HGVs in towns and cities

[dondare]

For the last time, if cyclists were to read the highway code and then apply this with a bit(not a lot) of common sense then we would not see half of the problems that occur between cyclists and trucks.

Am I responsible for a cyclist who wants to undertake me and generally ride like an idiot...? I doubt it

The Highway Code is not the Law. Some of the instructions for cyclists are worse than useless; for instance they continue to insist that using cycle-lanes "can make your journey safer". Cycle-lanes lead those cyclists inexperienced enough to believe this right into the danger zone; on the inside of lorries. I suspect that cyclists in the ASL boxes are invisible to lorry-drivers too.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind at all if all lorry drivers obeyed the Highway Code.

162-169: Overtaking162
Before overtaking you should make sure

- the road is sufficiently clear ahead
- road users are not beginning to overtake you
- there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

- not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
- use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
- not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
- move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

- take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
- give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
- only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
- stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
- give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

 

[dondare]

Legally and morally the responsility lies with both parties. If some people lack the grey cells to keep out from under the wheels of trucks, this does not automatically make it the responsibility of the truck driver. In my experience, truck drivers are reasonable drivers, certainly better in traffic than the average 'bloke on a bike'. To propose that the problem is simply a truck one, is missing the point.

Cyclists do not have to prove competence, therefore there will be incompetent cyclists. They do not deserve to die. Expect them and make allowances.
Motorists do have to prove competence, therefore there should be no incompetent motorists. They should all have suficient skill to avoid killing other road users. They should be prepared to make allowances and take extra care when sharing the road.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

That's why I'm saying that they can't be used safely in crowded, narrow streets with frequent right-angle turns as you find in towns.

Don't forget that thousands of these things are used every day on tight urban roads with no carnage whatever. I've driven all around Enfield today with 20 tons of nuts and bolts on and I killed hardly anyone. Although I did have to enter the low emission zone.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

That is one of the points that I'm making. How can they know? Anyone is entitled by law to ride a bike on the road without having to pass a test to demonstrate competence. Why should someone understand the dynamics of a truck, appreciate that it needs to swing right to turn left, realise that the driver can't see them when they're along side? It's precisely because cyclists do not have truck-awareness training that truckers have to take care. Legally and morally the responsibility lies with you.

Perhaps the bit I've put in bold is part of the problem. I appreciate (and agree with, to an extent) the points you're making, but ultimately, it has to come down to any road user taking some responsibility for their own well being. Just as Health and Safety at Work legislation does not entirely release the employee from his obligation to take reasonable care of his or her own health and safety, so any increased HGV driver training would ideally be run in tandem with increased training for cyclists. After all, no matter how much training drivers have had, I still wouldn't blithely pedal down the inside of an artic, thinking "it's ok, the driver's been trained to look for me".

 

[cycling fisherman]

national cycling profiency test

ok then how about this ?

ALL children should be made to do the national cycling profiency test, make it part of the cirriculum...

http://www.cycle-n-sleep.co.uk/safety cycle test.htm

which members agree with me when i say...

"if this idea were to go ahead above then we would see a fall in accidents and fatalities with hgv's within 5 years"

education is the way forward...

as far as i'm concerned the inclusion of the national cycling profiency test within school childrens cirriculum is a win win situation, encouraging our sport/hobby to youngsters and also teaching the basics of road safety can only be a good thing...

AGREE ?

 

[dondare]

Don't forget that thousands of these things are used every day on tight urban roads with no carnage whatever. I've driven all around Enfield today with 20 tons of nuts and bolts on and I killed hardly anyone. Although I did have to enter the low emission zone.

Lorries do not kill cyclists very often, perhaps 30 or 40 per year. (That's all of you, not each.) But they are unacceptably lethal, nonetheless; HGVs make up 2.5% of the traffic and cause 25% of cyclist fatalities, hence the cause for concern. A recent clusterfuk in London has highlighted this.
If one class of vehicle proves to be 10 times as lethal as any other then why not consider how this class of vehicle could be either changed in design to make it safer or in the way it is used to reduce conflict?

 

[dondare]

Yeah it is, some parts, more so the bit that I pointed out to No 144
144

You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously
• drive without due care and attention
• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users

[Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991] applies to all cyclists as well

If a lorry driver turns left across a cycle lane, and kills a cyclist using that lane, which one has broken the law?

 

[dondare]

If a cyclist is undertaking a lorry(illegal) and the lorry turns left who is breaking the law? see dondare very grey, like a carousel we can just round and round discussing this. Round and round and round...lol

It's not illegal for a cyclist to pass motor traffic on the left. It's what most cyclists do in stationary or very slow-moving traffic.

 

[dondare]

This is very grey, you would not get a cycle lane with a bold line that goes across a junction, it would be broken. Thinking about it as well, I may be wrong but i don't think there is a designated cycle lane that goes completly across major junctions where a truck might be turning left.

I think if this was the case then the cycle lane would direct you onto the path and you would continue along the path across the road as if you was crossing it as a ped and then back on the road. hmmm anyone out know different? I have gone through some major junctions and have never seen a designated cycle lane on the road it would just be to dangerous I think.

If there was no cycle lane then...well I'm sure you have all read my previous posts

But please if anyone knows of any major junctions where there is a cycle lane on the road let me know.

What would you regard as a major junction? There are a great many junctions in London that I know about that are on roads used by all forms of traffic, including bikes and lorries, where the cycle lane is on the road, on the left hand side. As I've said, I consider the design of many cycle-lanes to be criminal and the advice given in the HC to cyclists that "they can make your journey safer" also criminal. Personally I ignore green paint and ride to be safe.

 

[dondare]

I did not say that that the traffic was slow moving or stationary

But in fast moving traffic the cyclist would not be undertaking the lorry, the lorry would be overtaking the cyclist.

 

[dondare]

This is the opinion of many cyclists including myself, what? we finally agree dondare!

I'm sure we agree about a great many things, but we can argue for ever about the one that we don't.

 

[Origamist]

But in fast moving traffic the cyclist would not be undertaking the lorry, the lorry would be overtaking the cyclist.

This was explained to Lee earlier in the thread but he had difficulty grasping a scenario where a cyclist was not undertaking but being overtaken by a HGV which then turned left across his path. If you experience this manoeuvre, you will never forget it.

 

[zimzum42]

This was explained to Lee earlier in the thread but he had difficulty grasping a scenario where a cyclist was not undertaking but being overtaken by a HGV which then turned left across his path. If you experience this manoeuvre, you will never forget it.

Anyone experiencing this clearly isn't going fast enough.....

 

[dondare]

... a scenario where a cyclist was not undertaking but being overtaken by a HGV which then turned left across his path. If you experience this manoeuvre, you will not survive it.

Fixed.

 

[dondare]

It's a forum thing. I quoted him, but changed the quote to what he should have said and added "fixed".