestrians being punished for it but that's really not the big problem. Cyclists do not, for example, kill 35 or so lorry drivers every year.”


This proves that you think cyclists unable to cause accidents ,Bad Cyclists don't just hit pedestrians they cause them selves injury/death and other road users .People have to emergency stop ,swerve or just hit them as they run red lights ,jump off pavements, ride the wrong way up one way streets in the Midlands here we have even had them on our motorways ! All these add up to extreme danger for everyone else on our roads. Anyone using our roads is capable of causing accidents if they choose ,even our poor pedestrians.


I would totally agree with you that some roads are just not suited to large vehicles but unfortunately the businesses are already there and unless you move them all out to the countryside and are prepared to travel to the countryside for everything you cannot stop them needing large shipments in cities.


As this this would be to costly I think we could solve this problem very easily/cheaply by turning the original idea of banning HGV's from cities to protect cyclists on it's head ! (Dondare will now be crying) HOW ABOUT BANNING CYCLING IN CITYS.


Yes that's sounds ridiculous but no worse than the original idea. Cycling is not going to go away neither are HGV's we just have to work to improving safety for all in any way possible. I am not stupid enough to think that all accidents involving HGV's and cyclists are always the fault of the cyclist or driver but some people on here seem to be applying all blame to one side the HGV driver. Responsibility for safety lies with every user of our roads.

 

[dondare]

Not necessarily. Anyone can have an off day and damage some street furniture, but the vast majority of HGV deliveries are carried out competently and safely.

It only requires a very, very small percentage of the total number of deliveries made to involve a mistake to cause an unnacceptable number of fatalities or extensive damage.

 

[dondare]

Businesses and bikes existed in cities before lorries, they existed when (in my lifetime) lorries were half the size that they are now and if lorries must be used on the public road it makes sense to design them so that the driver has a much less restricted view from the cab rather than simply proclaiming that it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[Origamist]

“

As this this would be to costly I think we could solve this problem very easily by turning the original idea of banning HGV's from cities to protect cyclists on it's head ! HOW ABOUTBANNING CYCLING IN CITYS.

This thread was not predicated on the proposed banishment of HGVs from towns and cities - it was about trying to raise awareness of a serious issue.

I naively thought we might have a constructive dialogue - instead, we have people playing the blame game, making crude generalisations, decrying the notion of shared responsibility and simply squabbling.

 

[dondare]

The danger cyclists pose to pedestrians is real but small. About 6 pedestrians are killed every five years in collisions with cyclists; more than that number of cyclists get killed by lorries in London in half a year and just the other day six people were killed on a motorway when the car they were in collided with a lorry. Banning cyclists from cities or banning cycling altogther won't reduce the danger that is inherent in the design and use of HGVs.
The bit about cyclists causing extreme danger by forcing drivers to swerve or stop is nonsense; certainly my presence on the road "forces" drivers to do these things but only because they're driving too fast and impatiently to begin with. If they were to obey the speed limit, watch the road ahead and give all other road users the time and space they need then the danger that cyclists pose to motorists would disappear.